- Email: [email protected]
Exploring the perceptions of drivers of energy behaviour
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Exploring the perceptions of drivers of energy behaviour Karlijn L. van den Broek a b c
a,b,∗
, Ian Walker
T
c
Research Centre for Environmental Economics, University of Heidelberg, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, 69117, Heidelberg, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, Bath, UK
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Energy models Energy behaviour Perceptions Qualitative research Behaviour change
Many models have been applied to predict energy use and savings, yet few studies have investigated people's own perceptions of what drives their energy use. Understanding these perceptions can help design energy policy that is likely to be trusted and perceived as credible. This study assessed the perception of the drivers of energy use among young adults, who had recently become independent energy consumers, but were not yet paying for their energy bills. Focus groups were conducted in which the drivers of energy use were discussed, and discussions were analysed using a framework of a successful existing behavioural model – the Comprehensive Action Determination Model – that includes both conscious and unconscious drivers of energy consumption. The findings show (1) participants did not tend to believe they saved energy to conserve the environment, (2) adherence to egoistic values, apparent in the lack of motivation to save energy in the absence of financial incentives, and (3) strong awareness of energy habits. Policy makers targeting young adults' energy use are advised how to align energy policy with these perceptions.
1. Introduction Climate change may be considered the greatest threat to humankind, and to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, greater energy efficiency and behaviour change are indispensable (IPCC, 2018). Hence, the EU has set energy efficiency targets that commit to reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020 and 32.5% by 2030 compared to projections (European Commission, 2018). Despite such efforts, global domestic energy use is still on the rise (IEA, 2017), resulting in what is termed the energy efficiency gap: the notion that the energy savings resulting from energy policy falls short of the output that could be expected based on technical feasibility and monetary costs (Hirst and Brown, 1990). This suggests that there is room to optimise current energy policy instruments targeting domestic energy use. A key factor that determines the effectiveness of energy policy instruments is the (perceived) relevance of the information and the credibility of energy-efficiency policy (Brown and Sovacool, 2018; Stern et al., 2016). For energy policy to be perceived as relevant, the target audience needs to perceive the policy as addressing key drivers underpinning their energy use. A wealth of models have been developed and tested to investigate the antecedents of domestic energy use (Brown and Sovacool, 2018), yet few researchers have asked participants what they think influences their energy behaviour in their homes.
∗
This study presents one of the very first attempts to map participant's perceptions of the drivers of their energy use. These perceptions will demonstrate how householders make sense of their energy use, and what they may perceive to be the most important driver that could be addressed to change their energy use. Hence, such information can help to develop energy efficiency policy that is perceived to be relevant and credible which is likely to enhance compliance and the success of such policy. This study focused on the perceptions of young adults who have recently transitioned to become independent energy consumers. These young people are of specific interest to energy policy makers as they are laying the foundations of longstanding energy use practices. In other words, energy behaviour in the first independent home is likely to determine long-term energy practises and shaping this behaviour at this stage is therefore of crucial importance. Furthermore, these individuals were expected to be able to reflect more deeply on their energy use compared to householders is a more stable setting, who may be less aware of the drivers of their daily energy use due to established energy routines (Verplanken et al., 2008). 1.1. Understanding householders' perceptions of energy consumption Previous findings on householder's perspectives on their energy use predominantly stems from qualitative work. Such research on energy
Corresponding author. Research Centre for Environmental Economics, University of Heidelberg, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.L. van den Broek), [email protected] (I. Walker).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.033 Received 11 September 2018; Received in revised form 11 March 2019; Accepted 18 March 2019 0301-4215/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
time, this study will explore if the discussions of participants suggest other factors that are not included in the model.
use has informed people's perceptions of electricity/energy itself (Pierce and Paulos, 2010), the energy use of household appliances (van den Broek and Walker, 2019), cognitive, behavioural, interactions with energy feedback (Hargreaves et al., 2010) as well as the obstacles for energy conservation among environmentally conscious households (Munro, 2017). Research on teenagers' attitudes towards energy consumption identified their perceptions on the locations, sources of information, impact, barriers and concern in relation to energy saving (Toth et al., 2013). Although participants discussed energy behaviour itself, some of the subthemes identified in participants' discussions also indicated possible drivers of energy use such as energy habits, impact of energy use on the environment, ways to save energy and future generations and costs. Householders' discussions on energy use also revealed a focus on the environmental problems associated with energy production rather than personal consumption or managing demand, suggesting that they assume policy makers to be responsible to take action against climate change (Kurz et al., 2005a). These studies demonstrate how qualitative methods can provide a rich description of people's perceptions of energy use and therefore this study will extend the small but promising qualitative literature on people's energy perceptions. To interpret householder's discussions of their energy use, a comprehensive framework that includes both conscious and unconscious drivers will be useful. A comprehensive framework that has recently been shown to be successful in explaining individual differences in energy use (van den Broek et al., 2019), is the Comprehensive Action Determination Model (Klöckner and Blöbaum, 2010). This model integrates the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Norm Activation Model and the Ipsative Theory. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), assumes that behaviour follows from behavioural intentions, which is predicted from attitude towards the behaviour (the positive or negative evaluation of the specific behaviour), social norms (perceived social pressure to engage or refrain from the particular behaviour) and perceived behavioural control (perceived ease with which the behaviour can be performed). The Norm Activation Model (Schwartz, 1977), assumes that behaviour follows from personal norms (perceived moral obligation to engage in the behaviour), which is activated by awareness of need (or problem awareness), awareness of consequences (the level of awareness of the consequences of not acting environmentally), ascription of responsibility (feeling responsible for the consequences that result from environmentally harmful behaviour), outcome efficacy (identifications of behaviour that can alleviate the environmental problems) and self-efficacy (the recognition of one's ability to mitigate these problems). Finally, the Ipsative Theory assumes behaviour is not only influenced by subjective constraints such as outcome efficacy and self-efficacy, but also by objective constraints and opportunities (situational variables that facilitate or obstruct the implementation of the behaviour) (Tanner, 1999). The CADM combines these variables from these models with habitual processes, which reflect learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specific cues and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end states (Verplanken and Aarts, 1999). Hence, the CADM assumes that environmental behaviour is a result of a trade-off between four processes: (1) normative processes (social norms, awareness of consequences, awareness of need and personal norms), (2) habitual processes (habits), (3) intentional processes (intentions and attitudes) and (4) situational processes (objective constraints and subjective constraints). Various versions of the model have been successful at explaining transportation mode choice (Klöckner and Blöbaum, 2010), recycling behaviour (Klöckner and Oppedal, 2011), adaptation of new heating systems (Sopha and Klöckner, 2011) and, most importantly, energy behaviour (van den Broek et al., 2019). The latter study demonstrated that this model could account for 61% of variance in energy behaviour, meaning that the model captures many of the drivers of real energy use. Therefore, this theory will serve as a framework for interpreting householder's discussions of the drivers of their energy use. At the same
2. Methods Participants' perspectives on their energy behaviour were explored through group discussions in focus groups, as focus groups provide an excellent method to explore a wide range of views and perspectives. Unlike interviews, a focus group setting can facilitate discussions among participants in which participants are able to identify and explore points of disagreement and agreement (Underhill and Olmsted, 2003). This means that focus groups can stimulate the discussion of factors that may not have been considered in an individual interview. Furthermore, the social interaction in focus groups allowed for a more naturalistic way of discussing the topics compared to individual interviews, encouraging genuine expressions and views to be expressed (Silverman, 2013). 2.1. Participants Participants took part in one of seven focus groups sessions that lasted between 15 and 20 min and consisted of three to six participants. Participants (N = 26, age M = 18.93, SD = 1.09, 61% female) were first-year undergraduates living on campus of the University of Bath. The recruitment was restricted to this sample because energy bills were included in their rent but these participants were expected to pay for their energy bills in the following year when they were to move into private accommodation and so their pre-move thoughts were of interest. As discussed above, these young people were expected to be more reflective on their energy use, which would facilitate mapping perceptions of their energy use. Participants were recruited through online (social media, online fora, noticeboards) and offline (posters) advertising and they were awarded course credit or a financial incentive (£5) for their participation. The advertisement did not mention the focus on environmental behaviour in the study, to avoid sampling bias. The majority of the sample consisted of British participants; five participants originated from other Western countries. The participants' accommodation were reasonably identical in terms of size and available appliances, including typical kitchen equipment such as an oven, hob, fridge and kettle. Large appliances such as washing machines and dryers were located outside of the halls of residence, meaning they were shared across accommodation buildings. Residents could control indoor temperature by adjusting the valve on their radiators until the maximum temperature set by university management. 2.2. Focus group procedure Participants were asked seven questions using a semi-structured method to prompt discussions and a range of perspectives on the antecedents of their energy behaviour. Interview questions covered topics such as changes in energy behaviour since moving into accommodation on campus; the formation of energy behaviour; parental influence on the formation of energy behaviour; energy habits; flat energy rate versus metered based-rates; energy tips for future campus residents and which factors, in relation to energy use, they might consider when selecting accommodation in the private sector for the next academic year. Some of these questions were directly related to specific factors in the CADM (e.g. “Have you ever found yourself turning something on and off without thinking about it?”) to ensure that these factors were discussed by the participants, whereas other questions were more general, and gave participants the freedom to discuss a range of antecedents of their energy behaviour (e.g. Have you see any changes in your energy behaviour over the past year?” or “How have you learned your energy behaviour?”). Furthermore participants were prompted to discuss their environmental identity specifically (“Would you describe yourself as an environmental 1298
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
person?”) to explore their perceptions and the relevance of this concept to energy behaviour. Care was taken on the part of the facilitator to avoid introducing terminology or influencing the terms of the discussion (Arthur and Nazroo, 2003). Participants were encouraged to discuss the questions with each other and express any disagreements. Because social settings may prohibit shy participants from disagreeing with the group discussions (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999), participants were urged to feel free to express deviant views or to disagree with each other. Furthermore, quiet participants were invited to contribute to the group discussion to make sure that their views were represented in the discussions. The facilitator made sure that the participants stuck to the topic of interest. The focus groups were recorded using audio recorders and transcribed verbatim.
(23) to better specify the type of social norm involved. Injunctive norms reflects one's perception of what people generally tend to (dis)approve of, which guides individuals to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable social behaviour (Cialdini et al., 1990). Descriptive norms, on the other hand, reflect perceptions of how people tend to behave, typically inferred from observed behaviour, which helps individuals determine what is common or popular behaviour (Cialdini et al., 1990). Discussions of injunctive norms often involved participants stating that they ‘should’ engage in more pro-environmental behaviour. For example, the following quote shows how a participant reflected on social norms in relation to leaving a television on standby and admits his behaviour is conflicting with this social norm:
2.3. Analysis
Four different sources of injunctive norms were discussed by participants. Parents were often discussed to be a source of injunctive norms (20), for example:
“TV is always on standby [others laugh], so … they say that you shouldn't do that.” (Steve)
The data was analysed using a hybrid approach consisting of deductive thematic analysis and an inductive thematic analyses, which allowed for the mapping of the CADM onto the discussions of the participants and facilitated the exploration of other relevant factors that are not included in the model. First, the data was subjected to a deductive thematic analysis in which the codes are theory-driven (Braun and Clarke, 2013) and therefore a coding matrix based on the CADM was constructed prior to the inspection of the data (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). Discussions were only coded as such when they matched the definitions of each CADM factor, and when statements matched the definition of several factors, it was coded under each of these factors. Once the data was coded, the data for each code was analysed by examining patterns on how and what participants discussed in relation to each CADM factor. Next, the data that did not fit the existing coding scheme was subjected to inductive thematic analysis, which was based on the data rather than a pre-existing model (Braun and Clarke, 2006). New codes were developed for accounts that captured factors that were perceived to influence energy consumption, and the data was coded accordingly. Although this coding process is likely to have been influenced and facilitated by the researcher's knowledge of the environmental psychology literature and the current trends and debates within this field of research, in many way this is desirable given that this study is intended to inform these contemporary debates.
“But I always switch off the lights when I leave my room, hmm, because that's something my dad really insisted on.” (Jess) It was evident, as demonstrated in the quote above, that participants perceived the energy use norms expressed by parents to influence their energy behaviour. Discussions also included reflections on injunctive norms evident in the media (8), expressed by educational institutions (23) and expressed by peers (2). However, participants expressed that they perceived these injunctive norms not to be sufficient to induce energy saving behaviour because of a lack of incentives for energy conservation: “I think it's strange here that there is no incentive to save energy, it sounds awful but I mean at home, there was this incentive from my parents.” (Emma) Furthermore, participants mentioned that the level of exposure (7) to injunctive norms influences the effect these norms have on their behaviour. “Yeah, I think the more you are reminded of, like, the issues [climate change], the more you, hmm, try to do your bit.” (Alia) That is, higher levels of exposure were perceived to have a more enduring effect on their pro-environmental behaviour. Moreover, the discussions suggested that climate change issues were not salient in people's minds in daily life but the exposure to injunctive norms reminded them of the importance of energy conservation and thereby encouraged this behaviour. The descriptive norms that participants discussed mainly related to the observed energy behaviour of their parents (11) and peers (8). Most of the discussions on the parents' behaviour related to their parents' proenvironmental behaviour but several statements also described parents' lack of environmental behaviour:
3. Findings The results of the deductive and inductive thematic analysis will be presented separately. The frequency with which participants discussed each factor is indicated in the title of the themes and these frequencies have been tallied for the overarching processes in the model (e.g. normative, habitual, intentional), see Fig. 1. The main topics discussed in relation to each variable will be reported within the group of processes of the model. Those familiar with behavioural models such as CADM might particularly note the frequency with which participants' statements tallied with elements of this model.
“Yeah, like we didn't really, my parents didn't turn off the TV, so I just see it left on, like during the day, and be like, oh that's normal.” (Minni)
3.1. Normative processes (124)
In this quote, the participant explicitly states how the observation of her parents' behaviour shaped what she perceived to be ‘normal’ energy behaviour. The discussions of the transference of parents energy behaviour to their own behaviour suggests an implicit awareness of how descriptive norms might be internalised. Participants also discussed how the observation of the energy behaviour of peers signalled social norms, to which participant tended to align their energy use (which included both energy saving and a lack of energy saving behaviour).
Most of the normative factors that the participants discussed could be coded as discussions on social norms, meaning the perceived social pressure to act in a certain way. The other normative factors, personal norms (the perceived moral obligations to engage in particular proenvironmental actions), awareness of need (awareness of the adverse consequences of not acting pro-environmentally) and awareness of consequences (the belief that one's own energy behaviour has negative environmental consequences) were infrequently discussed.
3.1.2. Personal norms (9) A few times, participants were observed to discuss their moral obligations to engage in particular pro-environmental actions, thereby demonstrating their personal norms:
3.1.1. Social norms (90) This factor was divided into injunctive (67) and descriptive norms 1299
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
Fig. 1. Results of the inductive thematic analysis mapped onto the CADM. Note: numerical values indicate the frequency with which participants discussed the factors.
3.1.4. Awareness of consequences (12) Although participants did not tend to state explicitly the environmental consequences of their own behaviour, their discussions did seem to suggest an awareness of the impact of their behaviour in indirect discussions of the consequences of behaviour. One participant did explicitly describe her awareness of the consequences of her behaviour, which she learnt in school:
“I just try to use energy as efficiently as possible really, but I think, I think it's something you kind of have a responsibility to do as a human being.” (Sarah) This quote shows how the participant perceived a strong sense of moral responsibility to engage in energy conservation. However, some discussions suggested that the participants had weak personal norms, as participants ascribed responsibility to mitigate environmental problems to other parties. For example, a participant expressed feeling that it was the responsibility of people in power to take action:
“I think in school, I don't remember why, but in physics, I think, in particular because we did the electromagnetic spectrum, and quite a lot on electricity, hmm, and the generation of electricity, they makes you quite aware of how much electricity you are actually using and like the processes by which the electricity is produced and how they are quite complex, obviously they use a lot of fuel to generate electricity in the first place and therefore, how it's a form of waste if you are not using this, hmm, the energy as efficiently as possible, and so then they tell you how to use the electricity as efficiently as possible.” (Sarah)
“So it's up to the people at the top really, it's not our choice whether we want to go green or not. If we make ourselves happy, then yeah, fair enough, if you want to have solar panels and hydro-electric things in your garden, but it's a bit pointless, you're not going to be changing the world, it's only when the people at the top change it, then they'll change it.” (Jimmy)
This quote clearly demonstrates how the participant is aware of the processes of energy production and the consequences of energy consumption for the environment, which is closely linked to the concept of energy literacy (DeWaters and Powers, 2011). Moreover, it shows how the participants perceives to be motivated by this awareness to be mindful of the energy she uses.
3.1.3. Awareness of need (14) Participants' awareness of need emerged when they discussed their knowledge of environmental problems: “We did it in, uh, A2 biology as well, like, and I think it was this time last year, we did loads of stuff with energy use, like global warming, so I got a bit better then.” (Alia)
3.2. Habitual processes (44)
As demonstrated in the quote above, it was clear that participants thought that they had learnt about environmental problems through formal education, and that this stimulated their environmental behaviours. Moreover, participants also talked about learning about environmental problems through the media, but admitted that they were unsure if this knowledge resulted in energy conservation.
Habits have been defined as learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specific cues and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end states (Verplanken and Aarts, 1999), and therefore discussions of habits were identified as participants' talk of automatic behaviours. Turning the light switches seemed to be the most 1300
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
salient example of habitual behaviour. Participants often emphasised the behaviour was ‘automatic’, ‘a reflex’, or performed ‘without thinking about it’, although clearly participants were still able to reflect explicitly on their energy habits:
“Hhmm, I don't think of it in terms of, the environmental sort of thing, I just think do I need it? 1% yes, I can, then I just turn it on […] I just turn it on as soon as I get in, or I just leave it plugged in an walk out of the room to my lectures or whatever.” (Jimmy)
“It's more habits than me, I don't make a conscious effort to be green I just carry on with the habits I already have. So I guess in that sense in my mind I'm not a really green person, but I guess my habits are pretty good.” (Hannah)
This quote illustrates how some participants expressed a lack of interest in energy conservation. 3.4. Situational influences (65)
It was evident in participants' discussions that they were aware of their energy habits, which is interesting considering that they explicitly reflected on the lack of consciousness that is involved in this behaviour. Moreover, the above quote also demonstrates how the participant discussed not feeling motivated to save energy for environmental reasons but energy saving habits were perceived to be the main driver of behaviour. Some participants also talked about the intention to install an energy conservation habit, thereby further demonstrating the awareness of participants of the strong influence that energy habits can have on behaviour:
The CADM includes two types of situational influences in the model: subjective and objective constraints. Participants frequently discussed the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest, or subjective constraints. Participants did not often discuss the objective constraints to influence their behaviour, which are factors that limit a person's freedom to engage in a particular behaviour. However, participants did discuss facilitating factors that encouraged their energy conservation and therefore a theme was created to include objective facilitators, in addition to objective constraints.
“Since I'm here, hmm, I noticed that you can, actually, turn off and on, the contact, the plug, and I can't do that in my country, so I've actually tried to do that, hmm, but it's not really a habit yet.” (Emma)
3.4.1. Objective constraints (5) Most of the discussions in relation to objective constraints related to factors that inhibit energy saving behaviour. One such example were the automatic lights in the common areas of the students' accommodation:
3.3. Intentional processes (91)
“When you step outside your room, depending on where you stand in the motion sensor, the lights of the entire house go on, so it doesn't always save energy, because you can't switch them off, it's just on for the next 5 minutes, and then they go off.” (Charlot)
Both intentions and attitudes were frequently discussed by participants. Intentions were reflected in expressions to plan to engage in proenvironmental behaviour and attitudes were reflected in discussions on the positive or negative evaluation of the environmental behaviour.
This quote clearly illustrates how the participant perceived the automation of the lights to limit her ability to save energy. Further, another participant mentioned the energy inefficiency of the energy appliances, such as her oven and tumble dryer, in her student accommodation which restrained her energy saving.
3.3.1. Intentions (44) The expressed intentions often became apparent in participants' discussions in which they said to ‘try’ to save energy: “I don't know, because it's still the process, I try to, but I'm not sure whether I manage to.” (If)
3.4.2. Objective facilitators (13) Participants not only mentioned objective constraints to save energy but also facilitating factors that help them to save energy. Interestingly, the automation of the lights in the accommodation were also discussed as facilitating energy saving:
However, this quote shows that the participant is not confident that the intention will result in behaviour and may expect not to succeed. The majority of the talk in relation to pro-environmental intentions included a referral to the (lack of) financial incentives to save energy. That is, many of them argued that they would be more motivated to save energy if the university would install a metered rate for energy use or when the participants will pay their own energy bills when they are to move off campus in the next academic year:
“The lights in the (common) area go on automatically, so … you can't leave them on which is quite good” (Steve) Furthermore, participants discussed possessing few household appliances in their current accommodation, which facilitated energy saving as well as the naturally high temperature of their rooms.
“Yeah, also next year we'll have to pay for it, so I guess we'll be using less [others agree]” (Jess) Interestingly, a participant even justified her current excessive energy use with her intentions to save energy in the next academic year:
3.4.3. Subjective constraints (47) Subjective constraints reflects people's perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest. Within their discussions, participants expressed feeling that their energy saving behaviour would have an insignificant impact:
“But to be fair, next year, I won't be doing that because I'll be paying [others agree], so I'll make up for it.” (Alia)
“I find it especially frustrating at uni, living with so many people and feeling so insignificant, like, in my window I can see like another 100 or 200 flats of other people just like me, and I just feel like any difference that I made will be counteracted by the people living in the same area” (Emma)
3.3.2. Attitudes (47) The majority of participants expressed positive attitudes towards pro-environmental behaviour. Positive attitudes were evident in the use of adjectives for pro-environmental behaviour by participants: “I never really recycled before, but you are encouraged to do that here, so that's quite good” (Steve)
Furthermore, participants articulated feeling limited in their ability to curtail energy consumption because of the necessity of the use of certain appliances such as a laptop. Moreover, participants discussed not having sufficient knowledge about energy saving, relating to their perceived behavioural control. For example:
The discussions suggest that these participants perceive pro-environmental behaviour, in particular energy conservation, as positive. However, some participants also appeared to have less favourable attitudes towards pro-environmental behaviour. For example: 1301
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
3.6.1. Environmental identity (48) Environmental identity has been defined as the extent to which people indicate that environmentalism is a central part of who they are (Gatersleben et al., 2012; van der Werff et al., 2013). Participants differed in the degree to which they identified with environmentalism: most participants were hesitant to claim that they perceived themselves as being a green person. Furthermore, several participants indicated that their environmental identity was fluid, as they thought that it had changed over the past year:
“No, literally, I have no advice to give, because I don't know how I could save more energy.” (Casper) As demonstrated in the quote above, participants felt that a lack of knowledge about energy saving behaviour acted as a barrier to instigating energy saving behaviour. From the accounts of the participants, it appeared that knowledge about energy saving behaviours was key to their perceived control over their own energy saving behaviours. 3.5. Behaviour (99)
“If you consider, if you take out the year at uni where you got this piece of mind that you're not doing it [paying bills], otherwise I'd say I'm a green person, recycling, saving energy, partially because we have to pay for it, but that still, you know, helps me being green.” (Jo)
All the discussions about behaviour referred to environmental behaviour, within which two-thirds of the discussions related to pro-environmental behaviour (behaviours that have a positive or limited negative effect on the environment), and a third of the discussions concerned anti-environmental behaviour (behaviour that has a negative effect on the environment). Although participants discussed a wide range of different types of environmental behaviours, including water conservation and recycling, the majority of the discussions referred to energy behaviours as this behaviour was central in the interview questions. All of the discussions involved (a lack of) better management (e.g. switching off devices that are not currently being used) and curtailment of comfort (e.g. reducing the temperature on the thermostat) behaviours, while efficiency investments (e.g. purchasing energy saving light bulbs) were not discussed (Kempton and Harris, 1985).
As is evident in this quote, participants discussed how their environmental identity had changed since they moved into university accommodation, mainly because of the lack of financial incentives. However, a ‘green person’ would not be expected to save energy out of financial considerations, but rather out of a concern for the environment, suggesting that the participants were referring to the ‘green’ behaviours rather than their ‘green’ identity. Indeed, when participants were asked if they perceived themselves as a green person, many participants referred to their environmental behaviour: “I'm green in the sense that I don't use a car, I walk most places.” (Emma) Furthermore, participants compared themselves to others to establish their environmental identity:
3.5.1. Pro-environmental behaviour (60) Discussions about behaviour that has a positive (or less harmful) effect on the environment, mainly related to the curtailment or not using certain household appliances:
“Maybe in, like, comparison to the average person, I might be like, ok.”(Kevin)
“Iron: zero! I do not iron, ever.” (Hannah)
This suggests the influence of social norms on the development of the participant's environmental identity, in which participants establish a norm of environmental identities in their social environment and compare their identity with this norm. This statement could also be explained with social identity theory where people define themselves in relation to people who belong to the same social group (Tajfel and Turner, 1979).
Moreover, some participants reported that since they had moved to campus they consumed less energy, and had reduced the use of certain household devices. Participants also reported a range of energy-saving activities, for example; “So I will turn stuff off rather than let it on standby and turn off lights.” (Emma)
3.6.2. Value-orientation (82) Throughout the discussions of their energy behaviour, participants' value-orientations became apparent, by which we mean stable longterm goals. Although several value dimensions have been distinguished (de Groot and Thøgersen, 2012), only two types of value-orientations were identified in the participants' discourse: biospheric values and egoistic values. Biospheric values reflect a concern for the quality of nature and the environment for its own sake, and egoistic values reflect a consideration for the self and personal benefit (Groot and Thøgersen, 2012). Egoistic values (71) were often identified in participants' discussions, and therefore appeared to be a salient factor. The majority of the discussions coded under this theme concerned participants saying they were only motivated to save energy for financial reasons, which suggested the influence of egoistic values:
Other energy saving activities that the participants reported to engage in included minimising the amount of water that is heated in a kettle, putting on a jumper instead of turning on the heating, washing clothes less frequently and turning off the laptop when not in use. 3.5.2. Anti-environmental behaviour (39) Most of the discussions of anti-environmental behaviour consisted of participants expressing an increase in energy consumption since moving to campus: “I use more energy in the kitchen because, I don't know, in our kitchen, we don't all share meals, so you're cooking like loads of separate meals, whereas at home you're cooking one thing for everyone” (Alia) Participants identified behaviours with which they had increased their impact on the environment since living in student accommodation. Specifically, participants identified which household devices they used more often since they had moved to campus, such as a laptop and the vacuum cleaner.
“Maybe if I was paying for heat, I would, actually turn it down, [laughs], I don't know. Now it's always on maximum.” (Emma) Many participants expressed not currently being concerned about energy saving because they were not paying for their energy bills. Participants expected to start conserving energy when they were going to be responsible for bills. This demonstrates how young adults think their energy use is determined by personal financial benefit, reflecting egoistic values. Most of the responses recorded under biospheric values (9) were statements that reflected ‘anti-biospheric’ values, meaning that they reflected a lack of concern for the environment. For example,
3.6. Additional factors relevant to energy use Thus far, the coverage here has looked at themes congruent with the CADM, and participants' discussions certainly seem to confirm the reality of many of its components. The next two sections will discuss the results of the inductive thematic analysis. Within this, elements outside the CADM were identified within the field of environmental psychology. 1302
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
specifically talked about expecting to engage in less wasteful behaviour as soon as financial incentives came into place. This finding has potential implications for how people might use any service that has environmental implications (electricity, gas, hot water, transport) and that is provided either for free, or for a fixed fee, such that the cost of each unit of use is not directly related to the amount of environmental harm that is caused. An example of that is the Universal Basic Services, which is a policy concept that would provide citizens with free services such as housing to counter inequality (Moore et al., 2017). A final important finding for future energy policy is the participants' awareness of their energy habits, despite the unconscious nature of habits (Lutzenhiser, 1993; Verplanken and Aarts, 1999). Previous research has confirmed the important role of habits on energy behaviour (Macey and Brown, 1983; Maréchal, 2010; van den Broek et al., 2019) and the teenagers have also been found to be aware of their energy habits (Toth et al., 2013). Perhaps these participants were able to reflect on these habits because they have only recently established these energy habits (or are in the processes of instigating them), and the automaticity of habits gets stronger over time (Lally et al., 2010). Hence, young adults may be implementing their energy habits with more deliberation than householders in more stable settings who may have more established energy routines. The awareness of their energy habits provides an excellent opportunity for policy makers to stimulate the formation of energy saving habits in their first independent homes since awareness of energy habits are key to changing them (Maréchal, 2010). Once an energy habit has been established, the habits may provide an effortless way to continue saving energy into adulthood. Hence, behaviour change interventions can aim to facilitate daily energy saving practices that are of habitual nature among young adults. These findings may be interpreted in light of the social meaning of energy use, meaning that energy use is inevitably embedded in social structures including social interactions, cultures, and economic systems (Hackett and Lutzenhiser, 1991; Loren Lutzenhiser, 1993; Munro, 2017). Energy use is said to be a form of material culture, meaning that people consume energy to define social relationships, self-identities, or social status (Lutzenhiser, 1992; Shove and Warde, 1998). For example, the modes of payment of energy use (e.g. individual billing vs. including utilities costs in rent) reflect social structures because changes in modes of payment may result in changes to status relations, and consequently, energy use (Hackett and Lutzenhiser, 1991). Considering these social systems in which energy use take place, energy is never used for its own sake, but rather as part of a process to achieve goals such as comfort or entertainment (Shove, 2004). One could therefore even claim that energy behaviour itself does not exist, as energy consumption is a necessary consequence of certain household behaviours. Taking this into account, future research could investigate the perceived drivers of energy behaviour considering different household behaviours, instead of energy behaviour in general. Qualitative research inevitably include small sample sizes, meaning that if different participants would have taken part, different findings could have been obtained. Hence, the findings may not be representative of the perceptions of all young people who have recently become independent energy consumers but are not yet exposed to financial incentives for energy conservation. Other findings may also have been obtained if individual interviews would have been conducted instead of focus groups, as the social dynamics in the groups may have influenced the antecedents discussed by participants. Hence, future research could complement these findings with different samples, individual interviews or quantitative methods to further investigate the perceptions of energy consumption. To further inform energy policy, we highlight specific avenues that could be the focus for further research and policy evaluation. First, similar research could be conducted with householders that experience financial incentives to save energy as well as with older householders that do not experience financial incentives. Such research would provide further input for energy policy targeting these householders with
participants expressed not considering the environmental impact of their behaviour in their daily life: “You're not gonna think: is the way I'm cooking it environmentally friendly? It would never cross my mind [others agree]” (Hannah) In this quote, the participant expressed that her cooking practices were not driven by biospheric values. The discussions coded under the value-orientation theme therefore suggest that participants thought their energy behaviour was strongly driven by their egoistic values, and they did not perceive biospheric values to guide their behaviour. 4. Conclusion and policy implications This study aimed to explore young people's perceptions of the drivers of their energy consumption using the CADM framework. The findings show that the CADM's components were readily apparent in the discussions of this sample, and demonstrate a rich description of the perceptions of their energy use. The findings may directly inform policy that targets young people who are building the foundations of longlasting domestic energy use practices. Since energy policy is most effective when it is perceived as credible (Stern et al., 2016), these findings provide insights on how energy conservation policy targeting novel independent energy users may be designed to be more congruent with the target group's perceptions. In the following sections, we will focus our discussion on three key findings and their policy implications. First, participants did not tend to express being driven to save energy to conserve the environment, as apparent in a lack of discussions that reflected descriptive norms, personal norms, awareness of need and awareness of consequences. However, their discussions did indicate that energy conservation was perceived positively, both by themselves and their social environment (e.g. social norms, attitudes, intentions). This is in line with previous research that showed that young people feel less responsible to engage in pro-environmental behaviour for the environment (Bator et al., 2010; de Kort et al., 2008; Kurz et al, 2005b). Nevertheless, many energy saving campaigns that target young people focus on environmental conservation drivers for energy curtailment. For example, the Student Switch Off energy saving campaign encourages students to save energy in their University halls of residence to take climate change action (NUS, 2017). The findings of the current study suggest that such energy campaigns may not be congruent with young adults' perceptions of their energy use. Instead, these campaigns could frame energy conservation in terms of social norms or attitudes to align with their perceptions of the most important drivers of their energy use. A second key finding relevant for energy policy is that participants repeatedly emphasised that they were currently not motivated to save energy because of an absence of financial incentives, indicating the adherence to egoistic – that is, self-serving – values. Furthermore, their intention to initiate more energy-saving practices when this financial incentive would be introduced in the following year clearly signals egoistic values as this reflects a concern for personal benefit rather than the environment. This is in contrast with findings of studies that found stronger biospheric values than egoistic values in general households (de Groot and Steg, 2007; Gatersleben et al., 2010), suggesting that this may be a finding that is unique to this sample. Nevertheless, the positive influence of financial incentives on energy behaviour has generally been well-documented (Toth et al., 2013; Yust et al., 2002), in particular the impact of individual energy bill compared to compared to flat rates for energy consumption (Hackett and Lutzenhiser, 1991). Since value-tailored approaches have been found improve the persuasiveness of appeals to encourage pro-environmental behaviour (van den Broek et al., 2017), the findings from this research suggest that policy targeting the energy use of this target group may benefit from framing or facilitating energy conservation in terms of self-serving advantages. Further, participants recognized that they had a tendency to be profligate with energy in the absence of any financial consequences and 1303
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
and without financial incentives for energy conservation, including application to possible UBS policy. Second, it is important to consider the divergence in energy practices as nearly identical households can differ greatly in energy use (Hackett and Lutzenhiser, 1991; Loren Lutzenhiser, 1993), perhaps due to differences in lifestyles (Loren Lutzenhiser and Gossard, 2000), which means that there might be great heterogeneity in perceptions of the antecedents of energy use. It is important to investigate such divergence in perceptions as it can have a significant impact on collective decision-making and subsequent conservation efforts (van den Broek, 2018). This study has illuminated young adults' perceptions of the drivers of their energy behaviour using the CADM framework. The findings can inform the design of energy policy that is in line with the perceptions of these novel independent householders, which is likely to facilitate the credibility and trustworthiness of energy policy. Based on the outcomes of this study, we advise policy makers to (1) avoid framing energy saving behaviour in terms of environmental conservation, but instead (2) align policy with their values, norms and attitudes, or (3) target their energy habits as their awareness of their energy habits may facilitate building lasting energy saving habits.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.068. Hirst, E., Brown, M., 1990. Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 3, 267–281. IEA, 2017. Global Energy and CO2 Status Report 2017. Retrieved from. https://www. iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf. IPCC, 2018. Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte, T.W.V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M. (Eds.), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415324. Kempton, Willett, Harris, C.K.K., 1985. Do consumers know what works in energy conservation? Marriage Fam. Rev. 9 (1–2), 115–133. Klöckner, C.A., Blöbaum, A., 2010. A comprehensive action determination model toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (4), 574–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010. 03.001. Klöckner, C.A., Oppedal, I.O., 2011. General vs. domain specific recycling behaviour—applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to recycling in Norwegian student homes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (4), 463–471. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.009. Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., Rapley, M., Walker, I., 2005a. The ways that people talk about natural resources: discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. Br. J. Soc. Psychol./Br. Psychol. Soc. 44, 603–620. https://doi.org/10. 1348/014466604X18064. Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., Rapley, M., Walker, I., 2005b. The ways that people talk about natural resources: discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. Br. J. Soc. Psychol./Br. Psychol. Soc. 44 (Pt 4), 603–620. https://doi.org/ 10.1348/014466604X18064. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C.H.M., Potts, H.W.W., Wardle, J., 2010. How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40 (6), 998–1009. Retrieved from. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ejsp.674. Lutzenhiser, L., 1992. A cultural model of household energy consumption. Energy 17 (1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(92)90032-U. Lutzenhiser, L., 1993. Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 18, 247–289. https://doi.org/1056-3466/93/1022-0247. Lutzenhiser, L., Gossard, M.H., 2000. Lifestyle, status and energy consumption. In: Proceedings American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, pp. 207–222 (Washington, DC). Macey, S.M., Brown, M.A., 1983. Residential energy conservation: the role of past experience in repetitive household behavior. Environ. Behav. 15 (2), 123–141. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013916583152001. Maréchal, K., 2010. Not irrational but habitual: the importance of “behavioural lock-in” in energy consumption. Ecol. Econ. 69 (5), 1104–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2009.12.004. Moore, H., Perty, A., Portes, J., Reed, H., 2017. Social Prosperity for the Future: A Proposal for Universal Basic Services. (London). Munro, K.M., 2017. Trade-offs: the Production of Sustainability in Households. Retrieved from. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/3777. NUS, 2017. Student Switch off. from. http://studentswitchoff.org/, Accessed date: 12 August 2017. Pierce, J., Paulos, E., 2010. Materializing energy. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’10. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 113. https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858193. Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10, 221–279. Retrieved from. http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id= lEgM5N6rIKwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA221&dq=Normative+influences+on+altruism, +schwartz&ots=mufZoMoCdY&sig=xxg0XFwC63JNLLlGeA5J6ueI83Y#v= onepage&q=Normative_influences_on_altruism,schwartz&f=false. Shove, E., 2004. Sustainability, system innovation and the laundry. In: Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Green, K. (Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 76–94. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845423421.00014. Shove, E., Warde, A., 1998. Inconspicuous consumption: the sociology of consumption and the environment. In: Dunlap, R.E., Buttel, F.H., Dickens, P., Gijswijt, A. (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Oxford, pp. 230–251. Retrieved from. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/ soc001aw.htmlin1998. Silverman, D., 2013. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. SAGE Publications Limited, London. Sopha, B.M., Klöckner, C.A., 2011. Psychological factors in the diffusion of sustainable technology: a study of Norwegian households' adoption of wood pellet heating. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (6), 2756–2765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2011.03.027. Stern, P.C., Janda, K.B., Brown, M.A., Steg, L., Vine, E.L., Lutzenhiser, L., 2016. Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nat. Energy 1, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.43. Tajfel, H., Turner, J., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Soc. Psychol. Intergr. Relat. 33 (47), 74. Tanner, C., 1999. Constraints on environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 19 (2),
Acknowledgements We would like to thank Western Power Distribution for their contribution. We would also like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211. https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:3403996doi:10.1016/07495978(91)90020-T. Arthur, S., Nazroo, J., 2003. Designing fieldwork strategies and materials. In: Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage Publications, London. Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J., 1999. Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bator, R.J., Bryan, A.D., Schultz, W.P., 2010. Who gives a hoot?: intercept surveys of litterers and disposers. Environ. Behav. 43 (3), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916509356884. Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. Sage, London. Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2), 77–101. Brown, M.A., Sovacool, B.K., 2018. Theorizing the behavioral dimension of energy consumption: energy efficiency and the value-action gap. In: Davidson, D.J., Gross, M. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Energy and Society. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190633851.013.9. Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., Kallgren, C. a., 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58 (6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.58.6.1015. de Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2007. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 38 (3), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022022107300278. de Groot, J., Thøgersen, J., 2012. Values and pro-environmental behaviour. In: Steg, L., van den Berg, A.E., de Groot, J.I. (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: an Introduction, pp. 141–152. de Kort, Y. a. W., McCalley, L.T., Midden, C.J.H., 2008. Persuasive trash cans: activation of littering norms by design. Environ. Behav. 40 (6), 870–891. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0013916507311035. DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2011. Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): a measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy 39 (3), 1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.049. Elo, S., Kyngäs, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. European Commission, 2018. Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and the Council. Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., Abrahamse, W., 2012. Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemp. Soc. Sci. 9 (4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21582041.2012.682086. Gatersleben, B., White, E., Abrahamse, W., Jackson, T., Uzzell, D., 2010. Values and sustainable lifestyles. Architect. Sci. Rev. 53 (1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.3763/ asre.2009.0101. Hackett, B., Lutzenhiser, L., 1991. Social structures and economic conduct: interpreting variations in household energy consumption. Socio. Forum 6 (3), 449–470. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF01114472.
1304
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
van den Broek, K.L., Walker, I., 2019. Heuristics in energy judgement tasks. J. Environ. Pyschol. 62, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.02.008. van der Werff, E., Steg, L., Keizer, K., 2013. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006. Verplanken, B., Aarts, H.A.G., 1999. Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 10 Retrieved from. http://repository.tue.nl/684913. Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., Jurasek, M., 2008. Context change and travel mode choice: combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.005. Yust, B.L., Guerin, D. a., Coopet, J.G., 2002. Residential energy consumption: 1987 to 1997. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 30 (3), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077727X02030003001.
145–157. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0121. Toth, N., Little, L., Read, J.C., Fitton, D., Horton, M., 2013. Understanding teen attitudes towards energy consumption. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 36–44. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.001. Underhill, C., Olmsted, M.G., 2003. An experimental comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face focus groups. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21 (4), 506–512. https://doi. org/10.1177/0894439303256541. van den Broek, K.L., Walker, I., Klöckner, C.A., 2019. Drivers of Energy Saving Behaviour: the Relative Influence of Normative, Habitual, Intentional and Situational Processes. (Manuscript submitted for publication). van den Broek, K., 2018. Illuminating divergence in perceptions in natural resource management: a case for the investigation of the heterogeneity in mental models. J. Dyn. Decision Making 4, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2018.1.51316. van den Broek, K., Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., 2017. Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric , economic and combined appeals. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.009.
1305
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Exploring the perceptions of drivers of energy behaviour Karlijn L. van den Broek a b c
a,b,∗
, Ian Walker
T
c
Research Centre for Environmental Economics, University of Heidelberg, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Heidelberg, 69117, Heidelberg, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, Bath, UK
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Energy models Energy behaviour Perceptions Qualitative research Behaviour change
Many models have been applied to predict energy use and savings, yet few studies have investigated people's own perceptions of what drives their energy use. Understanding these perceptions can help design energy policy that is likely to be trusted and perceived as credible. This study assessed the perception of the drivers of energy use among young adults, who had recently become independent energy consumers, but were not yet paying for their energy bills. Focus groups were conducted in which the drivers of energy use were discussed, and discussions were analysed using a framework of a successful existing behavioural model – the Comprehensive Action Determination Model – that includes both conscious and unconscious drivers of energy consumption. The findings show (1) participants did not tend to believe they saved energy to conserve the environment, (2) adherence to egoistic values, apparent in the lack of motivation to save energy in the absence of financial incentives, and (3) strong awareness of energy habits. Policy makers targeting young adults' energy use are advised how to align energy policy with these perceptions.
1. Introduction Climate change may be considered the greatest threat to humankind, and to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, greater energy efficiency and behaviour change are indispensable (IPCC, 2018). Hence, the EU has set energy efficiency targets that commit to reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020 and 32.5% by 2030 compared to projections (European Commission, 2018). Despite such efforts, global domestic energy use is still on the rise (IEA, 2017), resulting in what is termed the energy efficiency gap: the notion that the energy savings resulting from energy policy falls short of the output that could be expected based on technical feasibility and monetary costs (Hirst and Brown, 1990). This suggests that there is room to optimise current energy policy instruments targeting domestic energy use. A key factor that determines the effectiveness of energy policy instruments is the (perceived) relevance of the information and the credibility of energy-efficiency policy (Brown and Sovacool, 2018; Stern et al., 2016). For energy policy to be perceived as relevant, the target audience needs to perceive the policy as addressing key drivers underpinning their energy use. A wealth of models have been developed and tested to investigate the antecedents of domestic energy use (Brown and Sovacool, 2018), yet few researchers have asked participants what they think influences their energy behaviour in their homes.
∗
This study presents one of the very first attempts to map participant's perceptions of the drivers of their energy use. These perceptions will demonstrate how householders make sense of their energy use, and what they may perceive to be the most important driver that could be addressed to change their energy use. Hence, such information can help to develop energy efficiency policy that is perceived to be relevant and credible which is likely to enhance compliance and the success of such policy. This study focused on the perceptions of young adults who have recently transitioned to become independent energy consumers. These young people are of specific interest to energy policy makers as they are laying the foundations of longstanding energy use practices. In other words, energy behaviour in the first independent home is likely to determine long-term energy practises and shaping this behaviour at this stage is therefore of crucial importance. Furthermore, these individuals were expected to be able to reflect more deeply on their energy use compared to householders is a more stable setting, who may be less aware of the drivers of their daily energy use due to established energy routines (Verplanken et al., 2008). 1.1. Understanding householders' perceptions of energy consumption Previous findings on householder's perspectives on their energy use predominantly stems from qualitative work. Such research on energy
Corresponding author. Research Centre for Environmental Economics, University of Heidelberg, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.L. van den Broek), [email protected] (I. Walker).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.033 Received 11 September 2018; Received in revised form 11 March 2019; Accepted 18 March 2019 0301-4215/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
time, this study will explore if the discussions of participants suggest other factors that are not included in the model.
use has informed people's perceptions of electricity/energy itself (Pierce and Paulos, 2010), the energy use of household appliances (van den Broek and Walker, 2019), cognitive, behavioural, interactions with energy feedback (Hargreaves et al., 2010) as well as the obstacles for energy conservation among environmentally conscious households (Munro, 2017). Research on teenagers' attitudes towards energy consumption identified their perceptions on the locations, sources of information, impact, barriers and concern in relation to energy saving (Toth et al., 2013). Although participants discussed energy behaviour itself, some of the subthemes identified in participants' discussions also indicated possible drivers of energy use such as energy habits, impact of energy use on the environment, ways to save energy and future generations and costs. Householders' discussions on energy use also revealed a focus on the environmental problems associated with energy production rather than personal consumption or managing demand, suggesting that they assume policy makers to be responsible to take action against climate change (Kurz et al., 2005a). These studies demonstrate how qualitative methods can provide a rich description of people's perceptions of energy use and therefore this study will extend the small but promising qualitative literature on people's energy perceptions. To interpret householder's discussions of their energy use, a comprehensive framework that includes both conscious and unconscious drivers will be useful. A comprehensive framework that has recently been shown to be successful in explaining individual differences in energy use (van den Broek et al., 2019), is the Comprehensive Action Determination Model (Klöckner and Blöbaum, 2010). This model integrates the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Norm Activation Model and the Ipsative Theory. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), assumes that behaviour follows from behavioural intentions, which is predicted from attitude towards the behaviour (the positive or negative evaluation of the specific behaviour), social norms (perceived social pressure to engage or refrain from the particular behaviour) and perceived behavioural control (perceived ease with which the behaviour can be performed). The Norm Activation Model (Schwartz, 1977), assumes that behaviour follows from personal norms (perceived moral obligation to engage in the behaviour), which is activated by awareness of need (or problem awareness), awareness of consequences (the level of awareness of the consequences of not acting environmentally), ascription of responsibility (feeling responsible for the consequences that result from environmentally harmful behaviour), outcome efficacy (identifications of behaviour that can alleviate the environmental problems) and self-efficacy (the recognition of one's ability to mitigate these problems). Finally, the Ipsative Theory assumes behaviour is not only influenced by subjective constraints such as outcome efficacy and self-efficacy, but also by objective constraints and opportunities (situational variables that facilitate or obstruct the implementation of the behaviour) (Tanner, 1999). The CADM combines these variables from these models with habitual processes, which reflect learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specific cues and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end states (Verplanken and Aarts, 1999). Hence, the CADM assumes that environmental behaviour is a result of a trade-off between four processes: (1) normative processes (social norms, awareness of consequences, awareness of need and personal norms), (2) habitual processes (habits), (3) intentional processes (intentions and attitudes) and (4) situational processes (objective constraints and subjective constraints). Various versions of the model have been successful at explaining transportation mode choice (Klöckner and Blöbaum, 2010), recycling behaviour (Klöckner and Oppedal, 2011), adaptation of new heating systems (Sopha and Klöckner, 2011) and, most importantly, energy behaviour (van den Broek et al., 2019). The latter study demonstrated that this model could account for 61% of variance in energy behaviour, meaning that the model captures many of the drivers of real energy use. Therefore, this theory will serve as a framework for interpreting householder's discussions of the drivers of their energy use. At the same
2. Methods Participants' perspectives on their energy behaviour were explored through group discussions in focus groups, as focus groups provide an excellent method to explore a wide range of views and perspectives. Unlike interviews, a focus group setting can facilitate discussions among participants in which participants are able to identify and explore points of disagreement and agreement (Underhill and Olmsted, 2003). This means that focus groups can stimulate the discussion of factors that may not have been considered in an individual interview. Furthermore, the social interaction in focus groups allowed for a more naturalistic way of discussing the topics compared to individual interviews, encouraging genuine expressions and views to be expressed (Silverman, 2013). 2.1. Participants Participants took part in one of seven focus groups sessions that lasted between 15 and 20 min and consisted of three to six participants. Participants (N = 26, age M = 18.93, SD = 1.09, 61% female) were first-year undergraduates living on campus of the University of Bath. The recruitment was restricted to this sample because energy bills were included in their rent but these participants were expected to pay for their energy bills in the following year when they were to move into private accommodation and so their pre-move thoughts were of interest. As discussed above, these young people were expected to be more reflective on their energy use, which would facilitate mapping perceptions of their energy use. Participants were recruited through online (social media, online fora, noticeboards) and offline (posters) advertising and they were awarded course credit or a financial incentive (£5) for their participation. The advertisement did not mention the focus on environmental behaviour in the study, to avoid sampling bias. The majority of the sample consisted of British participants; five participants originated from other Western countries. The participants' accommodation were reasonably identical in terms of size and available appliances, including typical kitchen equipment such as an oven, hob, fridge and kettle. Large appliances such as washing machines and dryers were located outside of the halls of residence, meaning they were shared across accommodation buildings. Residents could control indoor temperature by adjusting the valve on their radiators until the maximum temperature set by university management. 2.2. Focus group procedure Participants were asked seven questions using a semi-structured method to prompt discussions and a range of perspectives on the antecedents of their energy behaviour. Interview questions covered topics such as changes in energy behaviour since moving into accommodation on campus; the formation of energy behaviour; parental influence on the formation of energy behaviour; energy habits; flat energy rate versus metered based-rates; energy tips for future campus residents and which factors, in relation to energy use, they might consider when selecting accommodation in the private sector for the next academic year. Some of these questions were directly related to specific factors in the CADM (e.g. “Have you ever found yourself turning something on and off without thinking about it?”) to ensure that these factors were discussed by the participants, whereas other questions were more general, and gave participants the freedom to discuss a range of antecedents of their energy behaviour (e.g. Have you see any changes in your energy behaviour over the past year?” or “How have you learned your energy behaviour?”). Furthermore participants were prompted to discuss their environmental identity specifically (“Would you describe yourself as an environmental 1298
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
person?”) to explore their perceptions and the relevance of this concept to energy behaviour. Care was taken on the part of the facilitator to avoid introducing terminology or influencing the terms of the discussion (Arthur and Nazroo, 2003). Participants were encouraged to discuss the questions with each other and express any disagreements. Because social settings may prohibit shy participants from disagreeing with the group discussions (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999), participants were urged to feel free to express deviant views or to disagree with each other. Furthermore, quiet participants were invited to contribute to the group discussion to make sure that their views were represented in the discussions. The facilitator made sure that the participants stuck to the topic of interest. The focus groups were recorded using audio recorders and transcribed verbatim.
(23) to better specify the type of social norm involved. Injunctive norms reflects one's perception of what people generally tend to (dis)approve of, which guides individuals to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable social behaviour (Cialdini et al., 1990). Descriptive norms, on the other hand, reflect perceptions of how people tend to behave, typically inferred from observed behaviour, which helps individuals determine what is common or popular behaviour (Cialdini et al., 1990). Discussions of injunctive norms often involved participants stating that they ‘should’ engage in more pro-environmental behaviour. For example, the following quote shows how a participant reflected on social norms in relation to leaving a television on standby and admits his behaviour is conflicting with this social norm:
2.3. Analysis
Four different sources of injunctive norms were discussed by participants. Parents were often discussed to be a source of injunctive norms (20), for example:
“TV is always on standby [others laugh], so … they say that you shouldn't do that.” (Steve)
The data was analysed using a hybrid approach consisting of deductive thematic analysis and an inductive thematic analyses, which allowed for the mapping of the CADM onto the discussions of the participants and facilitated the exploration of other relevant factors that are not included in the model. First, the data was subjected to a deductive thematic analysis in which the codes are theory-driven (Braun and Clarke, 2013) and therefore a coding matrix based on the CADM was constructed prior to the inspection of the data (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). Discussions were only coded as such when they matched the definitions of each CADM factor, and when statements matched the definition of several factors, it was coded under each of these factors. Once the data was coded, the data for each code was analysed by examining patterns on how and what participants discussed in relation to each CADM factor. Next, the data that did not fit the existing coding scheme was subjected to inductive thematic analysis, which was based on the data rather than a pre-existing model (Braun and Clarke, 2006). New codes were developed for accounts that captured factors that were perceived to influence energy consumption, and the data was coded accordingly. Although this coding process is likely to have been influenced and facilitated by the researcher's knowledge of the environmental psychology literature and the current trends and debates within this field of research, in many way this is desirable given that this study is intended to inform these contemporary debates.
“But I always switch off the lights when I leave my room, hmm, because that's something my dad really insisted on.” (Jess) It was evident, as demonstrated in the quote above, that participants perceived the energy use norms expressed by parents to influence their energy behaviour. Discussions also included reflections on injunctive norms evident in the media (8), expressed by educational institutions (23) and expressed by peers (2). However, participants expressed that they perceived these injunctive norms not to be sufficient to induce energy saving behaviour because of a lack of incentives for energy conservation: “I think it's strange here that there is no incentive to save energy, it sounds awful but I mean at home, there was this incentive from my parents.” (Emma) Furthermore, participants mentioned that the level of exposure (7) to injunctive norms influences the effect these norms have on their behaviour. “Yeah, I think the more you are reminded of, like, the issues [climate change], the more you, hmm, try to do your bit.” (Alia) That is, higher levels of exposure were perceived to have a more enduring effect on their pro-environmental behaviour. Moreover, the discussions suggested that climate change issues were not salient in people's minds in daily life but the exposure to injunctive norms reminded them of the importance of energy conservation and thereby encouraged this behaviour. The descriptive norms that participants discussed mainly related to the observed energy behaviour of their parents (11) and peers (8). Most of the discussions on the parents' behaviour related to their parents' proenvironmental behaviour but several statements also described parents' lack of environmental behaviour:
3. Findings The results of the deductive and inductive thematic analysis will be presented separately. The frequency with which participants discussed each factor is indicated in the title of the themes and these frequencies have been tallied for the overarching processes in the model (e.g. normative, habitual, intentional), see Fig. 1. The main topics discussed in relation to each variable will be reported within the group of processes of the model. Those familiar with behavioural models such as CADM might particularly note the frequency with which participants' statements tallied with elements of this model.
“Yeah, like we didn't really, my parents didn't turn off the TV, so I just see it left on, like during the day, and be like, oh that's normal.” (Minni)
3.1. Normative processes (124)
In this quote, the participant explicitly states how the observation of her parents' behaviour shaped what she perceived to be ‘normal’ energy behaviour. The discussions of the transference of parents energy behaviour to their own behaviour suggests an implicit awareness of how descriptive norms might be internalised. Participants also discussed how the observation of the energy behaviour of peers signalled social norms, to which participant tended to align their energy use (which included both energy saving and a lack of energy saving behaviour).
Most of the normative factors that the participants discussed could be coded as discussions on social norms, meaning the perceived social pressure to act in a certain way. The other normative factors, personal norms (the perceived moral obligations to engage in particular proenvironmental actions), awareness of need (awareness of the adverse consequences of not acting pro-environmentally) and awareness of consequences (the belief that one's own energy behaviour has negative environmental consequences) were infrequently discussed.
3.1.2. Personal norms (9) A few times, participants were observed to discuss their moral obligations to engage in particular pro-environmental actions, thereby demonstrating their personal norms:
3.1.1. Social norms (90) This factor was divided into injunctive (67) and descriptive norms 1299
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
Fig. 1. Results of the inductive thematic analysis mapped onto the CADM. Note: numerical values indicate the frequency with which participants discussed the factors.
3.1.4. Awareness of consequences (12) Although participants did not tend to state explicitly the environmental consequences of their own behaviour, their discussions did seem to suggest an awareness of the impact of their behaviour in indirect discussions of the consequences of behaviour. One participant did explicitly describe her awareness of the consequences of her behaviour, which she learnt in school:
“I just try to use energy as efficiently as possible really, but I think, I think it's something you kind of have a responsibility to do as a human being.” (Sarah) This quote shows how the participant perceived a strong sense of moral responsibility to engage in energy conservation. However, some discussions suggested that the participants had weak personal norms, as participants ascribed responsibility to mitigate environmental problems to other parties. For example, a participant expressed feeling that it was the responsibility of people in power to take action:
“I think in school, I don't remember why, but in physics, I think, in particular because we did the electromagnetic spectrum, and quite a lot on electricity, hmm, and the generation of electricity, they makes you quite aware of how much electricity you are actually using and like the processes by which the electricity is produced and how they are quite complex, obviously they use a lot of fuel to generate electricity in the first place and therefore, how it's a form of waste if you are not using this, hmm, the energy as efficiently as possible, and so then they tell you how to use the electricity as efficiently as possible.” (Sarah)
“So it's up to the people at the top really, it's not our choice whether we want to go green or not. If we make ourselves happy, then yeah, fair enough, if you want to have solar panels and hydro-electric things in your garden, but it's a bit pointless, you're not going to be changing the world, it's only when the people at the top change it, then they'll change it.” (Jimmy)
This quote clearly demonstrates how the participant is aware of the processes of energy production and the consequences of energy consumption for the environment, which is closely linked to the concept of energy literacy (DeWaters and Powers, 2011). Moreover, it shows how the participants perceives to be motivated by this awareness to be mindful of the energy she uses.
3.1.3. Awareness of need (14) Participants' awareness of need emerged when they discussed their knowledge of environmental problems: “We did it in, uh, A2 biology as well, like, and I think it was this time last year, we did loads of stuff with energy use, like global warming, so I got a bit better then.” (Alia)
3.2. Habitual processes (44)
As demonstrated in the quote above, it was clear that participants thought that they had learnt about environmental problems through formal education, and that this stimulated their environmental behaviours. Moreover, participants also talked about learning about environmental problems through the media, but admitted that they were unsure if this knowledge resulted in energy conservation.
Habits have been defined as learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specific cues and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end states (Verplanken and Aarts, 1999), and therefore discussions of habits were identified as participants' talk of automatic behaviours. Turning the light switches seemed to be the most 1300
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
salient example of habitual behaviour. Participants often emphasised the behaviour was ‘automatic’, ‘a reflex’, or performed ‘without thinking about it’, although clearly participants were still able to reflect explicitly on their energy habits:
“Hhmm, I don't think of it in terms of, the environmental sort of thing, I just think do I need it? 1% yes, I can, then I just turn it on […] I just turn it on as soon as I get in, or I just leave it plugged in an walk out of the room to my lectures or whatever.” (Jimmy)
“It's more habits than me, I don't make a conscious effort to be green I just carry on with the habits I already have. So I guess in that sense in my mind I'm not a really green person, but I guess my habits are pretty good.” (Hannah)
This quote illustrates how some participants expressed a lack of interest in energy conservation. 3.4. Situational influences (65)
It was evident in participants' discussions that they were aware of their energy habits, which is interesting considering that they explicitly reflected on the lack of consciousness that is involved in this behaviour. Moreover, the above quote also demonstrates how the participant discussed not feeling motivated to save energy for environmental reasons but energy saving habits were perceived to be the main driver of behaviour. Some participants also talked about the intention to install an energy conservation habit, thereby further demonstrating the awareness of participants of the strong influence that energy habits can have on behaviour:
The CADM includes two types of situational influences in the model: subjective and objective constraints. Participants frequently discussed the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest, or subjective constraints. Participants did not often discuss the objective constraints to influence their behaviour, which are factors that limit a person's freedom to engage in a particular behaviour. However, participants did discuss facilitating factors that encouraged their energy conservation and therefore a theme was created to include objective facilitators, in addition to objective constraints.
“Since I'm here, hmm, I noticed that you can, actually, turn off and on, the contact, the plug, and I can't do that in my country, so I've actually tried to do that, hmm, but it's not really a habit yet.” (Emma)
3.4.1. Objective constraints (5) Most of the discussions in relation to objective constraints related to factors that inhibit energy saving behaviour. One such example were the automatic lights in the common areas of the students' accommodation:
3.3. Intentional processes (91)
“When you step outside your room, depending on where you stand in the motion sensor, the lights of the entire house go on, so it doesn't always save energy, because you can't switch them off, it's just on for the next 5 minutes, and then they go off.” (Charlot)
Both intentions and attitudes were frequently discussed by participants. Intentions were reflected in expressions to plan to engage in proenvironmental behaviour and attitudes were reflected in discussions on the positive or negative evaluation of the environmental behaviour.
This quote clearly illustrates how the participant perceived the automation of the lights to limit her ability to save energy. Further, another participant mentioned the energy inefficiency of the energy appliances, such as her oven and tumble dryer, in her student accommodation which restrained her energy saving.
3.3.1. Intentions (44) The expressed intentions often became apparent in participants' discussions in which they said to ‘try’ to save energy: “I don't know, because it's still the process, I try to, but I'm not sure whether I manage to.” (If)
3.4.2. Objective facilitators (13) Participants not only mentioned objective constraints to save energy but also facilitating factors that help them to save energy. Interestingly, the automation of the lights in the accommodation were also discussed as facilitating energy saving:
However, this quote shows that the participant is not confident that the intention will result in behaviour and may expect not to succeed. The majority of the talk in relation to pro-environmental intentions included a referral to the (lack of) financial incentives to save energy. That is, many of them argued that they would be more motivated to save energy if the university would install a metered rate for energy use or when the participants will pay their own energy bills when they are to move off campus in the next academic year:
“The lights in the (common) area go on automatically, so … you can't leave them on which is quite good” (Steve) Furthermore, participants discussed possessing few household appliances in their current accommodation, which facilitated energy saving as well as the naturally high temperature of their rooms.
“Yeah, also next year we'll have to pay for it, so I guess we'll be using less [others agree]” (Jess) Interestingly, a participant even justified her current excessive energy use with her intentions to save energy in the next academic year:
3.4.3. Subjective constraints (47) Subjective constraints reflects people's perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour of interest. Within their discussions, participants expressed feeling that their energy saving behaviour would have an insignificant impact:
“But to be fair, next year, I won't be doing that because I'll be paying [others agree], so I'll make up for it.” (Alia)
“I find it especially frustrating at uni, living with so many people and feeling so insignificant, like, in my window I can see like another 100 or 200 flats of other people just like me, and I just feel like any difference that I made will be counteracted by the people living in the same area” (Emma)
3.3.2. Attitudes (47) The majority of participants expressed positive attitudes towards pro-environmental behaviour. Positive attitudes were evident in the use of adjectives for pro-environmental behaviour by participants: “I never really recycled before, but you are encouraged to do that here, so that's quite good” (Steve)
Furthermore, participants articulated feeling limited in their ability to curtail energy consumption because of the necessity of the use of certain appliances such as a laptop. Moreover, participants discussed not having sufficient knowledge about energy saving, relating to their perceived behavioural control. For example:
The discussions suggest that these participants perceive pro-environmental behaviour, in particular energy conservation, as positive. However, some participants also appeared to have less favourable attitudes towards pro-environmental behaviour. For example: 1301
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
3.6.1. Environmental identity (48) Environmental identity has been defined as the extent to which people indicate that environmentalism is a central part of who they are (Gatersleben et al., 2012; van der Werff et al., 2013). Participants differed in the degree to which they identified with environmentalism: most participants were hesitant to claim that they perceived themselves as being a green person. Furthermore, several participants indicated that their environmental identity was fluid, as they thought that it had changed over the past year:
“No, literally, I have no advice to give, because I don't know how I could save more energy.” (Casper) As demonstrated in the quote above, participants felt that a lack of knowledge about energy saving behaviour acted as a barrier to instigating energy saving behaviour. From the accounts of the participants, it appeared that knowledge about energy saving behaviours was key to their perceived control over their own energy saving behaviours. 3.5. Behaviour (99)
“If you consider, if you take out the year at uni where you got this piece of mind that you're not doing it [paying bills], otherwise I'd say I'm a green person, recycling, saving energy, partially because we have to pay for it, but that still, you know, helps me being green.” (Jo)
All the discussions about behaviour referred to environmental behaviour, within which two-thirds of the discussions related to pro-environmental behaviour (behaviours that have a positive or limited negative effect on the environment), and a third of the discussions concerned anti-environmental behaviour (behaviour that has a negative effect on the environment). Although participants discussed a wide range of different types of environmental behaviours, including water conservation and recycling, the majority of the discussions referred to energy behaviours as this behaviour was central in the interview questions. All of the discussions involved (a lack of) better management (e.g. switching off devices that are not currently being used) and curtailment of comfort (e.g. reducing the temperature on the thermostat) behaviours, while efficiency investments (e.g. purchasing energy saving light bulbs) were not discussed (Kempton and Harris, 1985).
As is evident in this quote, participants discussed how their environmental identity had changed since they moved into university accommodation, mainly because of the lack of financial incentives. However, a ‘green person’ would not be expected to save energy out of financial considerations, but rather out of a concern for the environment, suggesting that the participants were referring to the ‘green’ behaviours rather than their ‘green’ identity. Indeed, when participants were asked if they perceived themselves as a green person, many participants referred to their environmental behaviour: “I'm green in the sense that I don't use a car, I walk most places.” (Emma) Furthermore, participants compared themselves to others to establish their environmental identity:
3.5.1. Pro-environmental behaviour (60) Discussions about behaviour that has a positive (or less harmful) effect on the environment, mainly related to the curtailment or not using certain household appliances:
“Maybe in, like, comparison to the average person, I might be like, ok.”(Kevin)
“Iron: zero! I do not iron, ever.” (Hannah)
This suggests the influence of social norms on the development of the participant's environmental identity, in which participants establish a norm of environmental identities in their social environment and compare their identity with this norm. This statement could also be explained with social identity theory where people define themselves in relation to people who belong to the same social group (Tajfel and Turner, 1979).
Moreover, some participants reported that since they had moved to campus they consumed less energy, and had reduced the use of certain household devices. Participants also reported a range of energy-saving activities, for example; “So I will turn stuff off rather than let it on standby and turn off lights.” (Emma)
3.6.2. Value-orientation (82) Throughout the discussions of their energy behaviour, participants' value-orientations became apparent, by which we mean stable longterm goals. Although several value dimensions have been distinguished (de Groot and Thøgersen, 2012), only two types of value-orientations were identified in the participants' discourse: biospheric values and egoistic values. Biospheric values reflect a concern for the quality of nature and the environment for its own sake, and egoistic values reflect a consideration for the self and personal benefit (Groot and Thøgersen, 2012). Egoistic values (71) were often identified in participants' discussions, and therefore appeared to be a salient factor. The majority of the discussions coded under this theme concerned participants saying they were only motivated to save energy for financial reasons, which suggested the influence of egoistic values:
Other energy saving activities that the participants reported to engage in included minimising the amount of water that is heated in a kettle, putting on a jumper instead of turning on the heating, washing clothes less frequently and turning off the laptop when not in use. 3.5.2. Anti-environmental behaviour (39) Most of the discussions of anti-environmental behaviour consisted of participants expressing an increase in energy consumption since moving to campus: “I use more energy in the kitchen because, I don't know, in our kitchen, we don't all share meals, so you're cooking like loads of separate meals, whereas at home you're cooking one thing for everyone” (Alia) Participants identified behaviours with which they had increased their impact on the environment since living in student accommodation. Specifically, participants identified which household devices they used more often since they had moved to campus, such as a laptop and the vacuum cleaner.
“Maybe if I was paying for heat, I would, actually turn it down, [laughs], I don't know. Now it's always on maximum.” (Emma) Many participants expressed not currently being concerned about energy saving because they were not paying for their energy bills. Participants expected to start conserving energy when they were going to be responsible for bills. This demonstrates how young adults think their energy use is determined by personal financial benefit, reflecting egoistic values. Most of the responses recorded under biospheric values (9) were statements that reflected ‘anti-biospheric’ values, meaning that they reflected a lack of concern for the environment. For example,
3.6. Additional factors relevant to energy use Thus far, the coverage here has looked at themes congruent with the CADM, and participants' discussions certainly seem to confirm the reality of many of its components. The next two sections will discuss the results of the inductive thematic analysis. Within this, elements outside the CADM were identified within the field of environmental psychology. 1302
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
specifically talked about expecting to engage in less wasteful behaviour as soon as financial incentives came into place. This finding has potential implications for how people might use any service that has environmental implications (electricity, gas, hot water, transport) and that is provided either for free, or for a fixed fee, such that the cost of each unit of use is not directly related to the amount of environmental harm that is caused. An example of that is the Universal Basic Services, which is a policy concept that would provide citizens with free services such as housing to counter inequality (Moore et al., 2017). A final important finding for future energy policy is the participants' awareness of their energy habits, despite the unconscious nature of habits (Lutzenhiser, 1993; Verplanken and Aarts, 1999). Previous research has confirmed the important role of habits on energy behaviour (Macey and Brown, 1983; Maréchal, 2010; van den Broek et al., 2019) and the teenagers have also been found to be aware of their energy habits (Toth et al., 2013). Perhaps these participants were able to reflect on these habits because they have only recently established these energy habits (or are in the processes of instigating them), and the automaticity of habits gets stronger over time (Lally et al., 2010). Hence, young adults may be implementing their energy habits with more deliberation than householders in more stable settings who may have more established energy routines. The awareness of their energy habits provides an excellent opportunity for policy makers to stimulate the formation of energy saving habits in their first independent homes since awareness of energy habits are key to changing them (Maréchal, 2010). Once an energy habit has been established, the habits may provide an effortless way to continue saving energy into adulthood. Hence, behaviour change interventions can aim to facilitate daily energy saving practices that are of habitual nature among young adults. These findings may be interpreted in light of the social meaning of energy use, meaning that energy use is inevitably embedded in social structures including social interactions, cultures, and economic systems (Hackett and Lutzenhiser, 1991; Loren Lutzenhiser, 1993; Munro, 2017). Energy use is said to be a form of material culture, meaning that people consume energy to define social relationships, self-identities, or social status (Lutzenhiser, 1992; Shove and Warde, 1998). For example, the modes of payment of energy use (e.g. individual billing vs. including utilities costs in rent) reflect social structures because changes in modes of payment may result in changes to status relations, and consequently, energy use (Hackett and Lutzenhiser, 1991). Considering these social systems in which energy use take place, energy is never used for its own sake, but rather as part of a process to achieve goals such as comfort or entertainment (Shove, 2004). One could therefore even claim that energy behaviour itself does not exist, as energy consumption is a necessary consequence of certain household behaviours. Taking this into account, future research could investigate the perceived drivers of energy behaviour considering different household behaviours, instead of energy behaviour in general. Qualitative research inevitably include small sample sizes, meaning that if different participants would have taken part, different findings could have been obtained. Hence, the findings may not be representative of the perceptions of all young people who have recently become independent energy consumers but are not yet exposed to financial incentives for energy conservation. Other findings may also have been obtained if individual interviews would have been conducted instead of focus groups, as the social dynamics in the groups may have influenced the antecedents discussed by participants. Hence, future research could complement these findings with different samples, individual interviews or quantitative methods to further investigate the perceptions of energy consumption. To further inform energy policy, we highlight specific avenues that could be the focus for further research and policy evaluation. First, similar research could be conducted with householders that experience financial incentives to save energy as well as with older householders that do not experience financial incentives. Such research would provide further input for energy policy targeting these householders with
participants expressed not considering the environmental impact of their behaviour in their daily life: “You're not gonna think: is the way I'm cooking it environmentally friendly? It would never cross my mind [others agree]” (Hannah) In this quote, the participant expressed that her cooking practices were not driven by biospheric values. The discussions coded under the value-orientation theme therefore suggest that participants thought their energy behaviour was strongly driven by their egoistic values, and they did not perceive biospheric values to guide their behaviour. 4. Conclusion and policy implications This study aimed to explore young people's perceptions of the drivers of their energy consumption using the CADM framework. The findings show that the CADM's components were readily apparent in the discussions of this sample, and demonstrate a rich description of the perceptions of their energy use. The findings may directly inform policy that targets young people who are building the foundations of longlasting domestic energy use practices. Since energy policy is most effective when it is perceived as credible (Stern et al., 2016), these findings provide insights on how energy conservation policy targeting novel independent energy users may be designed to be more congruent with the target group's perceptions. In the following sections, we will focus our discussion on three key findings and their policy implications. First, participants did not tend to express being driven to save energy to conserve the environment, as apparent in a lack of discussions that reflected descriptive norms, personal norms, awareness of need and awareness of consequences. However, their discussions did indicate that energy conservation was perceived positively, both by themselves and their social environment (e.g. social norms, attitudes, intentions). This is in line with previous research that showed that young people feel less responsible to engage in pro-environmental behaviour for the environment (Bator et al., 2010; de Kort et al., 2008; Kurz et al, 2005b). Nevertheless, many energy saving campaigns that target young people focus on environmental conservation drivers for energy curtailment. For example, the Student Switch Off energy saving campaign encourages students to save energy in their University halls of residence to take climate change action (NUS, 2017). The findings of the current study suggest that such energy campaigns may not be congruent with young adults' perceptions of their energy use. Instead, these campaigns could frame energy conservation in terms of social norms or attitudes to align with their perceptions of the most important drivers of their energy use. A second key finding relevant for energy policy is that participants repeatedly emphasised that they were currently not motivated to save energy because of an absence of financial incentives, indicating the adherence to egoistic – that is, self-serving – values. Furthermore, their intention to initiate more energy-saving practices when this financial incentive would be introduced in the following year clearly signals egoistic values as this reflects a concern for personal benefit rather than the environment. This is in contrast with findings of studies that found stronger biospheric values than egoistic values in general households (de Groot and Steg, 2007; Gatersleben et al., 2010), suggesting that this may be a finding that is unique to this sample. Nevertheless, the positive influence of financial incentives on energy behaviour has generally been well-documented (Toth et al., 2013; Yust et al., 2002), in particular the impact of individual energy bill compared to compared to flat rates for energy consumption (Hackett and Lutzenhiser, 1991). Since value-tailored approaches have been found improve the persuasiveness of appeals to encourage pro-environmental behaviour (van den Broek et al., 2017), the findings from this research suggest that policy targeting the energy use of this target group may benefit from framing or facilitating energy conservation in terms of self-serving advantages. Further, participants recognized that they had a tendency to be profligate with energy in the absence of any financial consequences and 1303
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
and without financial incentives for energy conservation, including application to possible UBS policy. Second, it is important to consider the divergence in energy practices as nearly identical households can differ greatly in energy use (Hackett and Lutzenhiser, 1991; Loren Lutzenhiser, 1993), perhaps due to differences in lifestyles (Loren Lutzenhiser and Gossard, 2000), which means that there might be great heterogeneity in perceptions of the antecedents of energy use. It is important to investigate such divergence in perceptions as it can have a significant impact on collective decision-making and subsequent conservation efforts (van den Broek, 2018). This study has illuminated young adults' perceptions of the drivers of their energy behaviour using the CADM framework. The findings can inform the design of energy policy that is in line with the perceptions of these novel independent householders, which is likely to facilitate the credibility and trustworthiness of energy policy. Based on the outcomes of this study, we advise policy makers to (1) avoid framing energy saving behaviour in terms of environmental conservation, but instead (2) align policy with their values, norms and attitudes, or (3) target their energy habits as their awareness of their energy habits may facilitate building lasting energy saving habits.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.068. Hirst, E., Brown, M., 1990. Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 3, 267–281. IEA, 2017. Global Energy and CO2 Status Report 2017. Retrieved from. https://www. iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf. IPCC, 2018. Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte, T.W.V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M. (Eds.), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415324. Kempton, Willett, Harris, C.K.K., 1985. Do consumers know what works in energy conservation? Marriage Fam. Rev. 9 (1–2), 115–133. Klöckner, C.A., Blöbaum, A., 2010. A comprehensive action determination model toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (4), 574–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010. 03.001. Klöckner, C.A., Oppedal, I.O., 2011. General vs. domain specific recycling behaviour—applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to recycling in Norwegian student homes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (4), 463–471. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.009. Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., Rapley, M., Walker, I., 2005a. The ways that people talk about natural resources: discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. Br. J. Soc. Psychol./Br. Psychol. Soc. 44, 603–620. https://doi.org/10. 1348/014466604X18064. Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., Rapley, M., Walker, I., 2005b. The ways that people talk about natural resources: discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. Br. J. Soc. Psychol./Br. Psychol. Soc. 44 (Pt 4), 603–620. https://doi.org/ 10.1348/014466604X18064. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C.H.M., Potts, H.W.W., Wardle, J., 2010. How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40 (6), 998–1009. Retrieved from. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ejsp.674. Lutzenhiser, L., 1992. A cultural model of household energy consumption. Energy 17 (1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(92)90032-U. Lutzenhiser, L., 1993. Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 18, 247–289. https://doi.org/1056-3466/93/1022-0247. Lutzenhiser, L., Gossard, M.H., 2000. Lifestyle, status and energy consumption. In: Proceedings American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, pp. 207–222 (Washington, DC). Macey, S.M., Brown, M.A., 1983. Residential energy conservation: the role of past experience in repetitive household behavior. Environ. Behav. 15 (2), 123–141. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013916583152001. Maréchal, K., 2010. Not irrational but habitual: the importance of “behavioural lock-in” in energy consumption. Ecol. Econ. 69 (5), 1104–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2009.12.004. Moore, H., Perty, A., Portes, J., Reed, H., 2017. Social Prosperity for the Future: A Proposal for Universal Basic Services. (London). Munro, K.M., 2017. Trade-offs: the Production of Sustainability in Households. Retrieved from. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/3777. NUS, 2017. Student Switch off. from. http://studentswitchoff.org/, Accessed date: 12 August 2017. Pierce, J., Paulos, E., 2010. Materializing energy. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’10. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 113. https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858193. Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10, 221–279. Retrieved from. http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id= lEgM5N6rIKwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA221&dq=Normative+influences+on+altruism, +schwartz&ots=mufZoMoCdY&sig=xxg0XFwC63JNLLlGeA5J6ueI83Y#v= onepage&q=Normative_influences_on_altruism,schwartz&f=false. Shove, E., 2004. Sustainability, system innovation and the laundry. In: Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Green, K. (Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 76–94. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845423421.00014. Shove, E., Warde, A., 1998. Inconspicuous consumption: the sociology of consumption and the environment. In: Dunlap, R.E., Buttel, F.H., Dickens, P., Gijswijt, A. (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Oxford, pp. 230–251. Retrieved from. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/ soc001aw.htmlin1998. Silverman, D., 2013. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. SAGE Publications Limited, London. Sopha, B.M., Klöckner, C.A., 2011. Psychological factors in the diffusion of sustainable technology: a study of Norwegian households' adoption of wood pellet heating. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (6), 2756–2765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2011.03.027. Stern, P.C., Janda, K.B., Brown, M.A., Steg, L., Vine, E.L., Lutzenhiser, L., 2016. Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nat. Energy 1, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.43. Tajfel, H., Turner, J., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Soc. Psychol. Intergr. Relat. 33 (47), 74. Tanner, C., 1999. Constraints on environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 19 (2),
Acknowledgements We would like to thank Western Power Distribution for their contribution. We would also like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211. https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:3403996doi:10.1016/07495978(91)90020-T. Arthur, S., Nazroo, J., 2003. Designing fieldwork strategies and materials. In: Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage Publications, London. Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J., 1999. Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bator, R.J., Bryan, A.D., Schultz, W.P., 2010. Who gives a hoot?: intercept surveys of litterers and disposers. Environ. Behav. 43 (3), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916509356884. Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. Sage, London. Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2), 77–101. Brown, M.A., Sovacool, B.K., 2018. Theorizing the behavioral dimension of energy consumption: energy efficiency and the value-action gap. In: Davidson, D.J., Gross, M. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Energy and Society. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190633851.013.9. Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., Kallgren, C. a., 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58 (6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.58.6.1015. de Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2007. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 38 (3), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022022107300278. de Groot, J., Thøgersen, J., 2012. Values and pro-environmental behaviour. In: Steg, L., van den Berg, A.E., de Groot, J.I. (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: an Introduction, pp. 141–152. de Kort, Y. a. W., McCalley, L.T., Midden, C.J.H., 2008. Persuasive trash cans: activation of littering norms by design. Environ. Behav. 40 (6), 870–891. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0013916507311035. DeWaters, J.E., Powers, S.E., 2011. Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): a measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy 39 (3), 1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.049. Elo, S., Kyngäs, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. European Commission, 2018. Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and the Council. Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., Abrahamse, W., 2012. Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemp. Soc. Sci. 9 (4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21582041.2012.682086. Gatersleben, B., White, E., Abrahamse, W., Jackson, T., Uzzell, D., 2010. Values and sustainable lifestyles. Architect. Sci. Rev. 53 (1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.3763/ asre.2009.0101. Hackett, B., Lutzenhiser, L., 1991. Social structures and economic conduct: interpreting variations in household energy consumption. Socio. Forum 6 (3), 449–470. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF01114472.
1304
Energy Policy 129 (2019) 1297–1305
K.L. van den Broek and I. Walker
van den Broek, K.L., Walker, I., 2019. Heuristics in energy judgement tasks. J. Environ. Pyschol. 62, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.02.008. van der Werff, E., Steg, L., Keizer, K., 2013. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006. Verplanken, B., Aarts, H.A.G., 1999. Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 10 Retrieved from. http://repository.tue.nl/684913. Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., Jurasek, M., 2008. Context change and travel mode choice: combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.005. Yust, B.L., Guerin, D. a., Coopet, J.G., 2002. Residential energy consumption: 1987 to 1997. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 30 (3), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077727X02030003001.
145–157. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0121. Toth, N., Little, L., Read, J.C., Fitton, D., Horton, M., 2013. Understanding teen attitudes towards energy consumption. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 36–44. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.001. Underhill, C., Olmsted, M.G., 2003. An experimental comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face focus groups. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21 (4), 506–512. https://doi. org/10.1177/0894439303256541. van den Broek, K.L., Walker, I., Klöckner, C.A., 2019. Drivers of Energy Saving Behaviour: the Relative Influence of Normative, Habitual, Intentional and Situational Processes. (Manuscript submitted for publication). van den Broek, K., 2018. Illuminating divergence in perceptions in natural resource management: a case for the investigation of the heterogeneity in mental models. J. Dyn. Decision Making 4, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2018.1.51316. van den Broek, K., Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., 2017. Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric , economic and combined appeals. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.009.
1305