- Email: [email protected]
Mobilizing citizens for a low and clean energy future
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Mobilizing citizens for a low and clean energy future Anne-Maree Dowd and Elizabeth Hobman There is growing consensus worldwide that dramatic change is required to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to mitigate further adverse effects on the environment. Alongside industry and government efforts, individuals also need to play an active role in choosing and implementing mitigation solutions in order to achieve a low and clean energy future. There are several possible avenues, such as reducing energy demand, developing economic and market mechanisms, implementing technologies that significantly reduce emissions from current energy supply sources, and the development of renewable energy technologies. Citizens can play a crucial role in reducing demand and influencing the implementation of new commercial scale energy technologies. This paper evaluates the current literature to identify how citizens can be mobilized in regards to behaviour change and acceptance of energy technologies. Addresses Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), PO Box 883, Kenmore 4069, QLD, Australia Corresponding author: Dowd, Anne-Maree ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196 This review comes from a themed issue on Energy systems Edited by Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, Joyashree Roy, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, and Maria J Figueroa For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 3 February 2012; Accepted 23 April 2012 Available online 11th May 2013 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.005
Together with the effectiveness to address climate change, impacts on economic growth, international trade, legal and regulatory requirements and investments in technology also need to be accounted for when choosing between, or using combinations, of options [2]. Other researchers [3] also argue for more socially oriented impacts are considered, such as health, social equity and wellbeing, when selecting solutions. Therefore, to address a global scale, complex problem like climate change, there needs to be an understanding of the interactions between society, industry and the systems that govern us. If we are to achieve success in mitigating climate change through innovative and collaborative means, understanding of this complexity and the roles various stakeholders play is essential. Along with politicians, policy developers and industry, the general public also needs to be an active participant in deciding which pathways, and their subsequent consequences, are acceptable for implementation at the national and/or local level. In addition to participating in the decision-making process, individuals will also be essential contributors to the effective execution of the selected mitigation options. If the aim is to mobilize citizens into being an active participant to achieve a low and clean energy future, then two key areas can be analysed: first, what motivates individuals to use less energy (low energy future), and second, how opinions are formed which shape acceptance for energy technologies (clean energy future). Besides providing a study of the current literature, we propose several areas for further research and evaluation, and hope that our suggestions provide an initial starting point for applied researchers wishing to develop more sophisticated approaches to motivating energy-saving behaviour and uptake of low emission technologies.
Introduction For more than 20 years there has been a concerted international effort towards addressing climate change. International conventions, such as the United Nations Foreign Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC; ratified in 1994), have been established by committed nations seeking to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) and limit temperature increase in the future. Nations will need to consider many opinions, hold several discussions and make hard decisions if various pathways are to be implemented at the scale that is required to meet international emission targets. Mitigation options range from technology development, energy efficiency, cap-and-trade systems, trading emission permits, taxing emitters, alternative transport and fuel sources, behaviour change and many more [1]. www.sciencedirect.com
Motivating individuals to use less energy Several behavioural interventions are already available to help encourage individuals to save energy, and although stringent research trials are few and far between, it does seem reasonable that such initiatives can achieve on an average a 10% energy saving for householders [4]. Social modelling and commitment-based interventions in particular have demonstrated strong effect sizes [5]. We propose that even more significant, durable and widespread gains in energy savings can be achieved if we heed insights from the existing literature on human motivation, information processing and decision-making, behavioural economics and sociology [6,7–9]. Research in these domains provides a deep understanding of human behaviour and the process of behaviour change, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
192 Energy systems
which can then be applied to guide new and improved interventions to motivate energy conservation. In this first component of the paper, we focus on information-based interventions because we believe that communication offers a cost-effective, primary solution to societal-level behaviour change, and because information is a component of most, if not all, interventions. The provision of information is by far the most commonly used intervention to promote energy conservation. However, for well over a decade we have known that increasing information in and of itself will not lead to behaviour change [4,10]. Rather than classify information as a niche-market behaviour change strategy, there is a certain caveat upon which we can capitalize — for information to be effective, it needs to be coupled with motivational strategies [11]. The usual suggestions include coupling information with other interventions such as goal-setting, financial incentives and feedback [11]. However, we concur with human motivational researchers that the very way in which information is composed, framed and conveyed is a motivational intervention [12]. Evidence from social cognition research demonstrates that information can be strategically designed to encourage deeper processing of information and greater attitude–behaviour correspondence (see the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion [13,14]). In the absence of such, individuals are much more likely to use the alternative mode of information processing (i.e. peripheral processing) which draws on fewer cognitive resources and is associated with weaker attitude–behaviour correspondence. Human motivation theory also underscores the criticality of motivation in the process of behaviour change — it asserts that environmentally responsible behaviour is more likely to be initiated and sustained when individuals are autonomously motivated rather than extrinsically controlled [5]. Thus, the key research question is how can we design information-based interventions that stimulate natural motivation? There are several ways in which we can design information to ensure personal engagement, deeper processing and greater attitude–behaviour correspondence. Existing information strategies such as home energy audits and tailored feedback highlight the positive influence of personalization — that is, providing information that addresses individual needs and is therefore, personally meaningful. Individuals are more likely to attend to, and process information that meets a personal need. However, this raises significant challenges in terms of designing individualized information needs analysis that is cost-effective to implement, and whether it still precludes a large portion of the population who do not actively seek such assistance in the first place. What is still needed is the personalization of information en masse. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
While it may not be possible to achieve personalization to a fine-grained level, we believe it is possible to expand the concept of individual needs to broader clusters of motives or goals that guide energy consumption and conservation, and in such a way that aligns with intrinsic versus extrinsic goals (see Goal Framing Theory [15–17]). Environmental message framing research has examined loss versus gain frames (e.g. [18–22]), however, we propose there is greater value in studying the nature of goals because goals are what essentially drive behaviour. Research on the reasons why people engage in environmentally responsible behaviour indicate that there are reasons beyond environmental motives such as saving money [23], frugality [24], desiring a simple lifestyle [25] and human rights issues [26]. Research on normative feedback (see the Theory of Normative Conduct [27,28]) also demonstrates the powerful motivational effect of normative goals on energy-saving behaviour [29–32], which can be explained by the fact that people tend to do what is commonly performed or socially approved [33]. Research should continue to systematically test the efficacy of differently (goal) framed messages by incorporating the range of reasons why people engage in energy conservation as well as energy consumption. The notion is that these broader level goals can be strategically incorporated into information, to attract attention and encourage deep information processing. Beyond goal framing to achieve personalization and engagement with the message, there is a wide range of persuasion principles/techniques which can be incorporated into communication efforts to enhance salience such as referring to a trusted source of information, using emotive language and providing visual cues and vivid examples. In particular, a focus on conceptual semantics is considered crucial to designing motivational messages, given the associations we have for certain words and phrases [34]. In addition to persuasiveness, it is important to consider the complexity of information because people are limited by their cognitive capacity to process information. It is recommended that simple, straightforward messages are used, and where a problem is already known, the message should concentrate on providing solutions that are articulated in terms of specific personal actions [12]. Research on implementation intentions, the articulation of actual plans/intentions to take action, has shown that this technique is a particularly promising method to establish new habits [35,36]. This is because implementation intentions assist individuals to establish a plan and commitment to perform the behaviour when a specific environmental cue is present. To assist with simplicity, we also suggest a focus on few high-impact behaviour changes such as cold water washing and space cooling/heating [37] as opposed to a long list of behaviour changes. If people are given clear information on the top two or three behavioural changes that have been proven to make a difference, then www.sciencedirect.com
Mobilizing citizens for a low and clean energy future Dowd and Hobman 193
it is likely that they will retain and potentially act on this information. Finally, the timing of information delivery is also crucial, with greater impacts likely during significant life changes such as moving home and purchasing new appliances — when people are naturally open to changing their habits and routines [38]. While we have focussed on information-based interventions in this paper, we recognize that there are additional, complementary strategies that should be deployed to guide and support individuals towards energy-saving behaviour [7,8,38]. These strategies primarily work by changing external variables that help disrupt existing habits. For example, the modification of situational cues (e.g. changing the default manufacturer setting on the washing machine to cold wash) can help effortlessly establish new energy routines and practices which are largely habitual and routine in nature. Additionally, electricity tariffs that reward energy-saving behaviour (i.e. peak time rebate) are likely to be more attractive to customers, as compared to pricing regimes that punish energy consumption behaviour (i.e. critical peak pricing). While these types of strategies work synergistically with information-based interventions, it is often the case that they occur at a later stage because they usually require change at a systems or structural level. Along with mitigation pathways such as behaviour change, the success of climate change policies depends more heavily on the development and commercial scale implementation of new energy technologies. More recent research has invested into gaining a better understanding of public opinion and attitude towards low emission technologies and to determine what influence these may have on societal uptake [39,40]. Despite these efforts however a chasm continues to exist between what science and policy makers know and what is understood and perceived by individuals in society [39]. On the basis of this emerging field of study, this second component of the paper will analyse how individuals can be motivated to support low emission technologies that can lead to a clean energy future.
Uptake of low emission technologies As a technology moves from concept through design to implementation, there is a parallel requirement to understand the context in which it operates or is likely to operate [41–43]. For instance, researchers focussed on understanding acceptance of the range of low carbon energy solutions have also tended to investigate attitudes towards climate change. This is because early research has found that when reducing emissions is seen as unnecessary, support for investment in low carbon energy options rapidly wanes [44–46]. Results of research on public perceptions and understanding of climate change and various energy technologies vary and are usually highly dependent on context. For example, timing of www.sciencedirect.com
the investigation, particularly with respect to a country’s recent weather patterns and current political approach to climate change and technology investment, typically influences how individuals respond to certain questions on their beliefs and experiences of a changing climate and energy infrastructure [47,48]. Alongside environmental, economic and political context elements, social factors that influence perceptions as well as acceptability of viable mitigation options also need to be considered. Concerns regarding fairness and trust were key determinants of perceptions of some technologies in the communities studied [45] but this is a clear area for development across multiple technologies and regions. In addition to understanding context, the influence of knowledge levels is also salient to technology acceptance [42]. We know that public deliberation, discussion and engagement around new energy technologies have increased over the past years [49,50,51] yet some of these technologies still remain unknown to the general public, for example carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) and geothermal [42,52]. Consistent findings demonstrate high levels of acceptance for better known technologies, such as solar and wind, as opposed to lesser known technologies, mainly due to higher levels of self-rated knowledge [44]. From the risk perception and risk communication literature, raising awareness and knowledge of the suite of energy technologies available in order to make an informed opinion would be one of the first key steps. Therefore, similar to behaviour change interventions, information provision also plays a key role in strategies aimed to educate individuals about various energy technologies [47]. Yet technology acceptance research finds a weak connection between solely increasing information and levels of acceptance [42,53], supporting comparable findings in the behaviour change field. For information to be effective in growing acceptance, it needs to be embedded in a more comprehensive engagement strategy [39,41,42]. At the local level, some researchers have examined the consultation, engagement and communications strategies used by project developers to determine the factors which promote effective interaction and sharing of information with communities. Findings suggest a need to: understand local contingencies and engage local stakeholders early; initiate open two-way dialogues; engender trust between the project developer and other stakeholders; and provide high quality information in a mix of formal and informal, technical and simple formats (e.g. [54]). Each of these factors is supported by the previously mentioned research from the human motivation and social cognition fields in regards to effective message framing, use of trusted sources of information, providing visual cues and vivid examples to influence opinion formation. In regards to the role of scientists in being trusted sources of information, some researchers do warn biophysical and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
194 Energy systems
social scientists against persuasive communication designed to advocate a particular position or course of action. Instead, they stress the need for scientists to occupy the role of trusted intermediary such that they empower citizens’ choices and decision-making around such a complex issue. To this end, there is a need for people to get information in a credible, comprehensible form (e.g. [55]) as well as in a simple, straightforward message, as suggested for behaviour change communication. In addition to effective message and information framing, the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion [13,14] also highlights the influence of social norms on the formation of opinions. From a collaborative engagement approach, social interactions and community participation provide a conduit for fundamental knowledge development, that once instilled and reinforced through social norms moves from the more external or extrinsic form of knowledge to become deeper, more inherent and intrinsic [56]. A constructivist perspective suggests that knowledge develops continually, based not only on previous understanding instilled by culture and social interactions and personal experience, but through the interchange of information. Thus, knowledge is constantly being transformed particularly in regard to the gaining of knowledge on new concepts. Therefore, in regards to building acceptance for energy technologies, benefits can be seen in embedding opportunities for individuals to socially interact and hold discussions about various technologies, which encourages collaboration and knowledge sharing and assists in connecting to new ideas and information [56,57].
efficient technologies, are needed. Investment in this programme of research is likely to yield significant and immediate returns.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
The Australian Collaboration: A collaboration of National Community Organisations. http:// www.australiancollaboration.com.au/pdf/FactSheets/Energyissues-FactSheet.pdf (accessed 12.03.12).
2.
The World Bank: International Trade and Climate Change: Economic, Legal and Institutional Perspectives Overview. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2007.
3.
Ross M, Fawcett A, Clapp C: U.S. climate mitigation pathways post 2012: transition scenarios in ADAGE. Energy Econ 2009, 31:S212-S222.
4.
Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T: A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 2005, 25:273-291.
5.
Osbaldiston R, Schott JP: Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ Behav 2012, 44:257-299. This meta-analysis of 87 published reports containing 253 experimental treatments identifies the most effective interventions for different types of pro-environmental behaviour, including home energy conservation.
6.
Pelletier L: A motivational analysis of self-determination for pro-environmental behaviors. In Handbook of Selfdetermination Research. Edited by Ryan R, Deci E. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press; 2002:205-232. This review discusses the importance of tailoring messages according to different stages of behaviour change, and as a function of intrinsic goals in order to facilitate self-determined motivation to change in the area of proenvironmental behaviour.
7.
Pollitt M, Shaorshadze I: The role of behavioural economics in energy and climate policy. Electricity Policy Research Group Working Paper. 2011. http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/ 1810/242021/1/cwpe1165.pdf (accessed 12.10.12).
8.
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR: Nudge. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 2008.
9.
Wilson C, Dowlatabadi H: Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2007, 32:169-203.
Conclusion In summary, there are several ways to apply motivational principles to communication efforts, so that individuals are more likely to engage with, and process the message and translate it into action. With careful consideration of how humans process information, form opinions and make decisions, it is possible to craft messages that stimulate the desired response. As informing the public has been shown to lead to increased awareness levels, debunked long held beliefs, and increased individual confidence in the opinions held on different topics, accurately informing the public and thus creating a general baseline of knowledge may be useful for dissemination of information later on, for example for specific climate change policies such as a technology development and behaviour change solutions. The opportunity is now ripe to capitalize on society’s naturally elevated motivation to change (given recent and predicted energy price increases), so longitudinal, randomized controlled studies that evaluate the impact of variously framed communication messages on objectively measured energy savings and acceptance of energy Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
10. Katzev R, Johnson T: Promoting Energy Conservation: An Analysis of Behavioral Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1987. 11. Schultz PW: Making energy conservation the norm. In PeopleCentered Initiatives for Increasing Energy Savings. Edited by Ehrhardt-Martinez K, Laitner JA. Washington, DC: ACEEE; 2010. 17-1–17-12. 12. Pelletier LG, Sharp E: Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: how message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Can Psychol 2008, 49:210-217. 13. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D: Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res 1983, 10:135-146. 14. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1986, 19:123-189. 15. Lindenberg S: Social rationality versus rational egoism. In Handbook of Sociological Theory. Edited by Turner J. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 2001:635-668. 16. Lindenberg S: Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos 2001, 54:317-342. www.sciencedirect.com
Mobilizing citizens for a low and clean energy future Dowd and Hobman 195
17. Lindenberg S: Prosocial behavior, solidarity and goal-framing processes. In Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior. An Integration of Sociological and Psychological Perspectives. Edited by Fetchenhauer D, Flache A, Buunk B, Lindenberg S. Amsterdam: Kluwer; 2006. 18. Davis J: The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. J Mass Commun Q 1995, 72:285-299. 19. Loroz PS: The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychol Mark 2007, 24:1001-1023. 20. Newman CL, Howlett E, Burton S, Kozup JC, Tangari AH: The influence of consumer concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability messages. Int J Advert 2012, 31:511-527. 21. Obermiller C: The baby is sick the baby is well — a test of environmental communication appeals. J Advert 1995, 24:55-70. 22. Van de Velde L, Verbeke W, Popp M, Van Huylenbroeck G: The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy 2010, 38:5541-5549. 23. Whitmarsh L: Behavioural responses to climate change: asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J Environ Psychol 2009, 29:13-23. 24. Fujii S: Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. J Environ Psychol 2006, 26:262-268. 25. Shaw D, Newholm T: Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychol Mark 2002, 19:167-185. 26. Howell RA: It’s not (just) ‘‘the environment, stupid!’’ Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Global Environ Change 2012, 23:281–290. 27. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA: A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling in concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990, 58:1015-1026. 28. Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR: A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1991, 24:201-234. 29. Ayres I, Raseman S, Shih A: Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments That Peer Comparison Feedback Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage. 2009:. Available at SSRN: http:// ssrn.com/abstract=1434950. 30. Gockertitz S, Schultz PW, Rendon T, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V: Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behaviour: the moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. Eur J Soc Psychol 2010, 40:514-523. 31. Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V: Normative social influence is undetected. Pers Soc Psychol Bullet 2008, 34:913-923. 32. Smith JR, Louis WR, Terry DJ, Greenaway KH, Clarke MR, Cheng X: Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions. J Environ Psychol 2012, 32:353-361. 33. Cialdini RB: Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2003, 12:105-109. 34. Gifford R, Comeau LA: Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environ Change 2011, 21:1301-1307. 35. Gollwitzer PM, Schaal B: Metacognition in action: the importance of implementation intentions. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1998, 2:124-136. 36. Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P: Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 2006, 38:249-268. www.sciencedirect.com
37. Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP: Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009, 106:18452-18456. 38. Verplanken B, Wood W: Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Am Mark Assoc 2006, 25:90-106. 39. Ashworth P, Paxton G, Carr-Cornish S: Reflections on a process for developing public trust in energy technologies: follow-up results of the Australian large group process. Energy Procedia 2011, 4:6322-6329. This paper presents findings from two aspects: first, effectiveness of workshops in engaging the general public on issues such as climate change and energy technologies and second, the influence of factors such as trust, information, social identity and values and beliefs on perceptions and acceptance of a variety of energy technologies. 40. Sklyar AV, Smith JW, Stedman CC: Social Acceptance of Technologies. Worcester, MA: Faculty of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute; 2006. 41. Fischhoff B, Fischhoff I: Public’s opinions about biotechnologies. AgbioForum 2001, 4:155-162. 42. Ashworth P, Pisarski A, Littleboy A: Understanding and incorporating stakeholder perspectives to low emission technologies in Queensland. CSIRO Centre for Low Emission Technology (CLET); Pullenvale, Australia: 2006. 43. Reiner D, Curry T, De Figueredo M, Herzog H, Ansolabehere S, Itaoka K, Akai M, Johnsson F, Odenberger M: American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40:2093-2098. 44. Ashworth P, Carr-Cornish S, Boughen N, Thambimuthu K: Engaging the public on carbon dioxide capture and storage: does a large group process work? Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9); 16–20 November 2008:4765–4773. 45. Bradbury J, Ray I, Peterson T, Wade S, Wong-Parodi G, Feldpausch A: The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: results of multi-state focus group interviews in the U.S.. Energy Procedia 2009, 1:4665-4672. 46. Shackley S, Gough C, McLachlan C: The public perceptions of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK. In Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Edited by Rubin ES, Keith DW, Gilboy CF, Wilson M, Morris T, Gale J, Thambimuthu K. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2005:1699-1704. 47. Ashworth P, Jeanneret T, Gardner J, Shaw H: Communication and Climate Change: What the Australian Public Thinks. Pullenvale: CSIRO; 2011. 48. Reser JP, Pidgeon N, Spence A, Bradley G, Glendon AI, Ellul M: Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings, and Responses to Climate Change in Australia and Great Britain: Interim Report. Queensland, Australia/Wales: Griffith University, Climate Change Response Program/Understanding Risk Centre, Cardiff University; 2011. 49. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ: Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2002. This book outlines five key steps in creating and testing risk messages which are faithful to both science and communication. 50. Wilsdon J, Willis R: See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. Technology and Science, Policymaking, Environment. London, UK: Demos; 2004. 51. Renn O: Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. J Hazard Mater 1992, 29:465-519. 52. Dowd A-M, Boughen N, Ashworth P, Carr-Cornish S: Geothermal technology in Australia: investigating social acceptance. Energy Policy 2011, 39:6301-6307. 53. de Best-Waldhober M, Daamen D, Ramirez Ramirez A, Faaij A, Hendriks C, de Visser E: Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options. Energy Procedia 2008, 1:4795-4802. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
196 Energy systems
54. Brunsting S, Desbarats J, de Best-Waldhober M, Duetschke E, Oltra C, Upham P, Riesch H: The public and CCS: the importance of communication and participation in the context of local realities. Energy Procedia 2010. Paper presented at the GHGT-10 Conference; Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19–23 September 2010: 2010. 55. Abrahamse W, Steg L: How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
indirect energy use and savings. J Econ Psychol 2009, 30:711-720. 56. Lave J: Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988. 57. Smith MK: ‘Communities of Practice’, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. 2009 In: www.infed.org/biblio/ communities_of_practice.htm. (accessed 23.06.12).
www.sciencedirect.com
Mobilizing citizens for a low and clean energy future Anne-Maree Dowd and Elizabeth Hobman There is growing consensus worldwide that dramatic change is required to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to mitigate further adverse effects on the environment. Alongside industry and government efforts, individuals also need to play an active role in choosing and implementing mitigation solutions in order to achieve a low and clean energy future. There are several possible avenues, such as reducing energy demand, developing economic and market mechanisms, implementing technologies that significantly reduce emissions from current energy supply sources, and the development of renewable energy technologies. Citizens can play a crucial role in reducing demand and influencing the implementation of new commercial scale energy technologies. This paper evaluates the current literature to identify how citizens can be mobilized in regards to behaviour change and acceptance of energy technologies. Addresses Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), PO Box 883, Kenmore 4069, QLD, Australia Corresponding author: Dowd, Anne-Maree ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196 This review comes from a themed issue on Energy systems Edited by Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, Joyashree Roy, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, and Maria J Figueroa For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 3 February 2012; Accepted 23 April 2012 Available online 11th May 2013 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.005
Together with the effectiveness to address climate change, impacts on economic growth, international trade, legal and regulatory requirements and investments in technology also need to be accounted for when choosing between, or using combinations, of options [2]. Other researchers [3] also argue for more socially oriented impacts are considered, such as health, social equity and wellbeing, when selecting solutions. Therefore, to address a global scale, complex problem like climate change, there needs to be an understanding of the interactions between society, industry and the systems that govern us. If we are to achieve success in mitigating climate change through innovative and collaborative means, understanding of this complexity and the roles various stakeholders play is essential. Along with politicians, policy developers and industry, the general public also needs to be an active participant in deciding which pathways, and their subsequent consequences, are acceptable for implementation at the national and/or local level. In addition to participating in the decision-making process, individuals will also be essential contributors to the effective execution of the selected mitigation options. If the aim is to mobilize citizens into being an active participant to achieve a low and clean energy future, then two key areas can be analysed: first, what motivates individuals to use less energy (low energy future), and second, how opinions are formed which shape acceptance for energy technologies (clean energy future). Besides providing a study of the current literature, we propose several areas for further research and evaluation, and hope that our suggestions provide an initial starting point for applied researchers wishing to develop more sophisticated approaches to motivating energy-saving behaviour and uptake of low emission technologies.
Introduction For more than 20 years there has been a concerted international effort towards addressing climate change. International conventions, such as the United Nations Foreign Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC; ratified in 1994), have been established by committed nations seeking to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) and limit temperature increase in the future. Nations will need to consider many opinions, hold several discussions and make hard decisions if various pathways are to be implemented at the scale that is required to meet international emission targets. Mitigation options range from technology development, energy efficiency, cap-and-trade systems, trading emission permits, taxing emitters, alternative transport and fuel sources, behaviour change and many more [1]. www.sciencedirect.com
Motivating individuals to use less energy Several behavioural interventions are already available to help encourage individuals to save energy, and although stringent research trials are few and far between, it does seem reasonable that such initiatives can achieve on an average a 10% energy saving for householders [4]. Social modelling and commitment-based interventions in particular have demonstrated strong effect sizes [5]. We propose that even more significant, durable and widespread gains in energy savings can be achieved if we heed insights from the existing literature on human motivation, information processing and decision-making, behavioural economics and sociology [6,7–9]. Research in these domains provides a deep understanding of human behaviour and the process of behaviour change, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
192 Energy systems
which can then be applied to guide new and improved interventions to motivate energy conservation. In this first component of the paper, we focus on information-based interventions because we believe that communication offers a cost-effective, primary solution to societal-level behaviour change, and because information is a component of most, if not all, interventions. The provision of information is by far the most commonly used intervention to promote energy conservation. However, for well over a decade we have known that increasing information in and of itself will not lead to behaviour change [4,10]. Rather than classify information as a niche-market behaviour change strategy, there is a certain caveat upon which we can capitalize — for information to be effective, it needs to be coupled with motivational strategies [11]. The usual suggestions include coupling information with other interventions such as goal-setting, financial incentives and feedback [11]. However, we concur with human motivational researchers that the very way in which information is composed, framed and conveyed is a motivational intervention [12]. Evidence from social cognition research demonstrates that information can be strategically designed to encourage deeper processing of information and greater attitude–behaviour correspondence (see the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion [13,14]). In the absence of such, individuals are much more likely to use the alternative mode of information processing (i.e. peripheral processing) which draws on fewer cognitive resources and is associated with weaker attitude–behaviour correspondence. Human motivation theory also underscores the criticality of motivation in the process of behaviour change — it asserts that environmentally responsible behaviour is more likely to be initiated and sustained when individuals are autonomously motivated rather than extrinsically controlled [5]. Thus, the key research question is how can we design information-based interventions that stimulate natural motivation? There are several ways in which we can design information to ensure personal engagement, deeper processing and greater attitude–behaviour correspondence. Existing information strategies such as home energy audits and tailored feedback highlight the positive influence of personalization — that is, providing information that addresses individual needs and is therefore, personally meaningful. Individuals are more likely to attend to, and process information that meets a personal need. However, this raises significant challenges in terms of designing individualized information needs analysis that is cost-effective to implement, and whether it still precludes a large portion of the population who do not actively seek such assistance in the first place. What is still needed is the personalization of information en masse. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
While it may not be possible to achieve personalization to a fine-grained level, we believe it is possible to expand the concept of individual needs to broader clusters of motives or goals that guide energy consumption and conservation, and in such a way that aligns with intrinsic versus extrinsic goals (see Goal Framing Theory [15–17]). Environmental message framing research has examined loss versus gain frames (e.g. [18–22]), however, we propose there is greater value in studying the nature of goals because goals are what essentially drive behaviour. Research on the reasons why people engage in environmentally responsible behaviour indicate that there are reasons beyond environmental motives such as saving money [23], frugality [24], desiring a simple lifestyle [25] and human rights issues [26]. Research on normative feedback (see the Theory of Normative Conduct [27,28]) also demonstrates the powerful motivational effect of normative goals on energy-saving behaviour [29–32], which can be explained by the fact that people tend to do what is commonly performed or socially approved [33]. Research should continue to systematically test the efficacy of differently (goal) framed messages by incorporating the range of reasons why people engage in energy conservation as well as energy consumption. The notion is that these broader level goals can be strategically incorporated into information, to attract attention and encourage deep information processing. Beyond goal framing to achieve personalization and engagement with the message, there is a wide range of persuasion principles/techniques which can be incorporated into communication efforts to enhance salience such as referring to a trusted source of information, using emotive language and providing visual cues and vivid examples. In particular, a focus on conceptual semantics is considered crucial to designing motivational messages, given the associations we have for certain words and phrases [34]. In addition to persuasiveness, it is important to consider the complexity of information because people are limited by their cognitive capacity to process information. It is recommended that simple, straightforward messages are used, and where a problem is already known, the message should concentrate on providing solutions that are articulated in terms of specific personal actions [12]. Research on implementation intentions, the articulation of actual plans/intentions to take action, has shown that this technique is a particularly promising method to establish new habits [35,36]. This is because implementation intentions assist individuals to establish a plan and commitment to perform the behaviour when a specific environmental cue is present. To assist with simplicity, we also suggest a focus on few high-impact behaviour changes such as cold water washing and space cooling/heating [37] as opposed to a long list of behaviour changes. If people are given clear information on the top two or three behavioural changes that have been proven to make a difference, then www.sciencedirect.com
Mobilizing citizens for a low and clean energy future Dowd and Hobman 193
it is likely that they will retain and potentially act on this information. Finally, the timing of information delivery is also crucial, with greater impacts likely during significant life changes such as moving home and purchasing new appliances — when people are naturally open to changing their habits and routines [38]. While we have focussed on information-based interventions in this paper, we recognize that there are additional, complementary strategies that should be deployed to guide and support individuals towards energy-saving behaviour [7,8,38]. These strategies primarily work by changing external variables that help disrupt existing habits. For example, the modification of situational cues (e.g. changing the default manufacturer setting on the washing machine to cold wash) can help effortlessly establish new energy routines and practices which are largely habitual and routine in nature. Additionally, electricity tariffs that reward energy-saving behaviour (i.e. peak time rebate) are likely to be more attractive to customers, as compared to pricing regimes that punish energy consumption behaviour (i.e. critical peak pricing). While these types of strategies work synergistically with information-based interventions, it is often the case that they occur at a later stage because they usually require change at a systems or structural level. Along with mitigation pathways such as behaviour change, the success of climate change policies depends more heavily on the development and commercial scale implementation of new energy technologies. More recent research has invested into gaining a better understanding of public opinion and attitude towards low emission technologies and to determine what influence these may have on societal uptake [39,40]. Despite these efforts however a chasm continues to exist between what science and policy makers know and what is understood and perceived by individuals in society [39]. On the basis of this emerging field of study, this second component of the paper will analyse how individuals can be motivated to support low emission technologies that can lead to a clean energy future.
Uptake of low emission technologies As a technology moves from concept through design to implementation, there is a parallel requirement to understand the context in which it operates or is likely to operate [41–43]. For instance, researchers focussed on understanding acceptance of the range of low carbon energy solutions have also tended to investigate attitudes towards climate change. This is because early research has found that when reducing emissions is seen as unnecessary, support for investment in low carbon energy options rapidly wanes [44–46]. Results of research on public perceptions and understanding of climate change and various energy technologies vary and are usually highly dependent on context. For example, timing of www.sciencedirect.com
the investigation, particularly with respect to a country’s recent weather patterns and current political approach to climate change and technology investment, typically influences how individuals respond to certain questions on their beliefs and experiences of a changing climate and energy infrastructure [47,48]. Alongside environmental, economic and political context elements, social factors that influence perceptions as well as acceptability of viable mitigation options also need to be considered. Concerns regarding fairness and trust were key determinants of perceptions of some technologies in the communities studied [45] but this is a clear area for development across multiple technologies and regions. In addition to understanding context, the influence of knowledge levels is also salient to technology acceptance [42]. We know that public deliberation, discussion and engagement around new energy technologies have increased over the past years [49,50,51] yet some of these technologies still remain unknown to the general public, for example carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) and geothermal [42,52]. Consistent findings demonstrate high levels of acceptance for better known technologies, such as solar and wind, as opposed to lesser known technologies, mainly due to higher levels of self-rated knowledge [44]. From the risk perception and risk communication literature, raising awareness and knowledge of the suite of energy technologies available in order to make an informed opinion would be one of the first key steps. Therefore, similar to behaviour change interventions, information provision also plays a key role in strategies aimed to educate individuals about various energy technologies [47]. Yet technology acceptance research finds a weak connection between solely increasing information and levels of acceptance [42,53], supporting comparable findings in the behaviour change field. For information to be effective in growing acceptance, it needs to be embedded in a more comprehensive engagement strategy [39,41,42]. At the local level, some researchers have examined the consultation, engagement and communications strategies used by project developers to determine the factors which promote effective interaction and sharing of information with communities. Findings suggest a need to: understand local contingencies and engage local stakeholders early; initiate open two-way dialogues; engender trust between the project developer and other stakeholders; and provide high quality information in a mix of formal and informal, technical and simple formats (e.g. [54]). Each of these factors is supported by the previously mentioned research from the human motivation and social cognition fields in regards to effective message framing, use of trusted sources of information, providing visual cues and vivid examples to influence opinion formation. In regards to the role of scientists in being trusted sources of information, some researchers do warn biophysical and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
194 Energy systems
social scientists against persuasive communication designed to advocate a particular position or course of action. Instead, they stress the need for scientists to occupy the role of trusted intermediary such that they empower citizens’ choices and decision-making around such a complex issue. To this end, there is a need for people to get information in a credible, comprehensible form (e.g. [55]) as well as in a simple, straightforward message, as suggested for behaviour change communication. In addition to effective message and information framing, the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion [13,14] also highlights the influence of social norms on the formation of opinions. From a collaborative engagement approach, social interactions and community participation provide a conduit for fundamental knowledge development, that once instilled and reinforced through social norms moves from the more external or extrinsic form of knowledge to become deeper, more inherent and intrinsic [56]. A constructivist perspective suggests that knowledge develops continually, based not only on previous understanding instilled by culture and social interactions and personal experience, but through the interchange of information. Thus, knowledge is constantly being transformed particularly in regard to the gaining of knowledge on new concepts. Therefore, in regards to building acceptance for energy technologies, benefits can be seen in embedding opportunities for individuals to socially interact and hold discussions about various technologies, which encourages collaboration and knowledge sharing and assists in connecting to new ideas and information [56,57].
efficient technologies, are needed. Investment in this programme of research is likely to yield significant and immediate returns.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
The Australian Collaboration: A collaboration of National Community Organisations. http:// www.australiancollaboration.com.au/pdf/FactSheets/Energyissues-FactSheet.pdf (accessed 12.03.12).
2.
The World Bank: International Trade and Climate Change: Economic, Legal and Institutional Perspectives Overview. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2007.
3.
Ross M, Fawcett A, Clapp C: U.S. climate mitigation pathways post 2012: transition scenarios in ADAGE. Energy Econ 2009, 31:S212-S222.
4.
Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T: A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 2005, 25:273-291.
5.
Osbaldiston R, Schott JP: Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ Behav 2012, 44:257-299. This meta-analysis of 87 published reports containing 253 experimental treatments identifies the most effective interventions for different types of pro-environmental behaviour, including home energy conservation.
6.
Pelletier L: A motivational analysis of self-determination for pro-environmental behaviors. In Handbook of Selfdetermination Research. Edited by Ryan R, Deci E. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press; 2002:205-232. This review discusses the importance of tailoring messages according to different stages of behaviour change, and as a function of intrinsic goals in order to facilitate self-determined motivation to change in the area of proenvironmental behaviour.
7.
Pollitt M, Shaorshadze I: The role of behavioural economics in energy and climate policy. Electricity Policy Research Group Working Paper. 2011. http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/ 1810/242021/1/cwpe1165.pdf (accessed 12.10.12).
8.
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR: Nudge. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 2008.
9.
Wilson C, Dowlatabadi H: Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2007, 32:169-203.
Conclusion In summary, there are several ways to apply motivational principles to communication efforts, so that individuals are more likely to engage with, and process the message and translate it into action. With careful consideration of how humans process information, form opinions and make decisions, it is possible to craft messages that stimulate the desired response. As informing the public has been shown to lead to increased awareness levels, debunked long held beliefs, and increased individual confidence in the opinions held on different topics, accurately informing the public and thus creating a general baseline of knowledge may be useful for dissemination of information later on, for example for specific climate change policies such as a technology development and behaviour change solutions. The opportunity is now ripe to capitalize on society’s naturally elevated motivation to change (given recent and predicted energy price increases), so longitudinal, randomized controlled studies that evaluate the impact of variously framed communication messages on objectively measured energy savings and acceptance of energy Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
10. Katzev R, Johnson T: Promoting Energy Conservation: An Analysis of Behavioral Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1987. 11. Schultz PW: Making energy conservation the norm. In PeopleCentered Initiatives for Increasing Energy Savings. Edited by Ehrhardt-Martinez K, Laitner JA. Washington, DC: ACEEE; 2010. 17-1–17-12. 12. Pelletier LG, Sharp E: Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: how message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Can Psychol 2008, 49:210-217. 13. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D: Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res 1983, 10:135-146. 14. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1986, 19:123-189. 15. Lindenberg S: Social rationality versus rational egoism. In Handbook of Sociological Theory. Edited by Turner J. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 2001:635-668. 16. Lindenberg S: Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos 2001, 54:317-342. www.sciencedirect.com
Mobilizing citizens for a low and clean energy future Dowd and Hobman 195
17. Lindenberg S: Prosocial behavior, solidarity and goal-framing processes. In Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior. An Integration of Sociological and Psychological Perspectives. Edited by Fetchenhauer D, Flache A, Buunk B, Lindenberg S. Amsterdam: Kluwer; 2006. 18. Davis J: The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. J Mass Commun Q 1995, 72:285-299. 19. Loroz PS: The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychol Mark 2007, 24:1001-1023. 20. Newman CL, Howlett E, Burton S, Kozup JC, Tangari AH: The influence of consumer concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability messages. Int J Advert 2012, 31:511-527. 21. Obermiller C: The baby is sick the baby is well — a test of environmental communication appeals. J Advert 1995, 24:55-70. 22. Van de Velde L, Verbeke W, Popp M, Van Huylenbroeck G: The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy 2010, 38:5541-5549. 23. Whitmarsh L: Behavioural responses to climate change: asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J Environ Psychol 2009, 29:13-23. 24. Fujii S: Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. J Environ Psychol 2006, 26:262-268. 25. Shaw D, Newholm T: Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychol Mark 2002, 19:167-185. 26. Howell RA: It’s not (just) ‘‘the environment, stupid!’’ Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Global Environ Change 2012, 23:281–290. 27. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA: A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling in concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990, 58:1015-1026. 28. Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR: A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1991, 24:201-234. 29. Ayres I, Raseman S, Shih A: Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments That Peer Comparison Feedback Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage. 2009:. Available at SSRN: http:// ssrn.com/abstract=1434950. 30. Gockertitz S, Schultz PW, Rendon T, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V: Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behaviour: the moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. Eur J Soc Psychol 2010, 40:514-523. 31. Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V: Normative social influence is undetected. Pers Soc Psychol Bullet 2008, 34:913-923. 32. Smith JR, Louis WR, Terry DJ, Greenaway KH, Clarke MR, Cheng X: Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions. J Environ Psychol 2012, 32:353-361. 33. Cialdini RB: Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2003, 12:105-109. 34. Gifford R, Comeau LA: Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environ Change 2011, 21:1301-1307. 35. Gollwitzer PM, Schaal B: Metacognition in action: the importance of implementation intentions. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1998, 2:124-136. 36. Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P: Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 2006, 38:249-268. www.sciencedirect.com
37. Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP: Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009, 106:18452-18456. 38. Verplanken B, Wood W: Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Am Mark Assoc 2006, 25:90-106. 39. Ashworth P, Paxton G, Carr-Cornish S: Reflections on a process for developing public trust in energy technologies: follow-up results of the Australian large group process. Energy Procedia 2011, 4:6322-6329. This paper presents findings from two aspects: first, effectiveness of workshops in engaging the general public on issues such as climate change and energy technologies and second, the influence of factors such as trust, information, social identity and values and beliefs on perceptions and acceptance of a variety of energy technologies. 40. Sklyar AV, Smith JW, Stedman CC: Social Acceptance of Technologies. Worcester, MA: Faculty of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute; 2006. 41. Fischhoff B, Fischhoff I: Public’s opinions about biotechnologies. AgbioForum 2001, 4:155-162. 42. Ashworth P, Pisarski A, Littleboy A: Understanding and incorporating stakeholder perspectives to low emission technologies in Queensland. CSIRO Centre for Low Emission Technology (CLET); Pullenvale, Australia: 2006. 43. Reiner D, Curry T, De Figueredo M, Herzog H, Ansolabehere S, Itaoka K, Akai M, Johnsson F, Odenberger M: American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40:2093-2098. 44. Ashworth P, Carr-Cornish S, Boughen N, Thambimuthu K: Engaging the public on carbon dioxide capture and storage: does a large group process work? Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-9); 16–20 November 2008:4765–4773. 45. Bradbury J, Ray I, Peterson T, Wade S, Wong-Parodi G, Feldpausch A: The role of social factors in shaping public perceptions of CCS: results of multi-state focus group interviews in the U.S.. Energy Procedia 2009, 1:4665-4672. 46. Shackley S, Gough C, McLachlan C: The public perceptions of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK. In Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Edited by Rubin ES, Keith DW, Gilboy CF, Wilson M, Morris T, Gale J, Thambimuthu K. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2005:1699-1704. 47. Ashworth P, Jeanneret T, Gardner J, Shaw H: Communication and Climate Change: What the Australian Public Thinks. Pullenvale: CSIRO; 2011. 48. Reser JP, Pidgeon N, Spence A, Bradley G, Glendon AI, Ellul M: Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings, and Responses to Climate Change in Australia and Great Britain: Interim Report. Queensland, Australia/Wales: Griffith University, Climate Change Response Program/Understanding Risk Centre, Cardiff University; 2011. 49. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ: Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2002. This book outlines five key steps in creating and testing risk messages which are faithful to both science and communication. 50. Wilsdon J, Willis R: See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. Technology and Science, Policymaking, Environment. London, UK: Demos; 2004. 51. Renn O: Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. J Hazard Mater 1992, 29:465-519. 52. Dowd A-M, Boughen N, Ashworth P, Carr-Cornish S: Geothermal technology in Australia: investigating social acceptance. Energy Policy 2011, 39:6301-6307. 53. de Best-Waldhober M, Daamen D, Ramirez Ramirez A, Faaij A, Hendriks C, de Visser E: Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options. Energy Procedia 2008, 1:4795-4802. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
196 Energy systems
54. Brunsting S, Desbarats J, de Best-Waldhober M, Duetschke E, Oltra C, Upham P, Riesch H: The public and CCS: the importance of communication and participation in the context of local realities. Energy Procedia 2010. Paper presented at the GHGT-10 Conference; Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19–23 September 2010: 2010. 55. Abrahamse W, Steg L: How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:191–196
indirect energy use and savings. J Econ Psychol 2009, 30:711-720. 56. Lave J: Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988. 57. Smith MK: ‘Communities of Practice’, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. 2009 In: www.infed.org/biblio/ communities_of_practice.htm. (accessed 23.06.12).
www.sciencedirect.com