Ruth Mourik IEA DSM Task 24 workshop Subtask I preliminary analysis
0 likes420 views
This document discusses subtasks of Task XXIV on behavior change in demand-side management programs. It summarizes several country cases that used different behavioral theories and models in retrofitting and mobility programs. Key observations included that many programs implicitly used behavioral economics but did not address lifestyle or social factors. Evaluation and monitoring also often focused on calculated outcomes rather than actual behavior change. Recommendations were to facilitate more demand-driven and participatory interventions that target collective behavior and social norms.
Ruth Mourik IEA DSM Task 24 workshop Subtask I preliminary analysis
- 1. Subtasks of Task XXIV IEA DSM Implementing Agreement Task 24 Dr Ruth Mourik Operating Agent, IEA DSM workshop Norway May 27-28 2013 Analysing how to start ‘Closing’ the Loop - Behaviour Change in DSM: From Theory to Practice
- 2. 2 Discussing first attempt at analysing templates with cases Subtask 1 1. National experts present from Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Belgium, New Zealand, Netherlands 2. Decide on focus of analysis 3. Collectively draft first set of recommendations target group Task 24 Aim of today
- 3. 3 Helicopter Overview of Models, Frameworks and Disciplines 1. Identify the range of behavioural models/theories in a variety of end-use sectors. 2. Understand the benefits of applying different models to different contexts (target group, targeted behaviour, country, scale, technology, timing etc). 3. Identify monitoring and evaluation metrics. Subtask I
- 4. 4 Key questions in mind when analysing: 1. Impact of a chosen theory or model on design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation? 2. Theoretical perspective best suited to successful outcomes? 3. Elements of interventions that work across implementations? 4. Recommendations for policymakers to facilitate, support, undertake the best deployment of interventions? 5. Issues cross-thematically? Aim of analysis
- 5. 5 Target Audience of Task XXIVTarget themes Analysis work in progress 1. Building retrofits 2. Transport 3. Smart metering: June 4. SMEs: June
- 6. 6 Retrofitting cases Country case Theory or model used P o l i c y o r S o c i e t a l l y driven Netherlands Blok voor Blok aanpak, retrofitting programme Behavioural economics policyNetherlands Energy labelling of houses Behavioural economics policy New Zealand Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smartsocial marketing; social norms; classical economic;TPB policy Switzerland Swiss Building Retrofit Program Classical Economics policySwitzerland 2000 Watts Society (housing) Ethics, long-term visioning policy Norway Myhrerenga Housing Cooperative, a user initiated retrofitting of a housing cooperative TPB societally Sweden Sustainable Järva (Hållbara Järva). Systems approach societally UK Kirklees Warmzone classical economics policy
- 7. 7 ‘Our’ retrofitting projects and programmes use implicitly at least: 1. Classical economics (BvB) 2. Impact on design, implementation, monitoring: • Focus on economic and information deficit barriers • Offer financial benefits or penalise financially • Do not target other motivations • Target mainly/only individual hh level • Focused on one-off investment behaviour • Technocratic/ supply side driven Observations retrofitting 1
- 8. 8 ‘Our’ retrofitting projects and programmes implicitly use: 1. Behavioural economics (Kirklees,WUNZ) • Financial benefits and information • Nudging • Institutional changes • Providing technological or infrastructural support • Target mainly/only individual hh level • Sometimes use social marketing/social norms • Focused on one-off investment behaviour • Technocratic/supply side driven Observations retrofitting 2
- 9. 9 Problematic approaches? Many work well: • subsidy used to the max • Freeriders upgrade their plans • Many homes insulated • Sometimes even a new norm seems to be emerging… But: • One-off programmes, no continuity after insulation • Paradox: demand for information! • A lot of prefinancing required… • Only financial and technological tailoring • Hardly no flexibility or participation • Only fostering self-interested motivations (money): bigger picture ignored • Not focused on changing use patterns (routine behaviour) So: danger of rebound And:Will this really change the building sector? Observations retrofitting 3
- 10. 10 Several of ‘our’ retrofitting cases use (behavioural) economics + more sociological, STS like approaches (SJ,WUNZ, MY) 1. Longer term perspective 2. Collaboration of multiple parties: multiple benefits 3. Focus on creating trusted messengers and market parties (audits, certification schemes, quality standards, energy labeling, provider training etc) 4. More focus on institutional capacity building 5. Targeting needs central: also non-energy! 6. More pre-scoping to understand what and why of behaviour 7. More engagement and participation/co-design 8. Peer to peer training 9. Targeting social norms 10. Focus on lifestyles: beyond retrofitting Observations retrofitting 4
- 11. 11 What about targets, monitoring and evaluation? • Not a lot of monitoring (more evaluation) • Often one-off monitoring, not always check • Monitoring + evaluation : technological, financial • Area insulated, C)2 reduction, number of subsidies, number of homes reached • Modelled, not real savings (! Misuse, rebound, spin-offs) • Not a lot of benchmarking (ok for retrofitting) • No flexibility: easy monitoring/evaluation • What about feedback to hh? Hardly ever taking place in economic informed programmes…. Up to hh to do it.. • Some also analysed opinions of hh: allows for more effective future programmes: social learning Observations retrofitting 5
- 12. 12 What about targets, monitoring and evaluation? Some programmes monitor and evaluate more: • Number participating 3rd parties • Social norm • Industry growth, job growth • Humidity, room temperature • Sometimes more energy use is good! Too narrow evaluation is missing the point…: decrease sickdays, fewer days off school, less GP visits • Flexibility: challenge (BvB) and opportunity (Swiss) equality (NZ) • Small, bottum-up: challenge • More systemic monitoring better? • Social learning and experimenting? Observations retrofitting 6
- 13. 13 1. Difficult to assess success: 1. CE, BE informed interventions ‘easy’ to assess but mainly only cost effectiveness and calculated savings 2. System perspective interventions difficult to calculate 2. Theories or models mainly used implicitly? 3. Retrofitting not very visible/difficult to create desire through visibility (labels are opportunity) 4. Retrofitting can be gateway, point of passage to habit change 5. Monitoring and evaluation often not meaningful 6. Monitoring and feedback can be powerful creators of social norms General conclusions retrofitting....
- 14. 14 1. Too little attention for lifestyle and social dimension and end-users need and demands? 2. More evidence based policy based on actual pre-scoping? 3. Facilitate demand driven interventions? But how to monitor? 4. Supply driven ok, but then also tackle infra, institutional and technological market development 5. Target the collective? 6. Does it make sense to go one by one (e.g. Subsidy programmes)? General conclusions retrofitting....
- 15. 15 Mobility cases Country Name of Programme Theory or model used Policy or Societally driven Netherlands The New Driving, Het nieuwe Rijden Psychological theories on motivations PolicyNetherlands Congestion pricing, spitsmijden Behavioural economics policy New Zealand Fuel Efficient Driver Training ProgrammeValue Action gap policyNew Zealand Active A2B programme Norm Activation Theory policy Switzerland 2000Watts mobility policySwitzerland Purchasing of fuel efficient cars Theory Planned Behaviour Norm Activation Theory policy Norway Nobil : a database for an EV charging grid informational system Theory Planned Behaviour policy Sweden Stockholm congestion pricing transport project and Sustainable Jarvä? Activity based models policy
- 16. 16 Several of ‘our’ mobility cases (driving, buying, using) are (often explicitly!) informed by theories and models from psychology 1. Murray & Sachs descriptive psychological theory on motivations car use (socio-historical value car with psychological needs) 2. Theory of Planned Behaviour (behaviour influenced by intention, intention influenced by attitude and norms and perceived behavioural control) 3. Value Action Gap theory (criticism on reasoned action) : behaviour complex process with social, individual and institutional barriers (individual, responsibility, practical) 4. Norm Activation Theory: social norms need to be activated by cues and reminders 5. Time geography… Observations mobility 1
- 17. 17 Several of ‘our’ mobility cases (driving, buying, using) are (often explicitly!) informed by theories and models from psychology 1. Murray Sacs: New driving NL: • target feeling of power/status (reduce it) • Recommendation: Create new institutions, infra, tech and social norms and concrete actions to perform • In practice…. • feedback on individual level from car, but not monitored 2. NAM:Active a2b: • target habits, other needs: health and wellbeing: • Provided cues and reminders, commitment, personal support • no infra… • Normalising norms through storytelling • Leveraging change moments • Feedback on individual and personal level Observations mobility 2
- 18. 18 Several of ‘our’ mobility cases (driving, buying, using) are (often explicitly!) informed by theories and models from psychology 1. TPB: Swiss and Norwegian purchasing programmes: • targeting information deficit, • communicating new social norm 2. VAG: driver training • Use trusted and respected role model trainers • Tailor to end-users • Show the gap, train closing the gap • Normalising norm through storytelling • Collective level: involved direct social environment 3. Time geography (Swedish pricing) • Nudging via infra, new parking, enhanced public transport • Tax levy Observations mobility 3
- 19. 19 Evaluation and monitoring • How to evaluate success: • Many outcomes (symbolic meaning change, social norm) very difficult to measure • A lot of interrelated factors influencing “measurable” outcomes (air quality, traffic accidents) • So often evaluation based on calculated cost effectiveness… • Actual change hardly ever measured, self reported or calculated is the standard…underuse of tech options? • Evaluating cost-effectiveness. Distributive issues? • Mismatch between aims and monitoring evaluation? Active a2b: health and wellbeing monitored? • Often targets are on societal level but actions on individual.. Observations mobility 4
- 20. 20 1. Theories or models mainly used explicitly…? 2. Storytelling very powerful to avoid social dilemma 3. Peer training essential (learning to cycle, drive, save fuel) 4. Programmes hardly ever about sustainability or money! 5. Mostly all do pre-scoping! Evidence based… 6. Importance of urban design and accompanying infra appreciated 7. Capacity building and habit breaking central to many programmes. 8. Often mix of interventions 9. Getting people to use the car less proves difficult (Sweden exception?), mostly about using it differently…. 10. Direct social environment hardly tackled (work, family, friends, colleagues) General conclusions mobility
- 21. 21 We need to make decisions on: Select case studies to focus on in Subtask 2? 1. Use subtask 2 outcomes of inventory country specific and domain specific questions? e.g. NL: • Buildings: principal agent issues and acceptance of retrofitting • Transport: how to reduce and shift use, how to deal with the meaning of the car • SMEs: black box.... what can SMEs actually do? • Smart Metering: interfacing, feedback, trust, who is to do it, control issues 2. Which target group we are doing this analysis for and how to present the findings to them? • Intermediaries/practitioners • Policymakers • (Research) funders/investors • Technology developers, industry Open Q to be discussed today