The role of behaviour in the transition to more energy efficient use at home – Lessons from Portugal

The role of behaviour in the transition to more energy
efficient use at home – Lessons from Portugal

Ana Sofia Torres Faria
MBA in International Industrial Management from the Esslingen University of Applied Science (DE, 2003)
‘European Degree in International Management’ (DEMI) from the University of Valenciennes et du Hainaut-
Cambresis (FR, 2002)
Degree in International Management from the RSM Erasmus University (NL, 2001)
Degree in Economics from the Universidade do Minho (PT, 2001)

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of a Doctor of Philosophy
December 2014

Engineering and Innovation Department
Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology
The Open University

I
Abstract
This study investigated domestic energy use behaviours in Portugal and ways of reducing energy use. This is
important because current energy use in the developed world is considered to be unsustainable.
Intervention strategies could play an important role to reduce energy use. While some previous research
has demonstrated that certain intervention strategies did, or did not, produce changes in behaviour, they
mostly could not sufficiently explain the underlying and impacting determinants, or how change came
about and led to the desired adoption, whether short or long-term, of more energy efficient behaviours.
This study therefore aims to explore how the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home could
be encouraged. With this the research has the objective to better understand the different determinants of
energy use at home, the underlying motivations, barriers and potential intervention strategies. To achieve
this the study uses an exploratory and iterative multi-method approach consisting of survey questionnaires,
followed by qualitative research through focus groups targeted at energy users at home, and also individual
in-depth interviews with energy conservation intervention practitioners.
The findings of this research show that if the rate of adoption of more energy efficient behaviours is to
increase, then interventions that are focusing on providing information or financial incentives, are unlikely
to work for a large proportion of energy users. Instead, the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at
home is seen to depend on the ability of intervention strategies to challenge existing norms, thus creating
new understandings, expectations and utilization of energy services that could manifest in the adoption of
more energy efficient behaviours. With this findings also suggest that community-based initiatives might be
an adequate means to challenge social norms and to bring about change.

II
Declaration

This is to certify that:

The thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD except where indicated, due
acknowledgements have been made in the text to all other material used, the thesis is less than 100,000
words in length, inclusive of all footnotes, bibliographies and appendices.

_____________
Ana Faria
December 2014

III
Acknowledgments
First and foremost I would like to thank my partner in life Andreas for challenging me at first and supporting
me afterwards from the very beginning of my journey until today. I would like to extend my gratitude to my
parents who on their singular way have always supported me throughout these years. My PhD journey
started out of a passion for the area I work in and the vast number of on-going open questions to explore.
Having said that, I would like to thank the Open University and Professor Joaquim Borges Gouveia,
President of the board of Energaia, for the opportunity provided by granting me the right and flexibility to
carry out my PhD work within a joint enterprise / academic partnership. I would like to extend my
acknowledgement to my current and former work colleagues, in particular to the 2 Js (João and José) for
their support, and for all the fruitful talks and companionships.
With regards to the actual body of this work I’d like to express my gratitude to the Entidade Reguladora do
Sector Energético (ERSE) for selecting the Energyprofiler project for funding, which supported my research
at its initial stage. It was within the scope of this project that I had the pleasure to work together with a
highly skilled and motivated team and to learn how to become a researcher through practice. This
collaboration brought up a number of opportunities that would have been difficult to realize otherwise. The
Energyprofiler project provided me with the opportunity to explore the topic on a larger, national scale that
otherwise would have been difficult to achieve. The project also allowed me to work together with Dalila
Antunes and Rui Gaspar, who were that patient to walk me through the initial SPSS steps and with time
became long-term colleagues. I’d also like to express my gratitude to those FG participants and individual
interviewees, who I shall not name, but who worked with me together on my research and dedicated parts
of their time to answer my questions and allowed me to proceed with my research. A special thank you to
André, who took part of this research, and with whom unfortunately I will not be able to share this work.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank Dr Christian Atkins, Dr Nii Amoo and Dr Kieran Mervyn who have
worked as external reviewers and proof readers.
Finally I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Christine Thomas, Dr Emma Dewberry and initially also
Professor Marylyn Carrigan who supported me in the initial phase, as well as the wider MCT team for the
support and guidance provided to me.

IV
Table of contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. I
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................................. III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ IV
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ X
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ XII
LIST OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... XIII
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 ENERGY USE AND SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 MOTIVATIONS AND BARRIERS TO ENERGY USE ................................................................................................. 3
1.3 ENERGY USE AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE .......................................................................................................... 5
1.4 AIM OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.6 RESEARCH PROCESS AND INFORMATION FLOW ................................................................................................ 8
1.6.1 Research process ........................................................................................................................... 8
1.6.2 Information flow ............................................................................................................................ 9
1.7 THE RESEARCH WITHIN THE PORTUGUESE CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 11
2 ENERGY USE AND SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................... 15
2.1 DOMESTIC ENERGY USE ............................................................................................................................ 15
2.1.1 Invisibility of energy use .............................................................................................................. 18
2.1.2 Energy use and energy saving at home ....................................................................................... 19
2.2 DETERMINANTS OF ENERGY USE AT HOME .................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1 Social and cultural influences ...................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2 Comfort, convenience and needs ................................................................................................. 23
2.2.3 Norms and energy efficiency ....................................................................................................... 23
2.2.4 Economic influences .................................................................................................................... 25

V
2.2.5 Income levels and energy poverty ............................................................................................... 26
2.2.6 Demographic trends .................................................................................................................... 27
2.2.7 The role of infrastructure and technological factors in influencing energy use at home ............ 28
2.2.8 The rebound effect and its influence on determining energy use at home ................................. 29
2.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................ 31
3 ENERGY USE BEHAVIOURS: MOTIVATIONS AND BARRIERS ............................................................... 33
3.1 MOTIVATIONS FOR SAVING ENERGY AT HOME ............................................................................................... 33
3.2 PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: A MOTIVATIONAL VARIABLE OR BARRIER TO BEHAVIOUR? ................................... 33
3.3 BARRIERS TO ADOPTING MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT BEHAVIOURS ........................................................................ 37
3.3.1 Monetary focus as a barrier ........................................................................................................ 37
3.3.2 External/macro barriers: policy based, structural and economic barriers ................................... 37
3.3.3 Knowledge based barriers ........................................................................................................... 39
3.3.4 Cultural – normative and social barriers ..................................................................................... 40
3.4 INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIERS ........................................................................................................ 40
3.4.1 Habits as a barrier ....................................................................................................................... 41
3.4.2 Comfort as a psychological barrier .............................................................................................. 41
3.4.3 Individual beliefs and self-efficacy as a barrier ............................................................................ 42
3.4.4 Resistance and unwillingness to change as a barrier .................................................................. 44
4 ENERGY USE AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES ................................................................................. 48
4.1 ENERGY USE, INTERVENTIONS AND SUPPORTIVE FRAMEWORKS ......................................................................... 49
4.1.1 Potential intervention layers ....................................................................................................... 53
4.2 BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE, COMMUNICATION AND PERSUASION ........................................................................... 54
4.2.1 Persuasion and communication .................................................................................................. 57
4.2.2 Mental models and communication ............................................................................................ 58
4.2.3 Behavioural change, and relevant and supportive communication ............................................ 59
4.3 STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS .................................................................................................................... 59
4.3.1 Financial-economic interventions ................................................................................................ 60
4.3.2 Physical/technical interventions .................................................................................................. 60

VI
4.3.3 Legal regulation ........................................................................................................................... 60
4.4 PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS ................................................................................................................ 61
4.4.1 Information provision .................................................................................................................. 62
4.4.2 Commitment and goal setting ..................................................................................................... 65
4.4.3 Behavioural intervention through design .................................................................................... 66
4.4.4 Rewards and punishments .......................................................................................................... 67
4.4.5 Learning theories and modelling ................................................................................................. 69
4.4.6 Social learning community based approaches ............................................................................ 70
4.5 COMBINED STRUCTURAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS ............................................................................. 71
4.5.1 Prompting strategies ................................................................................................................... 71
4.5.2 Feedback provision ...................................................................................................................... 72
4.5.3 Monitoring systems and metering ............................................................................................... 73
4.5.4 Social marketing .......................................................................................................................... 74
5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN .......................................................................................... 79
5.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ON AVAILABLE METHODS ............................................................................................... 80
5.1.1 Inductive or deductive ................................................................................................................. 80
5.1.2 Subjective or objective ................................................................................................................. 81
5.1.3 Positivism or constructivism ........................................................................................................ 81
5.1.4 Qualitative or quantitative .......................................................................................................... 82
5.1.5 Available research instruments ................................................................................................... 84
5.1.5.1 Surveys and survey questionnaires ...................................................................................................... 85
5.1.5.2 Thematic analysis .................................................................................................................................. 85
5.1.5.3 Content analysis ................................................................................................................................... 86
5.1.5.4 Comparative analysis ............................................................................................................................ 86
5.1.5.5 In-depth individual interviews .............................................................................................................. 86
5.1.5.6 Telephone interviews ........................................................................................................................... 86
5.1.5.7 Grounded theory .................................................................................................................................. 87
5.1.5.8 Action research ..................................................................................................................................... 88
5.1.5.9 Focus groups ......................................................................................................................................... 88

VII
5.1.5.10 Direct participant observation ............................................................................................................ 89
5.2 METHODS USED ...................................................................................................................................... 90
5.3 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................................... 93
5.3.1 Survey questionnaire and data analysis methodology ................................................................ 94
5.3.2 Question added for the specific purpose of this research work ................................................... 96
5.4 FOCUS GROUPS ....................................................................................................................................... 98
5.4.1 Focus group objectives ................................................................................................................ 99
5.4.2 Focus group composition ........................................................................................................... 101
5.5 IN-DEPTH INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................ 104
5.5.1 Interview objectives ................................................................................................................... 104
5.5.2 Sampling of interviewees ........................................................................................................... 105
5.6 SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL STUDY METHODS ................................................................................................. 106
5.7 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS: FOCUS GROUP AND IN-DEPTH INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS ......................................... 107
5.8 RESEARCH ETHICS .................................................................................................................................. 108
5.9 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 109
6 EXPLORING DOMESTIC ENERGY USE ............................................................................................... 111
6.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF DOMESTIC ENERGY USE .............................................................................................. 111
6.1.1 Invisibility as a distinctive characteristic of energy use ............................................................. 111
6.1.2 The fundamental role of domestic energy use .......................................................................... 116
6.2 DETERMINANTS OF DOMESTIC ENERGY USE ................................................................................................ 116
6.2.1 Relation of behaviour and energy use ....................................................................................... 117
6.2.2 Building characteristics .............................................................................................................. 121
6.2.3 Growing number of home appliances ........................................................................................ 121
6.2.4 Energy efficient home appliances and overall energy prices ..................................................... 122
6.2.5 The evolution of cultural and social norms ................................................................................ 125
6.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................................................................................................... 127
7 FACTORS INFLUENCING ENERGY USE AT HOME .............................................................................. 135
7.1 MOTIVATIONAL VARIABLES AND ENERGY EFFICIENT BEHAVIOURS .................................................................... 135
7.1.1 The motivation for saving money .............................................................................................. 135

VIII
7.1.2 Pro-environmental behaviour and pro-social motivations ........................................................ 137
7.1.3 Needs and expectations and its relation to motivation for saving energy ................................ 144
7.2 BARRIERS FOR ADOPTING MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT BEHAVIOURS ..................................................................... 144
7.2.1 External/macro barriers: policy based, structural and economic barriers ................................. 145
7.2.2 Knowledge based barriers ......................................................................................................... 147
7.2.3 Cultural-normative-social barriers ............................................................................................. 152
7.3 INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AS A BARRIER ..................................................................................... 154
7.3.1 Habits as an obstacle to the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours ............................. 154
7.3.2 Comfort and convenience .......................................................................................................... 157
7.3.3 Efficacy and outcome expectations ........................................................................................... 158
7.3.4 Resistance to and unwillingness to change ............................................................................... 161
8 INTERVENTION STRATEGIES AND PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................... 170
8.1 COMMUNICATION DESIGN AND PERSUASION .............................................................................................. 171
8.2 STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS .................................................................................................................. 173
8.2.1 Rewards and punishments ........................................................................................................ 173
8.2.2 Incentives and samples .............................................................................................................. 174
8.2.3 Labelling .................................................................................................................................... 175
8.2.4 Demonstrating and facilitating ................................................................................................. 177
8.2.5 Intervention through design ...................................................................................................... 178
8.3 PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS .............................................................................................................. 179
8.3.1 Targeted face-to-face information ............................................................................................ 179
8.3.2 Information and communication campaigns ............................................................................ 180
8.3.3 Education interventions ............................................................................................................. 183
8.3.4 Community based interventions ................................................................................................ 184
8.4 COMBINED STRUCTURAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS ............................................................................ 185
8.4.1 Information, feedback and monitoring equipment ................................................................... 185
8.4.2 Smart metering and prompting strategies ................................................................................ 187
8.4.3 Information, feedback and energy bills ..................................................................................... 188

IX
9 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 196
9.1 SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 196
9.1.1 RQ1: What explains energy use at home? ................................................................................. 196
9.1.2 RQ2: What influences energy use at home? .............................................................................. 197
9.1.3 RQ3: What is the potential role of intervention strategies on energy use at home? ................ 199
9.2 KEY FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 200
9.2.1 Importance to challenge the understanding of normal ............................................................. 201
9.2.2 Invisibility of energy and its implications ................................................................................... 202
9.2.3 Financial motivations to save energy ........................................................................................ 202
9.2.4 Knowledge, competence and self-efficacy ................................................................................. 203
9.2.5 Energy efficient behaviour and outcome efficacy ...................................................................... 203
9.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................ 204
9.4 SUGGESTED FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................ 204
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 206
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 226
APPENDIX I: ENERGYPROFILER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................... 226
APPENDIX II: REDUCED VERSION - FG QUESTIONNAIRE BEFORE DISCUSSION ................................................................ 234
APPENDIX III: CONSUMER INTERVIEW ROADMAP ................................................................................................... 235
APPENDIX IV: PRACTITIONER INTERVIEW ROADMAP ............................................................................................... 238
APPENDIX V: LIST OF ANSWERS FOR QUESTION 6 OF EP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING ENERGY SAVING REPORTED
BEHAVIOURS .................................................................................................................................................. 240
APPENDIX VI: – LIST OF ANSWERS FOR QUESTION 15 OF EP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING ENERGY SAVING REPORTED
BEHAVIOURS .................................................................................................................................................. 241
APPENDIX VII: VARIABLES DEFINED DURING ENERGYPROFILER STUDY ......................................................................... 242
APPENDIX VIII: – LIST OF ANSWERS FOR QUESTION Q16 OF EP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (REPORTED BARRIERS AND
CONSTRAINTS) ................................................................................................................................................ 243
APPENDIX IX: – LIST OF IDENTIFIED BARRIERS DURING THE FG ................................................................................. 244
APPENDIX X: – SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION WITH REGARD TO REGION, GENDER, AGE GROUPS AND RURAL/URBAN AREA ............ 245

X
List of Figures
FIGURE 1-1: THE THREE MAIN PILLARS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
SOCIAL EQUALITY, (KENNEDY, 2011). ................................................................................................................. 2
FIGURE 1-2: THE RELATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL ENERGY RELATED BEHAVIOUR AND BARRIERS TO CHANGE, (BARENERGY, 2011).
................................................................................................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 1-3: SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF RESEARCH DESIGN. .................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 1-4: SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION FLOW. ............................................................................... 10
FIGURE 2-1: DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN HOUSEHOLDS BY SOURCE TYPE IN 2010, (INE, 2011; INE I.P./DGEG,
2011). ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 2-2: DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN HOUSEHOLDS BY USE TYPE IN 2010, (INE I.P./DGEG, 2011). ........ 18
FIGURE 2-3: MAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND EMERGENCE OF CONSUMPTION PRACTICES, (EEA, 2013).
................................................................................................................................................................. 20
FIGURE 2-4: AN ACTOR-STRUCTURE MODEL OF CONSUMPTION, (ADAPTED FROM SPAARGAREN AND VAN VLIET (2000)). ....... 22
FIGURE 3-1: DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE CONDITIONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN EFFICACY BELIEFS AND OUTCOME
EXPECTANCIES (ADAPTED FROM BANDURA (1977B), P. 350). ............................................................................... 43
FIGURE 4-1: REDUCING CAR USE: FACTORS AFFECTING BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE, (PRENDERGRAST ET AL. 2008, P. 104). ........... 50
FIGURE 4-2: DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE 4E’S MODEL, (DEFRA, 2008, P. 53). ............................................ 52
FIGURE 4-3: MINDSPACE’S INFLUENCES ON BEHAVIOUR, (DOLAN, 2010). ...................................................................... 52
FIGURE 4-4: THE RELATION BETWEEN MATERIAL, SOCIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CONTEXTS, ADAPTED FROM SOUTHERTON ET AL.
(2011). ...................................................................................................................................................... 53
FIGURE 4-5: THE RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY USE DETERMINANTS, MOTIVATIONS, BARRIERS TO CHANGE AND TYPES OF
INTERVENTION, ADAPTED FROM, (BARENERGY, 2011). ........................................................................................ 54
FIGURE 5-1: RESEARCH DESIGN FROM INITIAL FRAMING TO IMPLEMENTATION. ................................................................. 79
FIGURE 7-1: AVERAGE VALUES FOR RISK PERCEPTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND ATTITUDE, KNOWLEDGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BEHAVIOUR [N=1.014, F (2.89 , 2914.70) = 434.73, P = .000, Η
2
=.57], (ENERGYPROFILER, 2011). .................... 139
FIGURE 7-2: VALUES FOR ATTITUDE, KNOWLEDGE AND RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS ENERGY USE [N=1.014; F (2.89 , 2914.70) =
434.73, P = .000, Η
2
=.57], (ENERGYPROFILER, 2011). ................................................................................... 140
FIGURE 7-3: REPORTED PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOURS [N=1.014], (ENERGYPROFILER, 2011). ................................. 141
FIGURE 7-4: REASONS FOR NOT SAVING ENERGY AT HOME – RESPONSES FROM FGS ........................................................ 145
FIGURE 7-5: FREQUENCY OF CATEGORY GROUPS OF BARRIERS DURING FGS. ................................................................... 145

XI
FIGURE 7-6: ENERGY EFFICIENT BEHAVIOURS DISCUSSED DURING THE FGS. .................................................................... 151
FIGURE 8-1: TYPE OF INTERVENTIONS IN RELATION TO THE BARRIERS THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED. ...................................... 170

XII
List of Tables
TABLE 5-1 – FOCUS GROUP ROADMAP AND TECHNIQUES USED. ................................................................................... 100
TABLE 5-2 – SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES. ..................................................................................................... 106
TABLE 5-3 – CONTENT ANALYSIS. ........................................................................................................................... 108
TABLE 6-1 – RELATION IN BETWEEN CHAPTER AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS. ..................................................................... 111
TABLE 6 -2 – REPORTED ENERGY EFFICIENT BEHAVIOURS [N=1.014], (ENERGYPROFILER, 2011). ...................................... 119
TABLE 6-3 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RELATING TO RQ1 ............................................................................................ 128
TABLE 7-1 – COMPOSITE SCALES [N=1.014, F (2.89 , 2914.70) = 434.73, P = .000, Η2 =.57], (ENERGYPROFILER, 2011)..
....................................................................................................................................................................... 138
TABLE 7-2 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RELATING TO RQ2. ........................................................................................... 164
TABLE 8-1 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RELATING TO RQ3 ............................................................................................ 193

XIII
List of Terminology and Abbreviations
Attitudes: “relatively enduring predisposition to respond favourably or unfavourably” towards something,
(Simons, 1976, p. 80) influencing consumption patterns, recommendation to others, beliefs and intentions”,
(Schiffman & Kanuk, 1999, pp. 199-200)
Attitude-Behaviour Gap: positive attitudes do not necessarily lead to behaviour, (Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002), a phenomenon also known within pro-environmental behaviours, since general positive pro-
environmental attitudes do not seem to be particular important predictors of environmentally significant
behaviour, (Bamberg, 2003; Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004; Schultz, Oskamp, & Mainieri, 1995; Thøgersen,
2004).
Behaviour: the result of multiple conscious and unconscious processes as well as internal (psychological
variables such as norms, beliefs or values) and external variables (e.g. social, economic physical), drivers and
constraints, personal capabilities, or habits and routines, (Jackson, 2005; Nye, Whitmarsh, & Foxon, 2010;
Stern, 2000).
Behavioural change intervention: Generic and specific interventions to support a change in behaviour at
the individual and population level. In the environmental context it can be understood as a change in the
patterns of consumption of resources, (Committee on Climate Change [CCC], 2012).
Behaviour-Based Programs: Energy efficiency programs that utilize an understanding of how individuals
interact with energy in order to decrease energy demand, (American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy [ACEEE], n.d.).
Beliefs: psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true, (Schwitzgebel,
2010), which in terms of behaviour could be the “salient information, relevant to the behaviour”, (Ajzen,
1991, p. 189).
Biocapacity: the area of land and productive oceans actually available to produce renewable resources and
absorb CO2 emissions, (World Wide Fund for Nature [WWF], 2012). Biocapacity quantifies nature’s capacity
to produce renewable resources, provide land for built-up areas and provide waste absorption services such
as carbon uptake. Biocapacity acts as an ecological benchmark against which the Ecological Footprint can be

XIV
compared. Both the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are expressed in a common unit called a global
hectare, where 1 gha represents a biologically productive hectare with world average productivity.
CID: For the purpose of this research CID stands for ‘Consumer Interview’ meaning the 3 interviews that
were performed to consumers selected from the focus group that had been performed as part of the
empirical study.
Collective efficacy: “sense of collective efficacy” does exist where individuals can solve their problems and
improve their lives through concerted effort, (Bandura, 1986, p. 449).
Comprehensive Home Energy Audits: An assessment of a home’s energy use that includes a visual
inspection, diagnostic testing, analysis, and a list of proposed improvements, ending with guidance to
complete the work, or actual completion of the work, (ACEEE, n.d.).
Concept, conception or construct: abstract object, or a mental representation, e.g. wellbeing, depression,
poverty, achievement, family. They are not only the building blocks of theory, but they also form the link
between theory and empirical research, (Bergman, 2010).
Consumerism: emphasis on or preoccupation with the acquisition of consumer goods, (Oxford University
Press, 2013).
Consumption: the “human transformation of materials and energy”, (Royal Society of London & U.S.
National Academy of Sciences, 1997, p. 684), requiring the “selection, use, disposal, and recycling of goods
and services”, (Campbell, 1995, p. 102).
Curtailment behaviours: behaviours that must be performed frequently, involving repetitive efforts to
reduce energy, and involve more operational day to day habits and routines, such as lowering the
thermostat, turning lights and appliances off, (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2005; Gardner &
Stern, 2002).
Demand-Side Management: The planning, implementation, and monitoring of utility activities designed to
encourage consumers to modify patterns of electricity usage, including the timing and level of electricity
demand, (U.S. Energy Information Agency [EIA], 2013).

XV
Descriptive norm: what most people do; the perception individuals hold about what is normal in a given
situation, (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990).
Dwelling: a self-contained unit of accommodation, (Department for Communities and Local Government
[DCLG], 2012).
Ecological Footprint: tracks humanity’s demands on the biosphere by comparing humanity’s consumption
against the Earth’s regenerative capacity, or biocapacity, by calculating the area required to produce the
resources people consume, the area occupied by infrastructure, and the area of forest required for
sequestering CO2 not absorbed by the ocean, (Galli et al., 2007; Kitzes et al., 2009; Wackernagel et al.,
2002).
Efficacy expectations: “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce
outcomes”, (Bandura, 1977a, p. 193).
Efficiency behaviours: infrequent type of behaviours, like for example one-off actions, which often entail an
investment, such as loft or cavity wall insulation, or buying an energy efficient air conditioner. Commonly
also referred to as ‘efficiency behaviours’ or ‘investment behaviours’, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner &
Stern, 2002; Kempton, Boster, & Hartley, 1995).
Energy Audit: assessment of a home's energy use. These include a number of different types of surveys,
including (in increasing order of cost and complexity): online audits, in-home home energy surveys,
diagnostic home energy surveys, and comprehensive home energy audits, (ACEEE, n.d.).
Energy Conservation: reduction in the amount of energy consumed in a process or system, or by an
organization or society, through economy, elimination of waste, and rational use, (BusinessDictionary, n.d.).
Saving energy by doing with less or doing without (e.g., setting thermostats lower in winter and higher in
summer; turning off lights; taking shorter showers; turning off air conditioners; etc.), (ACEEE, n.d.).
Energy efficiency: ratio of ‘useful’ outputs to energy inputs for a system. The system in question may be an
individual energy conversion device (e.g. a boiler), a building, an industrial process, a firm, a sector or an
entire economy, (Sorrell, 2007). Percentage of total energy input to a machine or equipment that is
consumed in useful work and not wasted as useless heat, (BusinessDictionary, n.d.).

XVI
Energy efficiency gap: difference between the ‘actual energy efficiency’ and the ‘potential efficiency’,
meaning part of the efficiency gain due to technological developments is being ‘taken back’, (Feenstra,
Backhaus, & Heiskanen, 2009).
Energy Efficiency Measure: particular good or practice that provides an energy efficiency benefit. Upgraded
insulation, energy efficient appliances, and adjusting a boiler’s limit control are examples of measures,
(ACEEE, n.d.).
Energy Efficiency Potential: amount of energy savings possible, (ACEEE, n.d.).
Energy Management System: computerized system for fully automatic control of HVAC, lighting,
refrigeration, and other commercial building subsystems in order to accurately manage and monitor indoor
temperature, comfort, and environmental quality. An EMS often saves energy and money by operating
systems only when needed and by allowing time-of-day scheduling and peak load shedding control, (ACEEE,
n.d.).
Energy services: these are the services that people gain from using energy and include warm rooms, hot
water, a well-lit home and refrigerated food, (Environmental Change Institute [ECI], 2005)
Energy Performance Certificate (EPC): The certificate provides a rating for residential and commercial
buildings, showing their energy efficiency based on the performance of the building itself and its services
(such as heating and lighting). EPCs are required whenever a building is built, sold or rented out, (CCC,
2012).
Environmentally Significant Behaviour (ESB): a behaviour that does not “threaten human health, welfare,
or other things people value”, (Stern, 1997, p. 15) and that is characterized by its “positive impact on the
availability of materials or energy from the environment and/or by the extent to which the behaviours
positively alter the structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere”, (Stern, 2000, p. 408).
EP: For the purpose of this research EP stands for ‘energyprofiler study’ as had been conducted within the
empirical work.
FG: For the purpose of this research FG stands for ‘Focus Group’ as they had been conducted within the
empirical work.

XVII
Habits: Even though this work is aware of the different understanding from the fields of psychology and
sociology of the habits construct, it is not within the scope of this research to advocate for one or the other
understanding. As a result of this, habits, routines and practices might be used interchangeably meaning
individuals running on autopilot, (Grist, 2010).
Household: one person or a group of people who have the accommodation as their only or main residence
and either share at least one meal a day, or share the living room, (DCLG, 2012).
Information-Behaviour Gap: disconnection between knowledge hold and behaviour outcome, (Jackson,
2005; Schultz, 2002; Southerton, McMeekin, & Evans, 2011; Stern, 1999).
Injunctive social norm: what ought to be done; explicitly reflect the moral rules and guidelines of the social
group, (Cialdini et al., 1990, 1991).
Lifestyles: the way people live their life, fulfil their needs and aspirations, through the mediation of goods
that are closely linked to material and resource flows, (Backhaus, Breukers, Mont, Paukovic, & Mourik,
2012).
Moral norms: an altruistic behaviour results once a moral norm is activated. This activation occurs once an
individual becomes aware that his or her behaviour has possible negative consequences for others and is
willing to take personal responsibility for the others’ well-being, (Schwartz, 1970, 1977).
Norms: “rules and standards that are understood by members of a group and that guide and/or constrain
social behaviour without the force of laws”, (Cialdini & Trost, 1998, p. 152).
Outcome expectancy: “a person’s estimate that a given behaviour will lead to certain outcomes”, (Bandura,
1977a, p. 193).
Perceived Behavioural Control: individual’s belief about the easiness or difficulty of performing a given
behaviour, (Ajzen & Madden, 1986).
Personal Carbon Alliances: With PCAs, each adult has an equal carbon allocation to cover purchases of gas,
electricity, petrol and aviation. The PCA brings home to the individual, in a forceful way, the amount of
carbon being released through daily activities, (ECI, 2005).

XVIII
Personal norms: feelings of strong moral obligation that people experienced to engage in pro-social
behaviour, (Schwartz, 1970, 1977).
PID: For the purpose of this research PID stands for ‘Provider Interview’, meaning the 3 interviews that were
performed to people working for intervention providers within the energy area.
Price elasticity: the percentage change in one variable following a percentage change in another, holding
other variables constant, (Sorrell, 2007).
Rebound effect: also known as ‘take-back effect’, is measured by the difference between the projected and
actual savings due to increased efficiency and is normally expressed as a percentage of the expected energy
savings from an energy efficiency improvement, (Sorrell, 2007).
Self-efficacy: “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required to
attain designated types of performances”, (Bandura, 1986, p. 395).
Single-Action Bias: tendency people have to engage into single corrective actions and therefore ‘doing their
bit’ thus increasing the resistance and decreasing the need of taking additional actions, (Weber, 1997).
Smart Meters: An advanced electricity meter that uses real time sensors to provide information on power
consumption and price, (ACEEE, n.d.).
Social Marketing: the application of marketing principles and tools to achieve socially desirable goals,
(Andreasen, 1995; Kotler & Zaltman, 1971).
Social Norms: unwritten rules and expectations that frame appropriate and inappropriate expectations and
behaviours within a group of individuals, (Lewis, 1969).
Spillover effect: term used to describe the transferability across behaviours and contexts between one kind
of environmental behaviour and another, (Thøgersen & Ølander, 2002).
Subjective norm: individual perception about what other people who are important to him/her think of the
specific behaviour, rather than the individual personal belief about the morality of the given behaviour,
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).

XIX
Sustainable development: “the kind of development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, (United Nations [UN], 1987).
Sustainable consumption: “the use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring a better
quality of life, while minimising the use of natural resources, toxic materials and emissions of waste and
pollutants over the life cycle, so as not to jeopardise the needs of future generations”, (Norwegian Ministry
of the Environment, 1994).
Values: Considered by some, as the hardest thing to change, (Andreasen, 1995; Kotler, Roberto, & Roberto,
1989), values might be overall defined as “a desirable trans-situational goal varying in importance, which
serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity”, (Schwartz, 1992, p. 21).

1. Introduction

1
1 Introduction
Current energy use in the developed world is considered to be unsustainable with energy consumption and
production patterns undermining sustainable development and the equitable distribution of resources
worldwide, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [IPCC], 2007; Stern, 2007). To achieve more
sustainable energy use levels requires a combination of cultural and technological advances and innovation
in the design of social and institutional systems and systems of production and consumption, (Cole, 2011).
However, although such changes at societal level are likely to lead to some reductions in energy use at the
household level, it is recognised that significant change in household energy consumption is unlikely to
occur without changes in individuals’ energy usage behaviours. To achieve the goal of sustainable levels of
household energy use requires a clear understanding of energy use at home and what influences current
energy use behaviours so to adopt more energy efficient behaviours, (Darby, 2006; Janda, 2011). This
research aims to explore how the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home could be
encouraged. With this the research has the objective to better understand the different determinants of
energy use at home, the role of motivations and barriers that drive energy use at home, and the potential
role of interventions to promote behavioural change.
This chapter firstly sets the context for the research by describing the need for working towards a more
sustainable society and the important role that energy use plays in this. It then considers the role of
individuals’ energy use behaviours; what motivates them and what barriers they face and how they might
be influenced to reduce domestic energy use. The chapter concludes with the research aims, the research
questions and the structure of the thesis.
1.1 Energy use and sustainability
Energy use underpins most aspects of modern life. It is important in the production of goods, most services
and the way we live. However, many forms of energy, in particular fossil fuels, contribute to environmental
problems, such as climate change and local air pollution, (Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, (OECD], 2012). What we desire in a modern lifestyle therefore seems to come at the cost of
undesired environmental problems and this is particularly prevalent for developed countries, (UN, 1987;

1. Introduction

2
IPCC, 2007; Stern, 2007). Recent trends regarding increasing global population, (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011;
UN, 2011) and increasing material consumption, as a consequence of the growing level of perceived needs,
have exacerbated this problem, (The Royal Society, 2012). It has therefore been argued that changes in
current lifestyles will be required to achieve a sustainable level at which the needs of the present are met
without compromising the environment for future generations so as to allow for the long-term use of
natural resources for current as well as future generations, (Backhaus et al., 2012; IUCN, UNEP, & WWF,
1991; UN, 1987). Development should thus be socially and morally just, ethically acceptable and
economically sound, with environmental indicators as important as economic indicators, (Leal Filho, 2011;
UN, 1987). As such, sustainable development implies a balanced intersection of economic, environmental
and social factors, (Elkington, 1997), (Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1: The three main pillars of sustainable development: economic growth, environmental protection and social
equality, (Kennedy, 2011).
However, evidence suggests that it will become increasingly difficult to meet such expectations and
commitments, (WWF, 2012), within a fast growing human population that has increased from 1.6 billion in
1900 to 7 billion in 2011, (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) and is forecast to reach just over 9.3 billion by 2050,
(UN, 2007). This rapid and widespread change in the global human population, coupled with unprecedented
levels of consumption, has implications for finite planetary resources and presents a challenge not only to
the environment, but also to human health and wellbeing, (The Royal Society, 2012). What citizens from
developed countries perceive as being a, ‘normal lifestyle’, might not be sustainable in a global context of
population growth and depleting natural resources. This becomes, in particular, apparent when considering
the ecological footprint that measures the demands of humanity on the biosphere by comparing

1. Introduction

3
consumption against the Earth’s regenerative capacity, or biocapacity, (WWF, 2012). The ecological
footprint shows a consistent trend of overconsumption for the few last decades, with a growing biocapacity
deficit. Humanity’s annual demand on the natural world has exceeded what the Earth can annually renew
since the 1970s. In 2008 it exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity by more than 50 per cent, which means it
would take 1.5 years for the Earth to fully regenerate the renewable resources consumed in one year, (Galli
et al., 2007; Kitzes et al., 2009; Poumanyvong & Kaneko, 2010; Wackernagel et al., 2002; OnePlanetLiving,
n.d., WWF, 2012). At the individual human level the ecological footprint is influenced by the choices
individuals make on what they eat, what products they purchase, how they heat/cool their homes and how
they travel, (WWF, 2012). A challenge of our age could thus be seen in decoupling human progress from
resource use and environmental decline, (KPMG, 2012). This is to say decoupling unsustainable human
needs, wants and expectations and rebuilding these in a more sustainable way. As long as this is not
achieved however, there will be a conflict between limitless needs vs. limited resources and the need to
define the boundaries of what is understood as ‘sustainable’, ‘normal’ or ‘socially acceptable’ consumption,
(Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 1994; UN, 1987, 1992).
Sustainability in relation to energy use can also, “be understood as a continuous learning process that
occurs when a given society acquires the necessary knowledge to reduce its energy consumption without
diminishing its quality of life or creating new social inequalities”, (Tabara et al., 1999, p. 1). Therefore the
focus of fulfilling individual needs in a more sustainable way is a core concept of this thesis; reinforcing that
sustainability in energy terms should not mean losing wellbeing, but rather doing things in a different way.
Part of that different way requires individual behavioural change and an understanding of the motivations
and barriers for change.
1.2 Motivations and barriers to energy use
Motivations are factors encouraging, or influencing, a change in behaviour, or maintaining a current
behaviour and barriers those that obstruct or limit change. Saving money and protecting the environment
are the first and second most frequently reported motivations for saving energy at home, (Eurobarometer,
2011a). However, they are not often fully realized as reduced energy use might be perceived as negatively
impacting comfort or wellbeing. In such an equation the gain and motivation of maintaining old habits can

1. Introduction

4
have a higher priority than that of saving money and protecting the environment. In this situation the gain
and motivation of maintaining old habits constitute a barrier to the adoption of more energy efficient
lifestyles, (Jackson, 2005; Prendergrast, Foley, Menne, & Isaac, 2008). Individuals’ own habits, or their
compliance to existing and commonly accepted standards and social norms, can work as motivations to
maintaining existing behaviours, (EEA, 2013; Shove, 2003). To achieve a change towards energy efficient
behaviour would thus require understanding the respective barriers, (Homans, 1958), as well as the
underlying attitudes and values, (Andreasen, 1995; Homans, 1958; Kotler et al., 1989). This interplay
between barriers and behaviours is depicted in Figure 1-2 and Throne-Holst, Strandbakken, and Stø (2008)
suggest that it consists of six barrier groups. Figure 1-2 highlights the interplay in terms of macro and micro
factors between the individual, surrounding setting and infrastructure that could motivate, enable and
reinforce individual behavioural change as well as illustrate the complexity of such relations.

Figure 1-2: The relation between individual energy related behaviour and barriers to change, (Barenergy, 2011).
In accordance with Throne-Holst et al. (2008), barriers toward the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours could be grouped as:
(1) Information/knowledge barriers, where people are lacking relevant information regarding energy
efficiency measures that they could adopt.
(2) Physical and structural barriers, where the existing physical structure of dwellings and of society can be
a disincentive and tend to lock people into less sustainable behaviours.

1. Introduction

5
(3) Political barriers, such as laws and regulations that frame and determine the ability to change
individual behaviours.
(4) Cultural-normative barriers, as people do not live in isolation, and social and cultural norms may
restrict engagement in more energy efficient behaviours, even if they hold a positive opinion towards
them.
(5) Economic barriers, since more energy efficient solutions can be expensive, the higher prices may
therefore discourage people from becoming more efficient in their energy use.
(6) Individual-psychological barriers, as a pre-determinant of the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours. This is the individual willingness to change behaviour that is influenced by individual’s
personal habits and comfort zones, including for instance the concept of self-efficacy, (Bandura, 1986),
or Perceived Behaviour Control, (Ajzen, 1991).
As such, any given motivation might have to face a number of barriers from different barrier groups. To
achieve behavioural change towards the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours therefore would not
only require understanding all of the respective barriers, but also the underlying attitudes and values, and
subsequently means to overcome each of them.
1.3 Energy use and behaviour change
Energy saving can be realized through infrastructural development, increasing technological development
and deployment, the introduction of more energy efficient materials and appliances and also through the
rational and sustainable use of energy at home, based on the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours.
For decades, research has mainly focused on the technical component, such as providing more energy
efficient home appliances or building materials and only more recently has attention been directed to the
non-technical components and to the contribution of how people behave and interact with home
appliances and infrastructures, in terms of energy use at home, (EEA, 2013). The reasons for a focus on
technology might have been that it was expected to be ‘easier’ to influence efficiency behaviours that are
characterized by one-off actions, instead of changing curtailment behaviours, which must be performed
frequently, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner & Stern, 2002). However, focusing on efficiency behaviours
usually involves the need for an initial investment, which can itself act as a barrier. But even in the event

1. Introduction

6
that those barriers can be overcome and financial savings generated, the energy saved might subsequently
be used for other energy using activity, or to increase the number of home appliances that people have. It
can thus lead to what is known as a ‘rebound-effect’ where the energy saving potential is not realized in
practice, (Khazzoom, 1980). For these reasons the contribution that curtailment behaviours can play should
not be underestimated and interventions that attempt to change behaviours must, ultimately, need to lead
to long-term behaviour change to be successful. The literature shows a diversity of existing intervention
strategies and types that could support and enable behavioural change and can be grouped into two
broader categories: (a), structural and (b), psychological interventions, (Poortinga et al., 2004; Steg, 2003).
Structural interventions aim to change the (social) context in which behavioural decisions take place, based
on the belief that by altering the conditions on which behaviour is based, the behaviour will then change in
accordance. In contrast, psychological interventions aim at changing existing perceptions, knowledge,
attitudes, norms and values, (i.e. individual, micro-level variables). The underlying assumption here is that
by changing these determinants, behaviour will change accordingly. Structural and psychological
interventions have been employed to encourage household energy conservation with varying degrees of
success, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Geller, Harrington, Rosenfeld, Tanishima, & Unander, 2006; Heiskanen,
Mourik, Feenstra, & Pariag, 2009; Kurz, 2002; Southerton et al., 2011). A number of studies apparently
suggest that success, when it occurs, rarely survives when the change interventions are discontinued,
(Abrahamse et al., 2005; Heiskanen et al., 2009; Kurz, 2002; Lutzenhiser, 2002). Despite the growing body of
existing research and evidence, there appears however still to be no clear evidence within the literature on
the potential long-term effectiveness of change interventions within the field of energy use at home; an
area that this work attempts to explore further.
1.4 Aim of the research
The overall aim of this research is to explore how the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home
could be encouraged. Within this, a first objective is to provide an overview of the nature of energy use at
home and the factors that influence energy use, (chapter 2). Subsequently the research investigates
whether the same set of factors and conditions can be found within the empirical study in Portugal,
(chapter 6). Secondly, this research has the objective to advance on the theory of motivating, enabling and

1. Introduction

7
reinforcing factors that could promote the adoption of more energy efficient habitual behaviours and
practices at a household level, (chapter 3), as well as for the Portuguese context, (chapter 7). Thirdly, this
research has the objective to explore the potential effectiveness of change interventions within the field of
energy use at home and the different types of interventions that might be used, (chapter 4) and how those
are perceived and evaluated within the examples of practice in Portugal, (chapter 8).
The reason for the geographic focus of this research was two-fold. Firstly, the researcher was aware of an
apparent scarcity of existing studies that investigated domestic energy use in Portugal and secondly, for
pragmatic reasons, as the researcher is based in Portugal and cognisant of the social context of household
energy use. The geographical scope has been limited to northern Portugal to explore the topic of research
in more depth.
1.5 Research Questions
Based upon the review of the literature as well as driven by the thesis aim and objectives, the following
research questions, (RQ), have been derived:
Research Question 1: What explains energy use at home?
a) What are the characteristics of energy use at home?
b) What are determinants of energy use at home?
c) How do individuals understand their energy use at home?
Research Question 2: What influences energy use at home?
a) What are motivational variables for adopting more energy efficient behaviours?
b) What are the barriers for adopting more energy efficient behaviours?
c) How do individual psychological factors influence energy use?
Research Question 3: What is the potential role of intervention strategies on energy use at home?
a) What are perceived requirements of intervention strategies?
b) What are individual perceptions on the effectiveness of intervention strategies?

1. Introduction

8
1.6 Research process and information flow
This section provides an overview of the research process and information flow.
1.6.1 Research process
To fully explore the research questions, this research uses a mixed methods design, where qualitative and
quantitative methods are combined. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods was seen to be
necessary to encompass differing aspects of the research, as explained in Chapter 5. Figure 1-3 is a
schematic representation of the research design.

Figure 1-3: Schematic representation of research design.
As can be seen in Figure 1-3, the research starts with a comprehensive literature review of the theoretical
approaches to understanding human behaviour in general and more specifically, those concerned with
more energy efficient lifestyles. To better explore the topic, the literature around energy use and
sustainability was reviewed to locate discussion and identify the reasons why people are expected to use
less energy at home. In addition, the literature within the field of behavioural change, more generally as
well as within an energy context, has been reviewed. Chapter 2 explores the use of energy at a household

1. Introduction

9
level and its relation to sustainability. Chapter 3 reviews the literature on understanding human behaviour
and in particular, of energy related behaviours at home. This section also looks at motivating factors and
barriers related to individual behavioural change within the energy area. Chapter 4 looks at the potential
effectiveness of change interventions within the field of energy use at home and the different types of
interventions that might be applied. This chapter includes a reflection around theories of persuasion and
their role in frameworks for change such as social marketing. Chapter 5 details the research methodologies
adopted and the research design for the empirical phase of this research. Chapter 6, 7 and 8 present and
discuss the findings from the empirical phase of this research. These include the results from the
energyprofiler national survey, exploratory focus groups and in-depth interviews. Finally, chapter 9 presents
the research conclusions, drawing on the theoretical and empirical findings and discusses the contribution
of this research.
1.6.2 Information flow
Figure 1-4 provides a schematic representation of the information and how the respective chapters and
sections inform each other. As can be seen, in Figure 1-4 there are three direct information strings that start
in chapter 1, (sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3), which are then followed up in the literature review, (chapters 2, 3, and
4) and subsequently looked at empirically, (chapters 6, 7, and 8).

1. Introduction

10

Figure 1-4: Schematic representation of information flow.

Chapter(1(*(Introduction
1.1.#Energy#use#and#
sustainability#
1.2.#Motivations#and#
barriers#to#energy#use
1.3.#Energy#use#and#
behaviour#change
Chapters(2,(3(and(4(*(Literature(Background(
2.#Energy#use#and#
sustainability
3.#Energy#use#behaviours:#
motivations#and#barriers
4.##Energy#use#and#
Intervention#strategies
Chapters(6,(7(and(8(*(Empirical(Work(
6.#Exploring#domestic#
energy#use#in#Portugal
7.#Factors#influencing#
energy#use#at#home
8.#Intervention#strategies#
and#perceived#
effectiveness
Chapter(9(*(Conclusion 9.2.1.#RQ1 9.2.2.#RQ2 9.2.3.#RQ3
RQ1:(What(explains(energy(use(at(home? X
RQ1a.#What#are#the#characteristics#of#energy#
use#at#home?
X
RQ1b.#What#are#determinants#of#energy#use#at#
home?
X
RQ1c.#How#do#individuals#understand#their#
energy#use#at#home?
RQ2:(What(influences(energy(use(at(home? X
RQ2a.#What#are#motivational#variables#for#
adopting#more#energy#efficient#behaviours?
X
RQ2b.#What#are#the#barriers#for#adopting#more#
energy#efficient#behaviours?#
X
RQ2c.#How#do#individual#psychological#factors#
influence#energy#use?
X
RQ3:(What(is(the(potential(role(of(intervention(
strategies(on(energy(use(at(home?
X
RQ3a.#What#are#perceived#requirements#of#
intervention#strategies?
X
RQ3b.#What#are#individual#perceptions#on#the#
effectiveness#of#intervention#strategies?
X
Thesis(information(flow
Relation(between(sections(and(Research(Questions((RQ,(section(1.5.)
Aim(of(the(research((section(1.4)
The#overall#aim#of#the#research#is#to#explore#how#the#adoption#of#more#energy#efficient#behaviours#at#home#could#be#
encouraged.#Chapter#2#aims#to#provide#an#overview#of#the#nature#of#energy#use#at#home#and#the#factors#that#influence#energy#
use#with#Chapter#6#investigating#whether#the#same#set#of#factors#and#conditions#can#be#found#within#the#empirical#study#in#
Portugal.#Chapter#3#aims#to#better#understand#the#motivating,#enabling#and#reinforcing#factors#that#could#promote#the#adoption#
of#energy#efficient#habitual#behaviours#and#practices#at#a#household#level,#while#Chapter#7#examines#if#similar#conditions#can#be#
found#in#the#Portuguese#context.#Chapter#4#explores#the#potential#effectiveness#of#change#interventions#within#the#field#of#
energy#use#at#home#and#the#different#types#of#interventions#that#might#be#used#and#subsequently#within#Chapter#8#how#those#
are#perceived#and#evaluated#within#the#examples#of#practice#in#Portugal.#

1. Introduction

11
1.7 The research within the Portuguese context
Previous research shows that structural psychological interventions can be applied to support and enable
behavioural change of energy use at home, (Poortinga et al., 2004; Steg, 2003), and that such interventions
have been employed with varying degrees of success, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Geller, Harrington,
Rosenfeld, Tanishima, & Unander, 2006; Heiskanen, Mourik, Feenstra, & Pariag, 2009; Kurz, 2002;
Lutzenhiser, 2002; Southerton et al., 2011). Despite the growing body of existing research and evidence,
there appears to be however a lack of clear evidence within the literature on the potential long-term
effectiveness of such interventions. This is in particular true for studies carried out in Portugal. This lack in
existing studies within Portugal perhaps results from the fact that energy consumption has only recently
become a matter that gained in importance. It thus remains unclear whether the same set of factors and
conditions from such existing studies can also be found within Portugal, and in the case that they could be
found how effective such interventions have been in the long-term.
Having remained relatively unchanged during the period from 2003 to 2008, the gross inland consumption
of energy in Portugal decreased by 5.7 % in 2009, and much of this change is claimed to not be a result of a
structural shift in the pattern of energy consumption, but that it can be attributed to a lower level of
economic activity as a result of the financial and economic crisis, (Eurostat, 2015). Consumption rebounded
in 2010 in most of the Member States — with only Lithuania, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus, Croatia and Spain
recording consecutive contractions in consumption in 2009 and 2010 — possibly reflecting the low level of
economic output and consumer confidence in several of these Member States, (Eurostat, 2015).
Since 2012 this situation did change however and largely impacted by EU wide regulations and initiatives,
(Portuguese Government, 2013). As a result of this the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP) has
been adopted in 2008, and the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) in 2010, (Portuguese
Government, 2013). NEEAP and NREAP are both policy instruments aimed at achieving the targets and
international commitments with regard to energy efficiency and the use of energy from renewable sources
that the Portuguese Government had agreed to. NEEAP and NREAP are part of a policy that promotes a
rational and sustainable energy model, without compromising the competitiveness of enterprises or the
quality of life, programs and plans that annually provide strategic guidelines which aim to contribute to

1. Introduction

12
specific objectives and to allow to boost measures at all levels (ADENE, n.d.). NEEAP and NREAP also aim at
identifying existing barriers, to support improvement of energy efficiency, increase in energy derived from
renewable sources and with a view to establishing the most suitable programmes and measures for
complying with the said commitments, without neglecting national situation, (Portuguese Government,
2013).
Based on NEEAP and NREAP policy instruments the Regulatory Authority for Energy Services (ERSE), that is
responsible for the definition of mechanisms to promote energy efficiency, has established a competitive
mechanism to support actions for demand management within the ‘Plan to the Promotion of Efficiency in
Electric Energy Consumption’ (PPEC) program. PPEC aims to promote measures to improve efficiency in
energy consumption through actions undertaken by suppliers, network operators and promotion entities,
and that are targeted at a number of market segments, (Portuguese Government, 2013). Such measures are
divided in tangible and intangible measures and according to the following three market segments: industry
and agriculture; trade and services; and the residential sector. Within the tangible measures there appeared
to be a predominance of lighting measures (including public lighting), consumption management systems,
or for electronic variable speed drives, (ERSE, 2010). Within the intangible type of measures the most
common measures related to the dissemination and information campaigns targeted at a household level
and at final consumers, but also to energy audits, (ERSE, 2010).
The interest in the funding available has been growing over the years with the 2008 call for projects
receiving 131 projects that were presented by 21 promoters and equalling a total amount of approximately
56 million euros of investment; and a final set of 159 projects presented by 48 promoters in 2011-2012 and
equalling a total amount of approximately 57.1 million euros in funding, (ERSE, 2007; ERSE, 2009; ERSE,
2012). From this initial set, a selection process had to take place and for instance, in 2011, 57 measures
were approved and received funding within the national context. Among those, 17 projects were
implemented, in the market segment ‘Domestic Energy’ on three different settings: lighting (5),
consumption management (9), and dissemination (3), (ERSE, n.d.). Two practical examples of such
measures are described in the following:
a) ‘Save Electric Energy’: in 2008 the Portuguese Association for Consumer Protection (DECO)
promoted a national campaign in order to provide information on the meaning of saving electric

1. Introduction

13
energy, in three different main areas: home, work, and school. For this purpose, teams made up of
young graduates were formed – named “carbon brigades”, who acted throughout the country
raising awareness by awarding promotional material (ERSE, 2008);

b) ‘Guide for Energy Efficiency’: launched in 2012 by the Portuguese government, directly supported by
the Portuguese Agency for the Energy (ADENE). This guide provided practical recommendations and
awareness-raising information regarding how to better use electric devices on a rational and
sustainable way, in diverse contexts such as while using household appliances, but also as a guide to
support the introduction of the new European Union Energy Label (ADENE, 2013).
Apart from few exceptions most of the intangible projects do not report on the amount of energy that
could be saved as a result of the project and as such there is no indicator of the success and efficacy of the
intervention.
In addition to those programmes and measures, the Portuguese government, in collaboration with ADENE,
implemented two practical support financing instruments: the Energy Efficiency Fund (FEE) and the Support
Fund for Innovation (FAI). The FEE is a financial instrument that aims to fund programmes and measures
under the NEEAP, to encourage energy efficiency for both enterprises and citizens, to support energy
efficiency projects, and to promote behavioural change in this domain, through cross-oriented actions of
energy efficiency in the areas of behaviour, taxation and incentives, and funding, (FEE, n.d.). The FAI
supports innovation and technological development projects, technology demonstration projects in the
areas of renewable energy and energy efficiency, investment projects in energy efficiency, and partnership
building support services between Portuguese companies and the scientific and technological system, (FAI,
n.d.). With this Portugal is determined to achieve the national energy efficiency general target for 2020 that
aims to reduce primary energy use by 25%, along with a specific target for Public Administration of
achieving a reduction of 30% (European Commission, n.d.). Portugal also aims to reduce the nation’s energy
dependence and safeguard security of supplies, by promoting a balanced energy mix, including the use of
energy from endogenous renewable sources (Portuguese Government, 2013).
The energyprofiler study that supported parts of the empirical study presented in this thesis has been
carried out within exactly this wider context. The energyprofiler study was a collaborative Portuguese

1. Introduction

14
national funded research project coordinated by the author of this research on behalf of Energaia, a local
energy agency in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal, together with two additional project partners, Factor Social
and Terrasystemics. The study was one of the intangible PPEC measures selected in the 2009 application
round and aimed at defining and characterizing the Portuguese population in segments/profiles based on
the collected data regarding individual perceptions, attitudes, competence and patterns of energy
consumption in the residential sector (Energaia, 2008). These segments/profiles could later be used to
support the development of more specific and targeted policies and interventions in order to improve their
efficacy towards reducing energy use at home. The motivation for the project was an identified gap in the
knowledge regarding national energy use patterns in the residential sector in Portugal, and the energy
saving potential that could be derived from such consumption patterns (Energyprofiler, 2011). The
energyprofiler study thus attempted to explain what influences energy use at home and how could the
population be segmented, highlighting the major differences in between segments, (Energyprofiler, 2011).
Chapter 9 will provide further information on how the findings of the research presented in this thesis do
relate to the national context as has been described within this section.

2. Energy use and sustainability

15
2 Energy use and sustainability
This first, of three, literature review chapters provides a brief introduction to the subject of sustainability
and energy use in the home. It explores the literature on sustainability aspects and the characteristics and
determinants of domestic energy use and how lifestyles shape energy use, or negatively impact the
sustainable use of it. Energy is essential for us to live the way we know. Even though improvements in
efficiency could have allowed OECD
1
countries to decouple GDP growth from growth in primary energy
consumption, (Geller et al., 2006), this has not happened and energy consumption is thus still closely linked
to GDP growth, (Sorrell, 2007). This section will provide an overview on energy consumption, the variables
that are influencing energy consumption and opportunities for greater efficiencies within European
households in general, and Portugal in particular.
Chapter 3 further explores what could explain energy use at home, with a particular focus on motivations
and barriers towards the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. The final literature review, chapter
4, explores how the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours could be potentially encouraged.
2.1 Domestic energy use
The amount of energy consumed by individuals within their homes accounts for a significant share of total
energy consumption
2
and CO2 emissions, (BPIE, 2011; Deutsch, 2010; Gardner & Stern, 2002). In 2009,
European households were responsible for 68 percent of the total final energy use in buildings and 25.4
percent of total final energy was consumed by the residential sector in Europe in 2008, (EEA, 2011;
Eurostat, 2011). Furthermore, in 2008 the residential sector accounted for 27 percent of the end-use
greenhouse gas emissions from energy use in the EU-27 and in the case of Portugal, 16 percent, (EEA,
2011). In residential buildings most of the energy used is required for domestic hot water and space
heating, ventilation, lighting and cooling, with home appliances accounting for approximately one-third of
electricity used, (European Commission, 2010). Space heating is still the most energy intensive end-use in

1
OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
2
Total energy consumption and final energy consumption as defined in, (European Environment Agency [EEA], 2004, 2011; Official
Statistics of Finland [OSF], 2013).


16
EU homes and accounts for around 70 percent of the total final energy use, though it has been decreasing
in comparison to other sources in recent times, (Backhaus et al., 2012; BPIE, 2011). Energy consumption for
water heating, for example, remained unchanged, whereas consumption for electrical appliances and
lighting increased, (Backhaus et al., 2012; BPIE, 2011). Overall, energy consumption in the household sector
continued to rise annually, though with a slower growth rate during the last few years, (European
Environment Agency [EEA], 2008; Odyssee & MURE, 2011), which suggests that households have become,
on average, more energy efficient, either deliberately or due to the economic downturn.
From a geographical perspective a difference appears to exist between northern and southern European
countries, with heating needs in southern countries, such as Portugal, being lower due to milder winters,
(Healy, 2004; WHO, 2012). Southern countries however have a high ‘relative’ energy consumption rate for
two identified reasons: firstly the lack of sufficient thermal envelope insulation
3
in southern European
building stock, and secondly the fact that cooling becomes an important contributor to overall consumption
where homes are, in many cases, equipped with air conditioning systems, (BPIE, 2011).
For Portugal the residential sector similarly shows rising energy demands, which increased from 2.510
kWh/household in 2008, to 2.630 kWh/household in 2009 and to 2.671 kW in 2010, (DGEG, 2010). A more
in-depth analysis of the latest data, (INE, 2011; INE I.P./DGEG, 2011)
4
, on household energy consumption in
Portugal and as depicted within Figure 2-1, shows that electricity emerged as the main source of energy
consumed in households, excluding fuels used in vehicles, representing 42.6 percent of total energy
consumption. Electricity was mainly consumed in kitchen and electrical appliances, amounting to 41
percent and 33 percent of the overall electricity consumption respectively.

3
Insulation of roof, exterior walls and floor.
4
Data report over the reference period from October 2009 to September 2010 unless otherwise stated.


17

Figure 2-1: Distribution of energy consumption in households by source type in 2010, (INE, 2011; INE I.P./DGEG,
2011).
Electricity consumption has seen the highest increase from 15.8 percent in 1989, to 27.5 percent in 1996
and now towards 42.6 percent, with electricity now being present in 99.9 percent of the households. At a
European level, (European Commission, 2010), there has been an increase in the overall available income
and therefore thermal comfort, as well as a growing number of electrical appliances within households that
will have contributed to an overall increase in energy consumption, (DGGE/IP-3E, 2004; INE, 2011; INE
I.P./DGEG, 2011). Firewood is used in 40 percent of households and emerged as the second main source of
energy consumed in Portuguese households, with a weight of 24.2 percent in the total energy consumed by
the domestic sector. This energy source has been losing importance in the past few years, decreasing from
60.3 percent in 1989, to 41.9 percent in 1996 and is mainly used for house heating and in the kitchen, (INE,
2011; INE I.P./DGEG, 2011). This predominance of firewood and electricity as the main energy sources
might be related to the recent introduction and consolidation of the gas network. Further to this, almost 85
percent of the energy within households is being used in three main categories as mapped in Figure 2-2:
kitchen, (39 percent), water heating, (23.5 percent) and house heating, (21.5 percent)
5
, (INE, 2011; INE
I.P./DGEG, 2011). House heating thus has a lower share of total energy consumption compared to European
values that shows 70 percent on an average, (Backhaus et al., 2012; BPIE, 2011).

5
Within the kitchen, energy would be spent on preparing food and refrigeration, but also on activities such as laundry or dishwashing,
with a predominance of energy intensive home appliances. Water heating is mainly for showering and accounts for almost ¼ of the
energy being consumed at the household, (INE I.P./DGEG, 2011).
42,6%
24,2%
13,6%
3,0%
9,0%
2,4%
4,3%
0,7% 0,2%
Distribution of energy by source type
Electricity
Firewood
LPG botlles (butane)
LPG botlles (propane)
Natural Gas
Piped LPG
Heating oil
Solar thermal
Coal


18

Figure 2-2: Distribution of energy consumption in households by use type in 2010, (INE I.P./DGEG, 2011).
Average energy usage per Portuguese household is increasing and is perhaps a result of an increase in
average income, which is known to influence the amount of perceived individual needs, (WWF, 2012). As
can be seen from the data presented in this section, households hold a significant potential for cost
effective savings that could be realized through structural and policy measures. Improving building
requirements or retrofitting opportunities thus hold a great potential for reducing energy consumption.
2.1.1 Invisibility of energy use
One distinct characteristic of energy consumption and in comparison to the consumption of physical goods,
is its “Invisibility”, (Darby, 2006), or “Doubly invisibility”, (Burgess & Nye, 2008). Energy is not used directly
at home, but is rather mediated by the appliances people have and practices people do at home. For
example, people do not simply consume gas or electricity, but rather the services these energy sources
provide, such as cooking, lighting, or washing, (Martiskainen, 2007). As such, energy might be an abstract
concept and it might be difficult to account for its use, or, environmental impact. This distinctive
characteristic might therefore pose an additional barrier towards promoting more energy efficient lifestyles
and poses the question as to whether improving energy visibility could be a way to reduce energy use.
Research suggests this might be the case, or at least partially so. For the case of using information and
feedback provisioning, as a means to make energy use visible, studies found that this had resulted in less
energy use at home, though it appeared to be not enough to promote long-term change, nor were the
realized savings seen as being significant with regards to achieving sustainable energy use levels,
(Abrahamse et al., 2005; Geller, 2002; Martiskainen, 2007; Staats, Wit, & Midden, 1996). As shown from the
21,5%
0,5%
23,5%
39,1%
10,9%
4,5%
Distribution of energy by use type
House heating
House cooling
Water heating
Kitchen
Small domestic appliances, entertainment
and computer equipment
Lighting


19
literature, energy can become visible at certain circumstances, for instance, through energy bills, (Brandon
& Lewis, 1999; Darby, 2006), through the services and amenities that energy provides, (Goldblatt, 2005;
Martiskainen, 2007), or when purchasing a new home appliance, (Gardner & Stern, 2002, 2008; Jackson,
2005). This poses the question as to whether energy becoming more visible could be a way to encourage
the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours.
2.1.2 Energy use and energy saving at home
It is a truism that buildings do not use energy, but people do, even though people do not actually explicitly
want to use energy; it is services like light and comfort they really seek, (Janda, 2011). Currently the focus
on intervention requires not only the use of less energy, (‘negawatts’), but also more efficient use. An
example of the former could be to switch lights off when leaving a room and the latter could be to change
to more energy efficient light bulbs in order to provide lighting in a more efficient way.
Energy saving behaviours can be distinguished between efficiency and curtailment behaviours. Efficiency
behaviours are infrequent, one-off type of behaviours, which often entail an investment, such as loft or
cavity wall insulation, or buying an energy efficient air conditioner, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner &
Stern, 2002; Kempton et al., 1992). Curtailment behaviours in contrary are those that must be performed
frequently, involving repetitive efforts to reduce energy and involve more operational day to day habits and
routines, such as lowering the thermostat and turning lights and appliances off, (Abrahamse et al., 2005;
Gardner & Stern, 2002; Kempton et al., 1992). Each of these two groups requires different levels of
investment in time, money or individual effort and commitment to perform. For example, to insulate one’s
loft requires the time to look for an adequate supplier, to hire someone to perform the work and demands
a certain amount of investment; but it would be a one-off action. On the other hand, to maintain a lower
thermostat setting, (even if one has a properly insulated loft), requires a certain level of knowledge,
willingness and commitment not to increase room temperature on a day-to-day basis; this is not a one-off
action, but a frequently performed one, a so-called routine behaviour.
Less unanimous agreement, than on the grouping of these two behaviours, can be found in the impact they
can have in terms of energy saving and conservation, and there is some disagreement as to whether
curtailment or efficiency behaviours are more effective in reducing energy use at home, (Martiskainen,


20
2007). Some studies suggest that curtailment behaviours could initiate sustainable, long-term behavioural
changes, (Geller, 2002), while others suggest that efficiency behaviours are generally more effective in
obtaining actual energy savings, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner & Stern, 2008). In addition to this,
curtailment behaviours might be perceived, by individuals, as negligible behaviours when it comes to
energy savings, as individually they would generate only small savings and therefore, in order to produce an
impact would require adoption by many people, (Winter & Koger, 2004,) and/or the adoption of a number
of behaviours by each individual.
2.2 Determinants of energy use at home
The way people use energy in the home is the result of a mixture of socio-economical-techno-cultural
factors that frames needs, opportunities, belief systems and abilities, as illustrated in Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-3: Main factors influencing consumer behaviour and emergence of consumption practices, (EEA, 2013).
Energy use at home is often explained as based on a set of enabling variables and existing conditions. For
instance, the European Environment Agency, (EEA, 2013), suggested a number of factors influencing
consumer behaviours and emerging practices that could support the understanding of energy use at home,
as well as the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. This section will discuss determinants that had
been identified from the literature as influencing energy use at home, namely, social and cultural
influences, comfort, convenience and needs, norms; technological developments; as well as economic and
demographic trends, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; BPIE, 2011; DGGE/IP-3E, 2004; Goldblatt, 2005; INE
I.P./DGEG, 2011; Lomas, 2010; Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000; Wilhite & Lutzenhiser, 1999) and that can be
of an internal, external, social, or structural nature, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner & Stern, 2002;


21
Kempton, Reynolds, Fels, & Hull, 1992; Martiskainen, 2007; Nye et al., 2010; Prendergrast et al., 2008). The
work of Jackson (2005) shows for example that internal determinants might consist of attitudes, beliefs and
norms, while external determinants could constitute regulations. Abrahamse et al. (2005) in contrast shows
that determinants might include wider societal, as well as personal factors, while the work of Dholakia and
Dholakia (1983) shows that determinants could result from a series of nested and interlocking choices, in
which macro-choices delimit and define the scope of micro-choices and where household energy use is
seen to be as not only the result of a choice among behavioural alternatives but where the production of
such alternatives is also viewed as the result of a social choice process. Thus there appears to be a diversity
of macro- and micro- factors. Macro-level factors such as technological development, economic growth,
demographic factors, institutional factors and cultural development appear to influence behaviour at the
broader level, while micro-level factors such as motivation, opportunity and ability appear to shape
behaviour at the individual level, (Darnton, 2008; Jackson, 2005; Nye et al., 2010; Prendergrast et al., 2008;
Stern, 2000). Thus energy use is determined by multiple conscious and unconscious processes, driven by
internal psychological variables, such as norms, beliefs or values, as well as external variables, (e.g. social,
economic physical), drivers and constraints, personal capabilities, or habits and routines, (Jackson, 2005;
Nye et al., 2010; Stern, 2000). As such energy consumption is not a behaviour in itself, but rather a
consequence of particular behaviours, (Becker, Seligman, Fazio, & Darley, 1981). Consequently to
understand and influence behaviours on energy use would require, firstly, an understanding of the
determinants of energy use behaviours.
2.2.1 Social and cultural influences
Social and cultural factors, such as thermal comfort, cleanliness and convenience in the home, or ambient
lighting that impact the amount of energy used at home are influenced both by individual preferences and
common social understandings, (Giddens, 1984; Lewis, 1969). As an example, for Portugal the penetration
rate of refrigerators, washing machines and televisions at home has increased to close to 100 percent,
suggesting that owning these appliances is now considered to be a standard, (INE, 2012). This introduction
of home appliances brings along social practices that evolve over time and develop into social norms that
establish standards that can lock individuals into what is considered to be a ‘normal’ practice. This can lead
to individuals finding it hard to change their domestic routines and behaviours, or to change them in a way


22
that would bring about a significant impact in terms of energy use, (Goldblatt, 2005; Maréchal, 2010; Shove,
2004). This understanding of behaviour as an outcome of routinized, socially learned habits or practices,
embedded into particular socio-technical infrastructures, or a system of provision, can be traced to
sociology and to the on-going debate about structure vs. agency; which defines the relationships between
individuals, communities and society in more detail. If on the one hand, human behaviour is constrained by
structural factors, on the other, social structure is a human product of itself. This is to say that established
rules and ways of doing things can be changed once people start to ignore them, replace them, or
reproduce them differently and as a result develop a new social practice, (Giddens, 1984). There are,
however, limits as to how much individuals can change social structure, (Heiskanen et al., 2009). This relates
to the debate around whether consumers are free to make choices about their own actions, or whether
forces outside their control impose those, (Giddens, 1984). Giddens’ work (1984), for example has been
setting the ground for viewing consumption as a set of social practices that are influenced on the one hand
by social norms and lifestyle choices, and on the other, by the institutions and structures of society, as
exemplified in Figure 2-4, (Giddens, 1984; Randles, 2009; Spaargaren and van Vliet, 2000).

Figure 2-4: An Actor-Structure Model of Consumption, (adapted from Spaargaren and van Vliet (2000)).
The model in Figure 2-4 shows the interplay of social norms, lifestyle choices and the institutions and
structures of society, which comprise the two basic pillars of sociological theory. The model suggests that


23
shifting consumption patterns requires ‘raising’ routine behaviours from a level of practical consciousness
6

to discursive consciousness
7
, therefore making them more visible. This distinction can be of relevance since
most of the everyday, routine actions that consume energy at home are performed in practical
consciousness, (Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000), reminiscent of being under automatic pilot control that
appears to lock-in individuals.
2.2.2 Comfort, convenience and needs
In today’s developed economies socially perceived needs frequently relate to comfort, convenience and
wellbeing, and are perceived as being part of a ‘normal’ lifestyle which needs to be satisfied, (Lehman &
Geller, 2004; WWF, 2012). Comfort and convenience needs are the result of technological progress,
increased income levels, availability of labour saving appliances and cultural/social dynamics, creating new
practices that embed into the social fabrics of daily lives, (Shove, 2009). Examples of this are the
automation of jobs previously done by hand, and substituting energy-using appliances like computers and
consoles where in the past people would have worked using pen and paper, or entertained themselves with
board games or books. Comfort conditions, in general, are socially influenced and may change with time as
design, activity, and technology change, (Shove 2003). The gap between estimated and actual energy
performance in housing tends to directly increase to increasing comfort levels beyond what was predicted,
(Stevensen and Rijal, 2010). One such examples can be seen in the increasing penetration of central heating
and cooling systems of the last few years that seems to be accompanied by a growing, perceived need of
improving indoor thermal comfort, (Eurostat, 2007).
2.2.3 Norms and energy efficiency
Norms are rules and standards that impact energy use as they guide and/or constrain social behaviour,
(Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Within the literature a number of different norms are defined, such as personal and
moral norms, (Schwartz, 1970, 1977), subjective norms, (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and descriptive and

6
Practical consciousness consists of all things which actors know tacitly about how to ‘go on’ in the contexts of social life without being
able to give them discursive expression (…) describing behaviours that reside in the ‘non-consciousness (Giddens, 1984).
7
Discursive consciousness can manifest in purposeful and intentional behaviour, (Giddens, 1984).


24
injunctive norms, (Cialdini et al., 1991; Cialdini et al., 1990). Norms might emerge from interaction with
others, they may or may not be stated explicitly and sanctions for deviating from norms are, mostly,
imposed by social networks, not the legal system, (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Norms further tend to motivate
and constrain individual actions by promising social rewards and sanctions for acting, or not acting, in
certain kinds of ways. For instance, one might not litter not only because one might get a fine, but also
because one does not want others to think, “I’m the kind of person that litters”. Individuals tend to
negotiate and inform much of their behaviour on the basis of what others do around them and by simply
copying the way others around them behave. This is used as a means to bypassing the mental effort
involved in thinking it out for oneself and/or to free up cognitive resources for more, perceived, important
tasks, (Cialdini et al., 1990). Whether and how one responds to a norm also depends on which kind of norm
is salient for that specific circumstance, (Cialdini, 1993; Cialdini et al., 1991; Cialdini et al., 1990; Steg, 2003).
Within this structure, norms influence behaviour through imitation, social comparison, or social learning
theory, (Bandura, 1977b, 1986; Cialdini et al., 1991).
For the theoretical relation between norms and environmental significant behaviours
8
, an ample body of
available literature exists, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; de Groot, Steg, & Dicke, 2007; Guagnano, 2001;
Osterhus, 1997; Schultz et al., 2005), but less evidence can be found within the literature for the
contribution of norms to encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. Currently, the
socially accepted norm appears to be towards the acceptance of an over-consumption of energy and thus
adopting more energy efficient behaviours will be difficult to achieve without such behaviours being viewed
as the social norm, (Schwartz, 1977; Stern, 1999, 2000). In addition to this, the growing number of needs as
well as owned home appliances might be seen as an indicator of the social norm moving towards a higher
level of consumption, (Cialdini et al., 1990, 1991; Triandis, 1977). Norms further appear to impact behaviour
differently. This is to say that personal norms and attitudes that are based on altruistic and
biospheric/ecological values seem to be more effective at leading to simple, repetitive, low-cost, (effort,
money, and time), energy saving behaviours, (Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Heberlein & Warriner, 1983;

8
Environmentally significant behaviour is behaviour that does not “threaten human health, welfare, or other things people value”,
(Stern, 1997, p. 15) and that is characterized by its “positive impact on the availability of materials or energy from the environment
and/or by the extent to which the behaviours positively alter the structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere”, (Stern,
2000, p. 408).


25
Stern, 1992). Specifically, research indicates that altruistic/social norms are much more strongly related to,
“low constraint”, environmentally friendly behaviours, such as adjusting a thermostat, than they are to,
“high constraint”, behaviours, such as major capital investments to improve the energy efficiency of one’s
home, (Black et al., 1985; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). For example, an intention to reduce car use may be
seen as a more costly behaviour compared to buying organic food because of the, perceived, higher
inconvenience associated with reducing car use, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Poortinga et al., 2004).
2.2.4 Economic influences
Economics and its, “Rational man”, principle, (Mill, 1836), suggest that people are driven by self-economic
interest, i.e. people will maximize their set of preferences and their utility, (i.e. the value attached to an
outcome). In a period of rising energy prices, (Odyssee & MURE, 2011) and in accordance to the, “Rational
man”, approach, reducing energy bills should thus be a primary motivation for saving energy. This is to say,
one would expect energy use to fall once prices go up, in order to not increase the percentage of income
dedicated to energy. However, evidence suggests that the relation between price and energy use is not 1 to
1, meaning, for instance, a 10 percent increase in price does not lead to a 10 percent decrease in energy
use. This phenomenon is known within the economics literature as, ‘price elasticity’, i.e. the percentage
change in one variable following a percentage change in another, holding other variables constant, (Sorrell,
2007). Demand for energy is often perceived to be, ‘inelastic’, in the short term, i.e. energy use does not
change straight away when prices increase. But, it is seen to be, ‘elastic’, in the long term, i.e. a few years
after price increases households are able to modify to save energy. This is to say that in the short term,
rising prices might not be effective in significantly stimulating demand reduction. This is in the uptake of
demand reduction measures that could save energy at home, (Department of Energy & Climate Change
[DECC], 2011). An analysis of US demand elasticity in response to price rises suggests that a ten per cent
increase in electricity prices only decreases demand by around one per cent, (Nakajima & Hamori, 2010).
Elasticity might be one of the reasons why higher energy prices, government taxes and subsidies have
apparently not had the expected impact in reducing energy consumption at a household level, (Spaargaren
& van Vliet; 2000).


26
2.2.5 Income levels and energy poverty
In the case of income levels, the literature provides some apparent contradictory findings. Evidence has
equally shown that higher income levels often relate to higher energy use, (DECC, 2011), as well as for
apparent dissociation, with similar income level households using significantly different levels of energy,
(Gatersleben et al., 2002). If indeed energy use increases with income level, then one could expect more
affluent households to use more energy than less affluent ones. However, poorer households are also more
likely to live in poorly-insulated homes and less likely to be able to improve their homes’ energy efficiency,
(Scottish Government, 2010). For instance, for those in fuel poverty, they might not be able to afford to
spend more on energy and are forced into using less energy if prices rise. Conversely, wealthier households
may be more prone to ignoring ‘avoidable’ energy use, such as heating unused rooms, or leaving
unnecessary lights on. With this the demand for energy tends to be more elastic in poorer households than
in wealthier ones, meaning that they tend to use less energy if prices rise. Further to this, poorer
households might also experience energy poverty, which is a situation where a household is unable to
access a socially- and materially-necessitated level of energy service in the home, (Buzar, 2007a). According
to Boardman (1991, 2010), a household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10
percent of its (disposable), income on household fuel, (energy), including heating the house to acceptable
World Health Organization levels
9
. According to the literature, fuel poverty results from a combination of
low income, low energy performance dwellings and increasing energy prices, (UK Government, 2013) and
there is equally evidence that southern Europe suffers from the highest levels of fuel poverty and the
poorest housing conditions within the EU, (Healy, 2003; SEI, 2003). The inability to afford to heat the home
adequately is particularly pronounced across eastern and southern European states, with over 30 per cent
of households in Portugal, Bulgaria and Cyprus declaring this inability, (The University of York, n.d.).
Magalhães and Leal (2012) estimate a 92 percent fuel poverty rate for mainland Portugal under nominal
conditions by considering a tariff of 0.089€ per kWh of energy supplied. Healy (2004) reported that in
Portugal only 6 percent had cavity wall insulation, 3 percent double-glazing, 2 percent floor insulation and 6
percent roof insulation in their homes, (one of the usual pre-conditions for fuel poverty). In addition to this,

9
The World Health Organisation takes 21ºC as a benchmark temperature for those more vulnerable, such as the elderly and
handicapped and a minimum temperature of 16ºC for able-bodied, healthy people, but recommends a minimum of 18ºC for sedentary
activities.


27
nearly a quarter of Portuguese households stated that they had rotten window frames, while a third
revealed that they had patches of condensation on indoor walls, two good indicators of poor energy
efficiency, (Healy, 2004). Further to this, 19 percent of households in Portugal were suffering from leaking
roofs, indicating the absence of adequate roof insulation, (Healy, 2004) and the latest data for Portugal
reveals that 26.8 percent reported their inability to keep their home adequately warm, (Eurostat, 2013). An
additional problem in Mediterranean states is the need for cooling, with 30 percent of the population in the
8 states bordering the Mediterranean Sea reporting that they are unable to keep their homes adequately
cool in summer, (SILC, 2007). Even though heating seems still to be the main issue in the short term, cooling
is likely to become an increasingly important issue over the coming years, in particular with rising global
temperatures, (ECI, 2005). The limited extent of certain types of networked energy infrastructures,
(particularly gas), means that in addition to inefficient residential stocks and affordability issues, energy
deprivation is also predicated upon the spatial and technical limitations associated with switching towards
more affordable fuel sources in the home, (Buzar, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c).
Besides decreasing the quality of life and influencing social fulfilment, there is also a strong associations
between inadequately heated homes and increased rates of morbidity and mortality, (Harrington et al.,
2005). The fact that in Portugal, the excess of winter mortality rates and hospital episodes compared to that
of summer is among the highest in Europe, adds to the suspicion that households are not heating their
homes adequately and to an association with mortality rates and hospital episodes, (Eurowinter Group,
1997; Gascoigne, Morgan, Gross, & Goodwin, 2010; Healy, 2004; IPCC, 2007; McMichael, Woodruff, &
Hales, 2006).
2.2.6 Demographic trends
In addition to economic influences, there are two demographic trends that have been observed over the
last few decades that seem to influence energy use: household size and composition. Today people in
industrialised countries tend to live in larger houses, with a lower, average number of occupants per
household and a growing number of single-occupancy dwellings, (Goldblatt, 2005). A larger home implies
increased floor and air space to heat, or cool and thus an increase in the required energy to maintain a
comfortable temperature in the house. Evidence suggests that the more people there are in a household


28
the more energy efficient per capita that household becomes, meaning that single-person households tend
to use more energy per person when compared to multi-person households, (Energy Saving Trust, 2012). As
a result of this, projected population growth might be less important than the average number of occupants
per household and in particular, the number of single occupancy dwellings.
2.2.7 The role of infrastructure and technological factors in influencing energy use at home
During the past few decades there has been an extraordinary growth in the number and choices of
consumer energy-using products, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011). This is in particular true for labour saving
devices and personal/home entertainment systems, with the associated energy consumption contributing
to a continuing upward trend in domestic electricity consumption, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011). Further to
this, technologies that are designed to ‘improve’ people’s lives, such as air-conditioning, have rapidly
developed from being a luxury towards becoming essentials, (Shove, 2003). Despite improvements in
energy efficiency in homes and products, the demand for energy has outstripped this improvement, (Energy
Saving Trust, 2011; Odyssee & MURE, 2011). This suggests that even though technological developments
increased the energy efficiency of appliances, part of this efficiency gain is being, taken back (Odyssee &
MURE, 2011). This, take back, could be one explanation for the difference between, actual energy efficiency
and potential efficiency, also known as the energy efficiency gap, (Feenstra et al., 2009). Overall four
reasons seem to contribute to ‘take back’. Firstly, due to the growing number of energy using appliances to
be found in the average home, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011). Secondly, the way these appliances are used,
(Energy Saving Trust, 2011; Goldblatt, 2005; INE I.P./DGEG, 2011; Lomas, 2010). Thirdly, within the socio-
technical system and the way that individual choices are constrained and shaped, the so-called behavioural
lock-in, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011; Direção Geral de Energia e Geologia [DGEG], 2010; Maréchal, 2010;
Quercus, 2008). The fourth reason relates to the, ‘rebound effect’, where energy efficiency improvements
may impact on the demand for other goods and services, as the savings from one appliance can be used on
other energy using activities, (Binswanger, 2001; Khazzoom, 1980; Odyssee & MURE, 2011; Sorrell, 2007).
However technological developments are not limited to appliances but also to the building characteristics.
Energy use at home is influenced by building characteristics such as age, orientation, size, building envelope
(i.e. roof, exterior walls, and floor) and the performance of installed heating/cooling system, (BPIE, 2011;


29
DGGE/IP-3E, 2004; Goldblatt, 2005). The characteristics of a building, its design and its technical standards
do not only influence well-being, but they also define how much energy is consumed in and by a building,
and as a consequence, how much heating, ventilation and cooling energy is needed to create a comfortable
environment based on respective climate conditions, (BPIE, 2011). Significant savings in energy use could be
achieved by improving building characteristics and the European Union has been active in this area and has
passed a number of European Directives, (Energy Performance of Buildings Directive - EPBD), so as to define
the minimum standards to be used in new buildings, as well as within the refurbishment of existing
buildings. However, since buildings have a long service life, this may not deliver immediate energy savings,
or at least not to the level that might be required. Even though ‘new’ buildings are expected to consume
around ¼ less than the ones built in 1990, they accounted for only 21 percent of total building stock in
Europe, thus the impact of more energy efficient ways of building will take time to produce global results,
(BPIE, 2011; Odyssee & MURE, 2011). This is to say that people might be temporally locked into the
buildings they live in, (Maréchal, 2010) and that it will require time to increase the energy efficiency of the
buildings and to reduce the amount of energy being used. The same long-term dilemma can be seen in the
heating/cooling systems of buildings that equally have a relatively long lifetime, which in the case of
standard boilers is normally 15-20 years, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011). For this particular case and due to low
substitution rates, effort might rather be focused on the effective use of heating/cooling systems, rather
than on the substitution, which requires investment, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011).
2.2.8 The rebound effect and its influence on determining energy use at home
The potential, energy savings, from improved energy efficiency are commonly estimated using basic
physical principles and engineering models. However, the savings that are realized in practice generally fall
short of these engineering estimates. One explanation for this is that improvements in energy efficiency
apparently encourage a greater use of the services, a response known as the energy efficiency, rebound
effect, or, take-back effect, (Khazzoom, 1980). Generally speaking this rebound, or take-back effect is
measured by the difference between the projected and actual savings due to increased efficiency and is
normally expressed as a percentage of the expected energy savings from energy efficiency improvements; a
ratio of the lost benefit compared to the expected environmental benefit, once consumption is constant,


30
(Grubb, 1990; Sorrell, 2007). Thus a rebound effect of 20 percent means that only 80 percent of the
expected energy savings have been achieved. In accordance to Gottron (2001) and Sorrell (2007) three
different types of rebound effect might be observed:
• Direct rebound effect: energy efficiency improvements make energy services cheaper, so
consumption of those services increase once the consumer chooses to use more of the resource
instead of realizing the energy cost savings; e.g. people have their loft insulated and later raise
their thermostat to a higher temperature.
• Indirect rebound effects: even if consumption of energy services remains unchanged, the
consumer can chose to spend the money saved by buying other goods, which use the same
resource; e.g. individuals have their loft insulated or buy a fuel-efficient car and therefore realize
savings on fuel bills, but then use those savings to later go on a long haul vacation.
• Macroeconomic effects: any reductions in energy demand will translate into lower energy prices
that encourage increased energy consumption. Decreased demand for a resource leads to a lower
resource price, making new uses economically viable; e.g. new, more energy efficient technologies
that make items, such as air conditioners more accessible and affordable to users.
Direct and indirect rebound effects appear to vary widely depending on technologies, sectors and income
groups and often they cannot be quantified with much confidence, (Sorrell, 2007). This appears to support
on-going discussion and lack of agreement regarding size and impact of the rebound effect. On the one
hand findings show that rebound effects could completely offset the energy savings from improved energy
efficiency, (Brookes, 2000; Guertin, Kumbhakar, & Duraiappah, 2003; Herring, 2006; Sorrell, 2007). Recent
research has shown take-back examples where thermal efficiency improvements were out-weighed by
increases in energy levels for lights and appliances, (Lomas, 2010; Wright, 2008). On the other hand,
findings indicate that the rebound effect is of minor importance, largely due to the understanding that
demand for those services appears to be inelastic in most cases, as energy cost represent only a small share
of the total costs of those services, (Lovins, 1998; Lovins, Henly, Ruderman, & Levine, 1988; Schipper &
Grubb, 2000). Even some of the researchers that argue towards the impact of the rebound effect
acknowledge that for specific energy services, complete offset could decline as demand saturates, (Sorrell,


31
2007). As such, reducing energy use at home by improved technological solutions might be insufficient
without the cooperation of individuals, since the use of energy at home results from a complex interaction
between built form, location, energy-using appliances, occupants and the affordability of fuel, (Crosbie &
Baker, 2010).
2.3 Concluding remarks
This chapter looked at characteristics, (RQ1a) and determinants, (RQ1b), of energy use, showing that there
is a growing trend in energy use and a multitude of reasons that shape and influence energy use at home,
(RQ2).
A distinctive characteristic of energy use at home, (RQ1a), could be seen in its, ‘invisibility’, as a
characteristic in itself, further expressed through energy entering homes through hidden pipes, or by the
nature of current metering and billing systems, (Burgess & Nye, 2008; Darby, 2006; Hargreaves, 2012).
Energy is not used directly at home but rather mediated by the appliances people have and the practices
people do at home, such as cooking, lighting, or washing for example, (Martiskainen, 2007). A second key
characteristic, (RQ1a), is the common understanding of energy being something essential for people to live
in the way we know and that it is considered almost as a given that is normal to have, or at least to use the
services and amenities that it provides, (Geller et al., 2006; Sorrell, 2007). With this, it could also be seen
that energy might be an intermediary between our needs and the fulfilment of those needs.
It also could be seen that there are numerous determinants that impact energy use that result from a
mixture of socio-economical-techno-cultural factors that frame needs, opportunities, belief systems and
abilities, as illustrated in Figure 2-3. With this, it could be seen that determinants of energy use, (RQ1b), are
frequently a result of enabling variables and existing conditions where a number of factors influence the
consumers’ behaviours and emerging practices, (EEA, 2013). Determinants that the literature provided
include, (RQ1b), social and cultural influences, comfort, convenience and needs, norms, and technological
developments, as well as economic and demographic trends, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; BPIE, 2011; DGGE/IP-
3E, 2004; Goldblatt, 2005; INE I.P./DGEG, 2011; Lomas, 2010; Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000; Wilhite &
Lutzenhiser, 1999). It could be seen, for example, that technological development in buildings and
appliances allows for increased efficiency, though a growth in the number of such technologies equally


32
leads to an increase in energy demand and overall energy consumption, a situation commonly referred to
as the rebound effect, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011; Khazzoom, 1980). It also could be seen that
infrastructure-social-cultural settings can act in a way that locks people into their building infrastructure
and behaviours, (Maréchal, 2010). In this regard research to date indicates that buildings hold great
potential for energy saving, yet their service life and reduced refurbishment rates may require more time to
support more energy efficient lifestyles, (BPIE, 2011; Odyssee & MURE, 2011). An overall increase in income
levels, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011), needs, (Lehman & Geller, 2004), as well as an increasing number of
single households, further increases total energy consumption, (Energy Saving Trust, 2012; Goldblatt, 2005).
All of these factors are considered to contribute to an increase in energy use, or to the take back of
efficiency improvements achieved during the past few years, (Odyssee & MURE, 2011), also known as the
‘energy efficiency gap’, (Feenstra et al., 2009). For southern European countries it can also be seen that the
poor quality of the building envelope results in a less efficient use of energy in order to maintain the
required level of thermal comfort, (Healy, 2003; SEI, 2003).
With regards to how people perceive their energy use at home, (RQ1c), a number of different aspects could
be found in the literature. It could be seen that people perceive their energy use as normal, even if as such
it includes commodities that are indispensably necessary to support one’s life, but also those that are
perceived as being ‘normal’, (Lehman & Geller, 2004; Smith, 1776; Townsend, 1979, WWF, 2012). The
chapter further discusses that the understanding of what ‘normal’ is, is perhaps not normal at all, or normal
for all and that ‘normal’ standards can be defined as a mix of individual preferences that are influenced by
social common understandings, (Giddens, 1984; Lewis, 1969).

3. Energy use behaviours: motivations and barriers

33
3 Energy use behaviours: motivations and barriers
This chapter explores the nature of energy related behaviours and investigates the underlying motivations
and barriers that can encourage the adoption of more energy efficient ones (RQ2).
3.1 Motivations for saving energy at home
Saving money or reducing cost is commonly reported as the primary motivation for saving energy at home,
(Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Besides the financial motivation, other known motivational variables include, for
example, the need to comply with social norms, or to comply with personal, altruistic and moral
motivations such as environmental protection, (IPPR, 2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Leiserowitz et al.
(2009) found for example, that such personal, altruistic and moral motivation for Americans can be
translated into actions such as to turn off the lights, lowering the thermostat in winter, or raising it in
summer. In line with this, Brouwer et al. (2008) found that 80 percent of Europeans would pay, on average,
an extra one Euro per 100 Kilometre for their airline ticket out of a sense of moral obligation and
responsibility, with respect to climate change, concern for future generations and the environment. Yet,
Kaplan (2000) found, for example, that personal, altruistic or moral motivations can also work in the
opposite way and cause feelings of helplessness, or stressing the individual sacrifice and thus acting as a
motivation to maintain existing energy related behaviours, with individuals resisting making changes that
they perceive as reducing quality of life.
3.2 Pro-environmental concern: a motivational variable or barrier to
behaviour?
Research to date indicates that the majority of people in industrialized countries (1), are aware of
environmental problems, (Diekmann & Meyer, 2008; Leiserowitz, 2007; Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006;
Poortinga, Pidgeon, & Lorenzoni, 2006) (2), hold positive attitudes towards environmental protection (3),
are aware of the environmental consequences and personal risks and (4), hold information regarding ways


34
on how to tackle the problems, (Brouwer, Brander, & van Beukering, 2008; Eurobarometer; 2011a, 2011b;
Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2009; Whitmarsh, 2009). These findings together suggest that pro-
environmental behaviour should be widespread among these populations, which however does not seem
to be apparent. Despite such positive attitudes, concerns and awareness, these do not seem to translate
adequately into pro-environmental behaviours and thus there appears to be an attitude-behaviour gap,
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Lehman & Geller, 2004; Tobler et al., 2012), with people not behaving in
accordance to their attitudes and adopting pro-environmental and energy efficient behaviours at home.
Looking at the literature it appears however, as if there are a number of reasons that might explain this
apparent phenomenon.
Firstly, environmental problems appear to be perceived as a less immediate threat within the limited
capacity of individuals for worrying about an issue; a phenomenon known as the finite pool of worry,
(Linville & Fischer, 1991). As the level of worry increases about one type of risk, concern about others may
decrease, with people tending to pay more attention to near-term threats, such as the economic crisis,
rather than to larger and long-term threats, such as climate change, (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf,
Smith, & Hmielowski, 2011; Linville & Fischer, 1991; Upham et al., 2009). Most recent data for Europe
confirms, for example, that topics such as climate change have been losing importance, whilst at the same
time, anxiety over the economy rose, (Eurobarometer, 2010; Eurobarometer, 2011a: 2011b).
Secondly, people are disconnected to environmental consequences, which are often evaluated as
uncertain, as those risks are perceived as being spatially and temporarily remote risks, affecting future
generations and other countries, (Maibach et al., 2009; Upham et al., 2009; APA, 2009). Gilford et al. (2008)
described this issue as, “Temporal pessimism” and, “Spatial optimism”. “Temporal pessimism”, means that
environmental quality will decrease over time, whereas, “Spatial optimism”, implies that environmental
quality worsens as geographic distance increases. Research to date suggests that there is one exception to
this ranking of individual concerns; energy security. For example, DECC (2012), found that in general,
concern about energy security to be higher than concern about climate change and that 40 percent of those
surveyed were concerned with steep rises in energy prices.


35
Thirdly, understanding environmental issues is a complex topic and there is noticeable doubt about the
validity of scientific findings, such as climate change and the degree of anthropomorphic contribution to it,
(BBC News, 2010; IPPR, 2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2011a; Reynolds, Bostrom, Read, & Morgan, 2010). This
complexity, in conjunction with individual detachment, to the topic can lead to a perceived
disempowerment and belief that individuals cannot do anything, or, are not responsible for solving the
problem, (Brouwer et al., 2008; Martiskainen, 2007; S.C. Moser & Dilling, 2004; Whitmarsh, 2009).
Fourthly, engaging in some type of pro-environmental behaviours can provide a feeling of having done their
bit, regardless of the limited impact their actions might actually have, which then can result in ascribing
further responsibility to others to take additional actions, (Prendergrast et al., 2008). Weber (1997)
described this as the “Single action bias”, representing the tendency individuals have to engage in single
corrective actions, making them less likely to take additional steps if the first action is not the most effective
one and presumably, because the first action succeeded in reducing their feeling of ”Worry or
vulnerability”. In addition to this, feeling responsible for solving the problem can be influenced by time and
space where individuals pay more attention to near-term threats and care for their family and friends,
(Slovic, 2000; Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2004; Weber, 2006). Such responsibility to care for
becomes looser once discussing future generations or more abstract locations, such as the nation, or the
world. Following the time/space phenomenon and the resulting individual detachment, immediate threats
such as a shortage in energy supply are more relevant and of greater urgency than future problems, for
example climate change, (Slovic, 2000; Slovic et al., 2004; Weber, 2006).
Lastly, this understanding of shared responsibility in solving the problem implies a need for a collective
effort, (Leal Filho, 2011) and where free-riders can cause a lack of collective motivation to act more pro-
environmentally. Free-riders are usually individuals who are extremely resistant to changing their own
actions and instead enjoy the benefit accrued from collective effort, but contribute little or nothing to the
effort of achieving the common goal, (IPPR, 2009; Maibach et al., 2009; Upham et al., 2009). Common free-
riders within an environmental context include, all others, other countries and the enterprise sector, with
examples for the latter being shopping centres that leave their lights on all night, or distant activities, such
as engaging in deforestation outside of national boundaries. As Garvey (2009) summarized, “The sea level


36
will be where it will be in 2050 whether this wine bottle is recycled or not. So why bother?”. Such a
conscious denial of personal responsibility is also known as the “Passive bystander” effect, (Marshall &
Lynas, 2003), or “Bystander effect”, (Darley & Latane, 1968) and can reflect low individual efficacy on
contributing towards solving the problem, (Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006; Upham et al., 2009). The passive
bystander effect expresses the way in which individual responses are influenced by the responses of those
around them. Previous experience demonstrated the individuals’ tendency to social conformity and the
social influence from family, friends or neighbours, which might be illustrated as “If others don’t do it, it’s
rather not important, so why should I care”, (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). This is to say that individuals hold
low expectations about the impact of their own actions, but at the same time, they strongly believe that if a
large number of individuals would engage in those same actions then that would have an impact and could
solve the problem, (Maibach et al., 2009). But by doing this it also increases the feeling that individuals’
actions do not make a difference on their own. The, free-rider, problem is therefore one where, what as a
group could be called a rational response, meaning to take action, becomes irrational for an individual, if no
other bystander seems to have any intention to act; the idea of “I will if you will”. The, free-rider, problem
connects to the, “Tragedy of the commons”, dilemma, (Hardin, 1968; Jager, Janssen, Vries, Greef, & Vlek,
2000) in which the behaviour that is in the individual’s interest is not optimal from the group’s aggregate
perspective and vice versa. This is where multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally in their
own self-interest, ultimately deplete a shared, limited, resource, even once it is clear that it is not in
anyone's long-term interest. This can lead to a feeling of powerlessness, since if people perceive they
cannot change a situation they will very likely retreat into apathy and resignation and thus will be less likely
to address environmental issues, (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; S. C. Moser, 2007; S. C. Moser & Dilling,
2004).
As such there appears to be a wealth of literature findings that explains why positive attitudes, concerns
and awareness regarding the environment might not result in pro-environmental and energy efficient
behaviours at home.


37
3.3 Barriers to adopting more energy efficient behaviours
In accordance with the literature there appears to be a number of barriers that could influence the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. Even where individuals are concerned about the
environment, or are motivated to save money by reducing their energy use, the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviours can often have negative connotations associated with giving up something, a
discomfort, a restricted lifestyle, or a more general reduction in their quality of life, (Barenergy, 2011;
Kaplan, 2000).
3.3.1 Monetary focus as a barrier
A focus on saving money as a motivation to save energy might ultimately form a barrier, for the following
reasons. Firstly, a focus on saving money can contribute to feelings of boringness and hassle, caused by the
effort required to engage in numerous actions, that at the end of the day result in only minor monetary
savings, (Green Alliance, 2011; IPPR, 2009). Secondly, a focus on saving money could lead to the rebound,
or take back effect (see section 2.2.8.). Thirdly, for most households, except those in fuel poverty, energy
bills account for a small (3-4 percent) share of disposable income, which might result in a lack of motivation
for people to take meaningful actions to save energy at home, (BPIE, 2011). As such, money as a motivation
to less energy use appears to be a barrier towards actually realizing energy savings.
3.3.2 External/macro barriers: policy based, structural and economic barriers
The literature posits that there are a number of external/macro barriers, namely policy based, structural
and economic barriers that can influence energy use at home. Politicians develop frameworks, such as laws,
directives or regulations, which can facilitate, or work as a barrier to, the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours, (Barenergy, 2011). Policy making can organise opportunities to foster innovation and
technology take-up, but also to set the ground for promoting pro-environmental behaviours, or to prohibit
those behaviours that are not in the interest of the individuals or the society, (Green Alliance, 2011). The
introduction of congestion charges and the defining of standards for buildings and electrical appliances, are
examples for how policy based interventions can influence the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours. Policy based interventions can however also create a barrier. If charges and standards are set


38
too low, they might not have much influence with regards to behavioural change, but rather work as an
indicator of what is socially expected. An example for this would be the current policy attempts to assure
that energy supply would always match growing demand; where energy intensive behaviours are not
challenged, but rather accepted and supplied, (Green Alliance, 2011).
Further to this, physical-structural barriers, such as the available infrastructure of the buildings, or the
availability and economic viability of technological solutions, also influence the degree of freedom and
opportunity to adopt more energy efficient behaviours, (Barenergy, 2011). Such physical-structural barriers
can lead to so called locked-in situations, such as being locked into poorly built and inefficient housing,
(Goldblatt, 2005; Maréchal, 2010; Martiskainen, 2007). Overcoming physical-structural barriers thus
requires refurbishment of older housing and making available new physical-structural infrastructures, such
as the introduction of more energy efficient products. Removing physical-structural barriers does however
not necessarily lead to realizing energy savings due to, for example, rebound and take back effects, or due
to the energy efficiency gap, (Maibach et al., 2009).
In addition to this there might also be economic barriers, such as required initial investment, or the
capability and willingness to invest, (Barenergy, 2011), that can play a crucial role in this and act as a
disincentive to adopt more energy efficient behaviours, (IPPR, 2009). With regard to these, there also
appears to be a preference of short-term gains compared to long-term ones, (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002,
2003; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ølander, 2002), as well as a preference for action when these create
potential gains, rather than taking action to avoid potential losses, (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). For
example, one might prefer to refurbish the kitchen that results in immediate benefits, rather than to
exchange the boiler for a more energy efficient one so as to save money in the medium-long term. More
environmentally friendly options are often also more expensive than standard appliances or services,
(Barenergy, 2011) and thus constitute an additional barrier, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Economic barriers
thus perhaps influence efficiency behaviours more strongly than curtailment ones, since curtailment
behaviours often do not require an investment. In addition to this, home appliances may have long lifetime
spans and are purchased infrequently. As a result substituting them might not always be beneficial in
environmental terms and would require complex calculations outside the ability of most ordinary people,
(DGGE/IP-3E, 2004; Leiserowitz et al., 2009; Quercus, 2008). Addressing economic barriers has thus proved


39
to be a challenging topic that might require governmental interventions, such as homeowner tax breaks and
subsidy programmes, to support and accelerate the diffusion of more energy efficient appliances and
solutions, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009).
3.3.3 Knowledge based barriers
Lack of individual knowledge can also constitute a barrier for the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviour since they might not know how to behave more efficiently, or do not have the time to research
which options are best, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Knowledge based barriers are associated with a lack of
access, or difficulty in understanding relevant information, such as regarding different options and the
potential benefits of those different options, (Barenergy, 2011; Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Information might
entail accessing different sources, from a more structural level, such as fiscal, legal, regulatory, to a more
individual level of cost, awareness, or benefits. Previous research indicates however, that there appears to
be a good level of knowledge regarding topics such as the contributions of behaviour to causes, impacts and
solutions of climate change, (Brouwer et al., 2008; Eurobarometer, 2011b; Whitmarsh, 2009). These
findings equally show that levels of knowledge and engagement decrease once the context moves from
climate change to more specific issues, such as carbon reduction, or energy use, (Baird & Brier, 1981;
DEFRA, 2007; Gatersleben, 2000; Upham et al., 2009; Whitmarsh et al., 2009). These decreasing levels of
knowledge might thus be a barrier for what the individual understands to be links between behaviour and
lifestyle at home and increase in energy use, carbon consumption and CO
2
emissions, (Brandon & Lewis,
1999; Darby, 2006; Upham et al., 2009; Future Foundation, 2006). In addition to this previous research
suggests that there is low salience of climate change, energy and environment in individuals’ day-to-day
choices and actions, (Brook Lyndhurst, 2007; Giorgi, Fell, Austin, & Wilkins, 2009). This highlights a potential
dissonance between the growing knowledge and awareness of environmental problems at a general level,
that does not translate into personally relevant behaviours and thus constitutes an information-behaviour
gap, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011; Martiskainen, 2007). Previous studies in Portugal equally reveal a lack of
information regarding the most relevant energy uses at home in terms of their relative proportion to the
monthly energy bill, which indicates a dissonance between the actual and the perceived energy use of
different categories of home appliances, (Quercus, 2008).


40
3.3.4 Cultural – normative and social barriers
Cultural prerequisites and social norms that set aesthetics, comfort or even social position, can also work as
barriers towards adopting more energy efficient lifestyles, (Barenergy, 2011). To resolve such barriers
requires a clear understanding about the social processes within which decisions are made, (Carpenter,
Folke, Scheffer, & Westley, 2009; Folke, 2006). Energy saving behaviour challenges existing ways of thinking
and doing, including social customs and the ways of living, as well as the assumptions that support these
attitudes and behaviours, (Sedgwick and Edgar, 1999). Within current lifestyles, most of the energy related
services are perceived as necessary for meeting basic needs and social practices. Therefore, energy
consumption has been driven by evolving expectations and standards of what is normal, (Heiskanen,
Johnson, & Vadovics, 2009; Quitzau & Røpke, 2008; Shove, 2003). Examples of such evolving practices and
norms are plenty, including the aesthetics question of solar panels, (IPPR, 2009), to energy efficient lighting,
(Leiserowitz et al., 2009), the social taste for ambient low-lighting, (Barenergy, 2011; Southerton et al.,
2011; Wilhite & Lutzenhiser, 1999), or the importance of evolving cooling (and heating), practices at home,
(Shove, 2005; Wilhite and Ling, 1992). These cultural, normative and social settings help to frame normal
behaviour and expectations concerning the consumption of energy and therefore, work as a barrier to the
adoption of energy-saving behaviours, (Southerton et al., 2011). Therefore, energy consumption might not
only be, individually invisible, but also, socially invisible and rarely the subject of conscious decision,
(Lutzenhiser, 1993). Changing these social customs and norms is both difficult and problematic, as it
requires shifting the focus of intervention away from individual consumer decisions, toward shaping and
intervening in the shared behaviours of social groups, (Southerton et al., 2011).
3.4 Individual psychological barriers
Individual psychological barriers are the product of the existing cultural, normative and social expectations
that support the individual perception regarding limits to what people are willing to do to save energy, with
these limits often being rooted in personal experiences, or upbringing, (Barenergy, 2011). In this context
psychological barriers can help to explain an existing unwillingness to adopt more energy efficient
behaviour and thus constitute barriers and as further examined in the following.


41
3.4.1 Habits as a barrier
Energy use at home is often the outcome of established habits and practices that can constitute a barrier
towards the adoption of different and more energy efficient behaviours, (Darnton, 2008; Jackson, 2005;
Martiskainen, 2007; Prendergrast et al., 2008; Upham et al., 2009). Habits thus can act as a determinant of
domestic energy use and are seen to be one of the reasons why energy consumption keeps rising despite
an evident increase in awareness and concern about energy use at home, (Maréchal, 2010). Indeed, energy
consuming behaviours, such as switching off the lights, or turning off appliances, are often guided by deeply
ingrained habits and therefore can become counter-intentional to individual best intents, (Verplanken &
Faes, 1999). Counter-intentional habits represent a kind of cognitive trap, that locks individuals into routine
behaviours, even when these behaviours conflict with the individual’s rational deliberations, or that are
inconsistent with social norms, (Jackson, 2005). Counter-intentional habits might thus help explain the,
efficiency paradox and continued increase of energy consumption despite rising environmental awareness
among the population, (Maréchal, 2010). Such deeply ingrained habits could lead to locked-in practices,
where individuals become locked-in into their daily energy consumption behaviours, (Maréchal, 2010). This
makes them less open to rational deliberation and thus cryptic to understand, which limits the individual’s
response to policies, as well as behavioural change interventions, designed to promote the adoption of
more energy efficient behaviour, (Jackson, 2005; Stern, 2007). As a result, habits can become behaviours
that are difficult, (Bamberg, 2003), although not impossible to change, (Matthies, Klöckner, & Preißner,
2006).
3.4.2 Comfort as a psychological barrier
The expectation of individual comfort is considered to be an important psychological barrier to any attempt
to reduce energy consumption, (Huebner, Cooper, & Jones, 2011; Shove, 2003). The distant and sometimes
invisible, negative consequences of environmentally damaging, or energy intensive behaviours, seem to be
overpowered by the relatively immediate certainties of a reduction in comfort and convenience, (Lehman &
Geller, 2004). Understanding the detail to what constitutes comfort requires one to consider contextual,
social, technological, cultural, historical and psychological factors, (Hitchings, 2009; Shove, 2003, 2006).
Recent trends suggest a large variation in comfort conditions and practices, (de Dear & Brager, 2001;


42
Hitchings, 2009), but also a decreased level of individual thermal adaptability due to the growing attraction
of setting unsustainable ambient standards, (de Dear & Brager, 2001). In global terms, the energy cost of
maintaining standardized comfort conditions in buildings and in indoor environments around the world is
ultimately unsustainable, (Shove, Heather, Lutzenhiser & Hacket, 2008). Although people have reported
being comfortable in a temperature range of 6 – 30
o
C, (Chappells and Shove, 2005), comfort expectations
are converging towards artificially heated and cooled environments, which increase energy and resource
use, particularly as air-conditioning gains prominence in households, (Cooper, 1998; Ackermann, 2002).
Today most people tolerate a narrower temperature band and reject former ways of achieving comfort,
such as opening windows, using blankets and appropriate clothing, building thermally efficient housing, or
taking siestas on hot afternoons, (Shove, 2003). Therefore expectations about what type of thermal comfort
is desirable (humidity levels, temperature, etc.), as well as how that comfort should be achieved, are
converging towards air-conditioned environments, (Strengers, 2008). Despite the direct link between
comfort, peak demand and demand management, current expectations of comfort are still considered to
be a basic, non-negotiable human right in developed nations, rather than being understood as
unsustainable, (Strengers, 2008).
3.4.3 Individual beliefs and self-efficacy as a barrier
An individual’s belief about the ease or difficulty of performing a given behaviour, or on being capable of
achieving a particular goal, is seen to influence individual decision on whether or not to conduct a
behaviour, (Martiskainen, 2007). From literature this belief has been observed in studies on self-efficacy
expectancies, (Bandura, 1986), perceived behavioural control, (Ajzen & Madden, 1986), locus of control,
(Maddux, 1995), ability concepts, (Ølander & Thøgersen, 1995), or sense of agency, studies, (Jeannerod,
2003). Such studies all show that one’s behaviour can have an impact and that one is capable of controlling
the outcomes of one’s own behaviour. This involves both beliefs about the likelihood between certain
behaviours and desired goals or outcomes (outcome expectancies) and beliefs about an individual’s ability
to execute the behaviours (self-efficacy expectancies). In his original work Bandura (Figure 3-1) referred to
such a distinction as “Efficacy expectations” and “Outcome expectations” with the former meaning “The


43
conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce outcomes” and the latter as
“A person’s estimate that a given behaviour will lead to certain outcomes”, (Bandura, 1977a, p. 193).

Figure 3-1: Diagrammatic representation of the conditional relations between efficacy beliefs and outcome
expectancies (adapted from Bandura (1977b), p. 350).
Bandura justifies this distinction on the ground that “Individuals can believe that a particular course of
action will produce certain outcomes, but if they entertain serious doubts about whether they can perform
the necessary activities such information does not influence their behaviour”, (Bandura, 1977a, p. 350).
Efficacy beliefs are thus seen to influence the initiation and persistence of behaviours and courses of action,
thus they are assumed to be specific to behaviours and situations, (Bandura, 1977a, 1982, 1986). As a
consequence, perceived efficacy in one behavioural-situational domain could therefore be expected in
other domains depending on the extent to which the behaviours and situations share crucial features and
require similar skills and functions, (Bandura, 1990). For instance, perceived efficacy in recycling might, or
might not, be expected to occur with energy saving at home, depending on how the two behaviours are
evaluated.
Individual beliefs, regarding self-efficacy, can be learned in various ways, including personal or vicarious
experiences, learning influenced by individual attempts in a given task, the degree of persistence in doing so
and ultimately success of the action, (Bandura, 1977a). Bandura (1977a), hypothesized that self-efficacy
affects choice of activities, effort and persistence with success, or failure, in personal performance being
proposed as the most powerful influence on self-efficacy. Successful personal experiences raise self-efficacy
and failures lower it, but once a strong sense of self-efficacy is developed, a failure may not have much
impact, (Bandura, 1986). For example, if someone is attempting to save energy and registers a decrease on
the energy bill, this could contribute to the perception of self-efficacy via successful energy saving. The
opposite, an increase on the energy bill, might contribute to belief failure and lack of efficacy in saving
energy. This building of personal experience is seen to be particular important, since people tend to hold
onto beliefs and do not abandon them, even after receiving contradictory information, (Anderson, 2007).
Person Behaviour Outcome
EFFICACY BELIEFS
Level
Strength
Generality
OUTCOME EXPECTANCIES
Physical
Social
Self-evaluative


44
Individuals can hold many beliefs about any given behaviour, but they can attend to only a relatively small
number of beliefs at any given moment and it is this small number of salient beliefs that are considered to
be the prevailing determinants of a person’s intentions
10
and behaviours, (Ajzen, 1991). In the case of
energy this could be, for instance, to decide between adding another layer of clothes or maintaining a
higher room temperature for perceived comfort needs. This is to say that, if one’s previous experience
reinforces self-efficacy in saving energy at home, one might persist in the effort. In the case of failure this
might lead to the abandonment of further attempts to save energy at home.
Once individual self-efficacy and competence are extended to a group level, a collective efficacy can be
observed. Individual responses are not entirely independent of responses from others, from what is
perceived as the social norm and therefore a sense of collective efficacy does exist where individuals can
solve their problems and improve their lives through concerted effort, (Bandura, 1986). Research by
Andreasen (1995) further revealed that there might be a perceived lack of collective capacity that together
with a perceived opposition and a perceived social mandate, can constitute the key reasons for individual
inaction. This perceived lack of capacity might thus occur once the target audience no longer believes that
they can carry out an action and maintain it, (Bandura, 1977a, 1992; Rotter, 1954; Schwartz, 1977; Stern,
1999). For instance, believing one has no control over climate change could facilitate mechanisms such as
denial and work against pro-environmental behaviours, (Gifford, Iglesias, & Casler, 2008). Baker and Kirsch
(1991) found that once people anticipated aversive outcomes, they were no longer willing to engage in a
behaviour that may produce those outcomes. Their linguistic habit is to say that they cannot perform the
behaviour (low self-efficacy), rather than saying that they will not perform it. This then might overestimate
the prevalence of lack of efficacy and also generate apathy and an increased sense of helplessness towards
environmental issues, (Allen & Ferrand, 1999; Donn, 1999; Vandenbergh, Barkenbus, & Gilligan, 2008).
3.4.4 Resistance and unwillingness to change as a barrier
Resistance and unwillingness to change often results from deeply ingrained habits, existing and commonly
accepted standards, or social norms, such as maintaining the current levels of comfort and wellbeing, that

10
An intention is what one says one plans to do.


45
all can be considered as a barrier towards the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours, (Barenergy,
2011; Darnton, 2008; Darnton, Verplanken, White, & Whitmarsh, 2011; EEA, 2013; Gardner & Stern, 2008;
Jackson, 2005; Prendergrast, Foley, Menne, & Isaac, 2008; Shove, 2003).
Research has provided some evidence for a number of behaviours in terms of how willing people are to
engage in them in order to protect the environment. They found that individuals are generally receptive
towards recycling and the conservation of energy at home, but noted considerably resistance to changing
personal habits, such as travelling, (DEFRA, 2007; Thomas & Sharp, 2013; Tobler et al., 2012; Upham et al.,
2009; Whitmarsh, 2009; Whitmarsh, Turnpenny, & Nykvist, 2009; Williamson, Soebarto & Radford, 2010).
Travel habits seem to be the hardest to change; personal resistance and unwillingness to change are a
prime barrier for this, (Tobler et al., 2012).
This chapter looked at what influences energy use at home (RQ2), and the underlying motivational variables
and barriers for adopting more energy efficient behaviours. As can be seen, maintaining existing energy
related behaviours appears to outweigh the motivation to adopt more energy efficient ones as a result of a
number of macro, knowledge related, cultural, normative, social and psychological reasons, that constitute
barriers towards change. Even motivations, such as realising monetary savings, ultimately can constitute a
barrier. Potential benefits seem to directly compete with the effort that would be required to engage in the
numerous actions required to actually achieve meaningful savings, (BPIE, 2011; Green Alliance, 2011; IPPR,
2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2009), as well as competing with a perceived loss in terms of desired level of
comfort and wellbeing, (Barenergy, 2011; Darnton, 2008; Darnton, Verplanken, White, & Whitmarsh, 2011;
EEA, 2013; Jackson, 2005; Shove, 2003). Other motivations, such as the need to comply with social norms,
or to comply with personal, altruistic and moral motivations, do not appear to constitute an important
motivation to adopting more energy efficient behaviours at home, (IPPR, 2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2009).
From a barrier perspective, all such factors could however prevent the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours (RQ2b). This seemed to be, in particular, true for family related comfort levels where there is
considerable resistance to change ingrained behaviours particularly those that are perceived as normal and
socially acceptable, (DEFRA, 2007; Tobler et al., 2012; Upham et al., 2009; Whitmarsh, 2009; Whitmarsh et


46
al., 2009). A barrier towards change frequently results from a resistance to making changes that are
perceived as reducing quality of life, (Kaplan, 2000), while preference is given to easy to do habits, such as
switching the lights off, or recycling, (Thøgersen & Ølander, 2002).
As can be seen through this chapter, barriers for adopting more energy efficient behaviours at home
(RQ2b), might also include (1), The lock in effect of infrastructures and existing social conventions, such as
comfort and convenience, (Heiskanen et al., 2009; Jackson, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007).(2); The
attitude/value-behaviour gap, (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). (3); The disconnection towards environmental
risks, concerns and problems which are overall perceived as spatially and temporarily uncertain,
(Eurobarometer, 2011a; 2011b; Leiserowitz et al. 2011a; 2011b, Maibach et al., 2009; Upham et al., 2009);
(4), Required engagement in numerous small actions, (Kates et al., 2001; Weber, 1997); (5), The invisibility
of the consequences of ones actions, (Thøgersen, 2005); (6), Social dilemmas, since individual efforts are
understood as useless unless others participate or contribute as well, (Kollock, 1998; Maibach et al., 2009;
Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Uusitalo, 1990); free-riding as a problem in itself and as a justification for
resistance to change ones own actions, (IPPR, 2009; Maibach et al., 2009; Upham et al., 2009); (7) Political
and economic barriers that could promote and facilitate the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours,
(Green Alliance, 2011); (8), Cultural-normative barriers as social practices influence energy consumption
driven by evolving expectations and standards of normal everyday life, (Heiskanen et al., 2009; Quitzau &
Røpke, 2008; Shove, 2003; Southerton et al., 2011); or (9) Knowledge based barriers as individuals may not
always be aware of the environmental impacts of behaviours, or benefits of changes in these behaviours,
(Baird & Brier, 1981; Gatersleben, 2000), including lack of access to relevant information, (Barenergy, 2011;
DEFRA, 2007; Energy Saving Trust, 2011; Leiserowitz et al., 2009; Martiskainen, 2007; Upham et al., 2009;
Whitmarsh et al., 2009).
In terms of psychological barriers (RQ2c), it can be seen that adopting more energy efficient behaviour
might require increasing efficacy expectations and outcome expectations, (Bandura, 1977a; Martiskainen,
2007). Anticipating aversive outcomes, be it low or undesired impacts, might explain why people report not
being capable to perform a behaviour (low self-efficacy), rather than saying that they will not perform it,
(Baker & Kirsch, 1991). This then might generate apathy and an increased sense of helplessness, (Donn,
1999), or a reduced participation in environmentally significant behaviours, (Allen & Ferrand, 1999). Thus it


47
can be seen that to successfully address environmental problems will require a collective effort and
efficacy, which then brings along the psychological barrier of “I will if you will”, (Vandenbergh et al., 2008).
Further It can be seen that the aspects of time and space, and short-term (economic), focus can lead to a
lack of consideration for longer-term impacts / interconnections of actions and decisions, (Nordlund &
Garvill, 2002, 2003; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ølander, 2002). Currently there appears to be no clear data
for Portugal on whether such aspects of time and space, short-term focus and longer-term impact can be
observed.
The literature provides little evidence regarding the ability of values and attitudes to influence the amount
of energy being used at home. For the case of values, literature indicates that values have a loose influence
on behaviour, (Rohan, 2000), affecting behaviour indirectly through specific beliefs, norms and intentions,
(Feather, 1990; Nordlund & Garvill, 2003; Poortinga et al., 2004), though value-action gaps could also be
observed, (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Similarly, the contribution of attitudes as a predictor of pro-
environmental behaviours seems not to be well established, despite the existence of available studies,
(Bamberg, 2003; Geller, 1981; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999; Poortinga et al., 2004; Schultz et al., 1995;
Thøgersen, 2004). As seen from the literature there might also be an attitude-behaviour gap, (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002). Though attitudes seem to guide behaviour for those cases where attitudes are strong and
where social and structural conditions support the behaviour, (Stern, 2000), or for changing simple,
repetitive, low-cost energy saving behaviours, (Abrahamse & Steg, 2009; Abrahamse et al., 2005; Black et
al., 1985; Heberlein & Warriner, 1983; Stern, 1992), as well as for having the financial ability to perform the
behaviour, (Gatersleben, 2000). This might be, in particular, problematic, since energy consuming
behaviours are often habitual and therefore difficult to modify, (Bamberg, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2003),
although not impossible to change, (Matthies et al., 2006). It thus appears that to encourage the adoption
of more energy efficient behaviour would likely require overcoming a number of barriers, including
individual psychological ones. Altogether this would therefore imply a need for better understanding of, for
example, the social processes within which decisions are made, (Barenergy, 2011; Carpenter et al., 2009;
Folke, 2006), or how the cultural, normative and social settings impact to frame normal behaviour,
(Maréchal, 2010).

4. Energy use and intervention strategies

48
4 Energy use and intervention strategies
This chapter looks at the potential effectiveness of change interventions within the field of energy use at
home (RQ3) and the different types of interventions that might be applied.
Achieving lasting behavioural change appears to be often problematic and environmental values, beliefs
and attitudes do not appear to have a significant influence on energy consumption, (Martiskainen, 2007;
Upham et al., 2009). Some agreement exists that, promoting behavioural change requires a combination of
effort, from communication to policy making, to reduce the various barriers that exist (IPPR, 2009). To date,
most intervention strategies have, however, predominantly focused on voluntary behavioural change,
rather than on changing contextual factors that can determine individual decisions, (Abrahamse et al.,
2005; Jackson, 2005). Contextual factors set the context where individual decisions are made and
intervention strategies, that do include both voluntary behaviour change and contextual factors, might
therefore increase the level of success in promoting lasting behavioural change, (Gärling et al., 2002).
Common contextual factors include technological developments, economic growth, demographic factors,
institutional factors and cultural developments, (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998), that together, shape individual
factors, such as motivations, opportunities and abilities, (Ølander and Thøgersen, 1995). Findings from
Abrahamse et al. (2005), suggest that once voluntary behaviour change and contextual factors are applied
together, then behavioural change interventions might also be able to target the individual’s perceptions,
preferences and abilities. They might equally change the context in which decisions are being made (for
instance, through financial rewards, laws, or the provision of energy-efficient equipment) and as a result
they could make energy saving behaviour relatively more attractive. For instance, households may save
more energy by properly insulating their homes than by lowering thermostat settings. However, the use of
energy-efficient appliances does not necessarily result in reduction of the overall energy consumption,
which in part is a consequence of a rebound effect, (Berkhout, Muskens, & Velthuijsen, 2000). To avoid a
rebound effect might require intervention strategies that provide the right interplay between contextual
factors and micro-level factors, though the literature on combined intervention strategies appears to be
scarce and there is apparently little evidence about the actual impact of such combined intervention


49
strategies, (Abrahamse et al.; 2005). In addition to this, it is often difficult to establish the contribution of
each of the interventions separately and the volume and consistency of the evaluations that are currently
available has been very poor, often vague and generic with very little empirical rigour presented,
(Southerton et al., 2011).
4.1 Energy use, Interventions and supportive frameworks
There are a number of frameworks within the environmental field that attempt to support intervention
strategies to find the right interplay between the various existing factors. Frameworks from the field of
behavioural economics approach the matter, for example, by putting forward a set of external, internal and
social determinants, so as to understand individual behaviour. The overall aim, as illustrated in Figure 4-1, is
to provide an integrated approach to change behaviour through a number of external, internal or social
factors, such as emotions or habits, which could change the balance of costs vs. benefits that is at the
centre of the traditional economic perspective of understanding human behaviour, (Prendergrast et al.,
2008).


50
Figure 4-1: Reducing car use: Factors affecting behavioural change, (Prendergrast et al. 2008, p. 104).


51
From a behavioural economic perspective, it is argued that individual behaviours are influenced by a much
wider range of factors and not limited to one’s, ‘expected net benefits’. Such factors include, for example,
the impact of habits, emotions, cognitive capabilities, cultural attitudes and social norms. From an
economic perspective all of such factors can thus impact the balance of an individual’s costs vs. benefit
understanding and thus impact behaviour, (Prendergrast et al., 2008). As such, informational and financial
levers alone might not be sufficient to explain an individual’s behaviour and that the prevailing rational
model of behaviour is, in some circumstances, inappropriate once one considers how people make
decisions, (Prendergrast et al., 2008).
Another framework within the environmental field that attempts to support intervention strategies to find
the right interplay uses psychological interventions as a framework and tool to promote individual
behavioural change. Focus is laid on changing existing perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, norms and values
under the assumption that this then would result in behaviour changing accordingly, (Abrahamse et al.,
2005). Intervention can then address the community level and the social aspects of energy-related
behaviour, instead of the individual approach that has been dominating the area, (Abrahamse et al., 2005;
Darby, 2006; Heiskanen et al., 2009; Middlemiss, 2008).
Another framework that could potentially be used to support intervention strategies is a model developed
by DEFRA (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), under the UK’s strategy to promote
pro-environmental behaviours, as depicted in Figure 4-2 and which works alongside the four E factors,
Enable, Engage, Exemplify and Encourage, (DEFRA, 2008).


52

Figure 4-2: Diagrammatic representation of the 4E’s model, (DEFRA, 2008, p. 53).
As can be seen from Figure 4-2, promoting pro-environmental behaviour from the DEFRA 4E Model
framework perspective would require a number of actions to result in habits being broken and new more
environmental friendly behaviours adopted.
A further framework to support intervention strategies is the Mindspace approach, (Dolan, 2010), which
intends to take behavioural science to the very heart of policy-making. The word, Mindspace, is itself a
mnemonic of nine non-coercive influences on behaviour, as Figure 4-3 shows:

Figure 4-3: Mindspace’s influences on behaviour, (Dolan, 2010).
From a Mindspace framework perspective, the approach seeks to influence behaviour by changing the
context, which would encourage people unconsciously into one course of action, rather than another.


53
In summary, it can be clearly shown that there are a number of frameworks that attempt to support
intervention strategies to find the right interplay between the various existing factors that could be used to
encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. Each framework shows a slight variation in
terms of existing factors and approach.
4.1.1 Potential intervention layers
As much as the right interplay between the contextual factors and micro-level factors influence energy use
at home, so do a diversity of determinants, motivations and barriers. They all are considered influential to
energy use at home and thus might be taken into account for any intervention attempts. Behavioural
change interventions tend to address at least one of the contexts in which behaviour might be changed,
individual, social, or contextual/material spheres, (Southerton et al., 2011), as illustrated in Figure 4-4.

Figure 4-4: The relation between material, social and individual contexts, adapted from Southerton et al. (2011).
Figure 4-4 illustrates that influencing the individual sphere might require interventions to focus on the
individual attitudes so as to change behaviours and choices. Within the social sphere, such interventions
will address social norms, cultural conventions and shared understanding of practices. In the
contextual/material sphere, intervention might refer to the objects, technologies, and infrastructures,
which can enable or constrain the adoption of new behaviours, (Southerton et al., 2011). Following from
this, Figure 4-5, builds from Barenergy (2011) and summarizes what could motivate, enable and reinforce


54
individual behavioural change in relation to the barriers, that literature indicates exist, that need to be
addressed and finally, the type of interventions that could be used in order to promote change.

Figure 4-5: The relation between energy use determinants, motivations, barriers to change and types of intervention,
adapted from, (Barenergy, 2011).
As Figure 4-5 illustrates, there might be two different layers of intervention. One that addresses the
external/macro factors, such as the need of an adequate legal framework, or the deployment of financial
instruments, that could promote individual change and one that promotes internal change by influencing
values, beliefs or perceptions. Comfort, convenience, individual willingness, motivation, opportunity and
ability are all identified determinants that influence energy use at home and as have been detailed through
Chapters two and three. Thus there appear to be a number of intervention layers (Fig 4-4) and factors (Fig
4-5), though the literature appears undecided as to which could encourage lasting change.
4.2 Behavioural change, communication and persuasion
Persuasion can influence others by modifying their beliefs, values, or attitudes, (Simons, 1976, p. 21) and
ultimately their behaviour, (Jackson, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007). Persuasion is often based on three
principles; (1), the credibility of the sender (2), the persuasiveness of the argument/message and (3), the


55
responsiveness of the audience, (O’Keefe, 1990). Persuading people to change can be particularly difficult in
a message-dense environment and effective persuasion requires a number of principles to be met such as,
understanding the target audience, using emotional and imaginative appeals, immediacy and directness,
commitments/loyalty schemes and the use of ‘retrieval cues’ to catalyse the new behaviour, (Jackson,
2005). There are a number of persuasion theories and approaches that might be applied to promote
behavioural change.
The cognitive dissonance theory, (Festinger, 1957) assumes, for example, that people prefer congruency,
i.e. people are motivated to avoid internal inconsistency (dissonance), between values, beliefs, attitudes
and behaviour. These feelings of discomfort might arise from conflicting attitudes or values, but might
equally be invoked by discrepancies between an attitude, e.g. about the self, and behaviour highlighting the
desire for attitude-behaviour consistency, (Jackson, 2005). The theory suggests that once engaging in a
behaviour that opposes attitudes, people experience distress and an uncomfortable psychological state
resulting from the awareness of holding conflicting beliefs, or acting inconsistently with one’s attitudes.
Depending on the importance of the issue and the degree of discomfort, people then will be persuaded to
change beliefs, attitudes or behaviours in order to reduce inconsistencies in the cognitive information that
they hold about themselves, their behaviour, or their environment, (Brehm & Kassin, 1996; Dainton &
Zelley, 2005). In accordance to Brehm and Kassin (1996), people tend to adopt one of three strategies to
reduce dissonance: (1), changing their attitude to justify their behaviour, particularly for long-term habits
where it is suggested that people readjust their long-term goals rather than, “changing the habit of a
lifetime”, (Jackson, 2005, pp. 114-115). An example of this would be the London congestion charge, where
public opinion was opposed before it was introduced, but seems to have changed once the charge was
introduced, (Darnton, 2008; Knott et al., 2008). (2), Claiming, or perceiving, to have little or no choice of
action, i.e. reducing dissonance by under-reporting knowledge about the impact of particular behaviours,
(Darnton, 2008), For example, under-report knowledge on how to reduce energy use in order to reduce the
unavoidable contradiction in responses to questions about personal energy use. This could be one of the
reasons for decreasing levels of reported knowledge once moving from bigger issues, such as climate
change, towards more specific behaviours, such as energy saving at home. (3) By denying any inconsistency,
i.e. denying personal responsibility for tackling the problem, or by ‘over-claiming’ the involvement in,


56
“Issues which people think they ought to be seen to be involved in”, (Darnton, 2008, p. 12). With regards to
denial of inconsistencies, the literature provides three equally different ways on how this might happen.
Firstly, people might underestimate individual energy use as well as its contribution to environmental
problems. Secondly, by overestimating the prevalence of non-conservation as a habit shared by other
people, suggesting this to be a normal, societal behaviour. Thirdly, by over-claiming the frequency of pro-
environmental activities, such as recycling, as a way to support the feeling of personal contribution and
reinforcing the perception of already doing everything they can, (Cialdini et al., 1990; van der Pligt, 1985.)
An alternative persuasion theory that might be applied is, Higgins’s (1987) Self Discrepancy Theory, that
assumes that the individual self-concept is derived partly, from ones’ own perspective of ‘myself’ and
partly, from ‘my’ perceptions of others’ perspectives of me. The theory distinguishes between six distinct
types of self-concept: actual-own, actual-other, ideal-own, ideal-other, ought-own and ought-other, with
discrepancies giving rise to different types of emotional response. For example, discrepancy between ‘my’
actual self-concept and ‘my’ ideal self-concept is likely to give rise to dejection-related emotions, such as
disappointment and dissatisfaction. Discrepancies between ‘my’ actual self-concept and the ideal concept
others have of me, on the other hand, are most likely to give rise to feelings of shame or embarrassment.
Incongruities between ‘my’ actual self-concept and ‘my’ ought self-concept are likely to give rise to feelings
of guilt.
Social judgment theory, (C. W. Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965; M. Sherif & Hovland, 1961), is another
persuasion theory that might be used and that assumes that people make evaluations, so called judgments,
about the content of messages based on their anchors on a particular topic. When the topic is one that has
personal significance to the individual, it is considered to be central to their sense of self, hence, they are
ego-involved, (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). The theory suggests that each person’s attitudes can be placed into
one of three categories, with the individual reaction to a persuasive message depending on the position on
the topic, (M. Sherif & Hovland, 1961): (1), the latitude of acceptance, includes all those ideas that people
find acceptable (2), the latitude of rejection, includes all those ideas that people find unacceptable and (3),
the latitude of non-commitment, includes those ideas for which people have no opinion. Social judgment
theory proposes that persuaders must carefully consider the pre-existing attitudes of an audience before


57
designing the message. According to the theory, three scenarios can take place: (1), sending a message that
falls into people’s latitude of rejection might lead to unsuccessful, persuasive effort, (2), sending a message
aimed at people’s latitude of acceptance might only lead to reinforcement of what people already believe,
rather than persuasion, or (3), sending a message targeted to people’s latitude of non-commitment, or the
edges of it, would be true persuasion, (Dainton & Zelley, 2005; Miller, 2002).
A further persuasion theory that could be applied, is the elaboration likelihood model, (Petty & Cacioppo,
1986), that predicts that if listeners are motivated and able to consider an elaborated message, persuaders
should rely on strong, factually based arguments and that arguments can backfire if they are weak, or
poorly presented, (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Conversely, persuaders should focus on emotionally based
peripheral messages if receivers cannot, or will not, consider an elaborated message, even though
recognizing that using a peripheral route is expected to guarantee no long-term change, but rather minimal
and transitory effects, (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
As can be seen, there are numerous persuasion theories and while each of them varies in their respective
approach, they all might be applied to promote behavioural change and as will be further examined in
Chapter 8, once it comes to perceived requirements (RQ3a) and individual perceptions on the effectiveness
of intervention strategies (RQ3b).
4.2.1 Persuasion and communication
Persuasion is often associated with communication and behaviour change intervention. Literature suggests
that unpopular messages, such as the need to change lifestyles and to reduce consumption, may be
rejected, or ignored, to avoid confronting the implications for appreciated behaviours, (Feinberg & Willer.,
2010; Upham et al., 2009, van der Pligt, 1985). Thus there might be the need for creating a new balance by
changing individual attitudes rather than behaviour, (Gass & Seiter., 2003). As such attempts to shame
individuals into adopting pro-environmental behaviours can be ineffective in changing behaviours, (O’Keefe,
2002); any type of persuasion attempt should be framed in a way to build up narratives to which individuals
can connect. Altogether, this implies that any type of message that refers to potential solutions should be


58
delivered in a positive, and not confrontational frame, therefore encouraging individuals to believe in their
ability to contribute to what they perceive as a positive change.
4.2.2 Mental models and communication
Individuals use their knowledge and beliefs to help them interpret new information in order to reach
conclusions. A mental model represents a person’s thought process for how something works and serves as
the framework to fit new information, (Morgan, Fischhoff, Bostrom, & Atman, 2002). Mental models are
often based on incomplete facts, past experiences and even intuitive perceptions, that help shape actions
and behaviour, influence what people pay attention to and define how people approach and solve
problems, (Carey, 1986). But, by working as a framework, sometimes a mental model may also work as a
filter, resulting in only selective knowledge being considered, with people seeking out, or absorbing, the
information that only matches their mental model. Here, they might be confirming what they already
believe about an issue, which then could pose a potential challenge for communication aiming at promoting
more energy efficient behaviours. This situation is known within the literature as a confirmation bias, as
people look for information that is consistent with what they already think, want, or feel, leading them to
avoid, dismiss, or forget information that requires them to change their position and, quite possibly, their
behaviour, (Shome & Marx, 2009). It might be thus that once people say, “I can’t”, that it simply means, “I
don’t want to”. Thus an important criterion for effective communication is to know the audience, what they
understand and misunderstand about the issue, how they perceive a threat to their current and intended
behaviours, their values, beliefs and policy preferences, or their barriers to change and underlying
motivations. All of these could either constrain, or inspire, further engagement with solutions, (Maibach et
al., 2009). Practitioners thus need to discover what misconceptions the audience may have in their mental
models, so that information can be actively communicated with appropriate language, metaphor, and
analogy, i.e. combined with narrative storytelling, made vivid through visual imagery and experiential
scenarios, balanced with scientific information and delivered by trusted messengers in group settings,
(Shome & Marx, 2009). Framing is thus perceived as the setting of an issue within an appropriate context to
achieve a desired interpretation, or perspective. In addition, to frame the message, practitioners also need
the specifics of the target audience and their segmentation, in order to prepare frames in advance to fit
with the audience mental models, (Shome & Marx, 2009). To be successful, messages might also consider


59
individuals’ goals and whether their goal is to make something good happening, or preventing something
bad from happening, (Shome & Marx, 2009).
4.2.3 Behavioural change, and relevant and supportive communication
Humans hold a limited capacity for worrying; they have a finite pool of worry, (Linville & Fischer, 1991),
therefore tending to view near-term threats as more relevant and of greater urgency than caring about
future problems, (Slovic, 2000; Slovic et al., 2004; Weber, 2006). People thus tend not to immediately react
to threats that may manifest themselves in the distant future, but rather look for balancing long-range
worries with the demands of more immediate concerns, (Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Marx et al., 2007). The
literature suggests this to be one of the barriers to motivate people into taking action to prevent
environmental problems, (Shome & Marx, 2009). In addition to this, individuals have a natural tendency to
avoid losses, rather than to seek gains, (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Once a, ‘gain vs. loss’, frame is
combined with a, ‘now vs. future’, frame, people discount future gains more than future losses, (Thaler,
1981). For example, people may be more likely to adopt environmentally friendly behaviours if they believe
their way of life is threatened and that inaction will result in even greater threats, thus addressing people’s
desire to avoid future losses rather than realizing future gains. They might be less likely to adopt these
measures if they focus on the current situation, which they see as acceptable and discount future
improvements of it. Thus any type of communications should be relevant and supportive. Shome & Marx
(2009), provide an example for such relevant and supportive communication by promoting energy
efficiency appliances as helping the homeowners to avoid losing money on higher energy bills in the future,
instead of helping them save money in the future.
4.3 Structural interventions
As can be seen in Figure 4-5 (p.50), there are a number of intervention types that can be grouped in
between structural and psychological interventions, (Poortinga et al., 2004; Steg, 2003). Structural
interventions aimed, for example, at changing the (social), context in which behavioural decisions take
place (Fig. 4-5), are based on the belief that by altering the conditions in which behaviour takes place,


60
behaviour will change accordingly (Fig. 4-5). Structural interventions include, for example, financial-
economic measures, physical/technical alternatives, and legal regulation, (Steg, 2003).
4.3.1 Financial-economic interventions
Financial-economic measures hold the potential to promote energy saving by making energy-intensive
behaviours relatively more expensive and environmentally-friendly alternatives relatively less expensive. To
illustrate, increasing the costs of energy use, by means of a tax on gas and electricity, may induce
households to reduce their energy use, (Streimikiene & Ciegis, 2010). Furthermore, increasing the prices of
products that require much energy may encourage households to choose less energy-intensive alternatives.
Nevertheless, these kinds of measures only tend to be effective if consumers take the financial cost into
account when making such choices.
4.3.2 Physical/technical interventions
Physical/technical alternatives involve changes to already existing infrastructure and equipment, such as
the introduction of energy-efficient appliances. There is some overall agreement that efficiency
improvements are necessary for sustainable development, but nevertheless technological innovations are
perceived as a partial solution, as the effectiveness of technological measures requires the adoption of new
technology, as well as the knowledge of how to use such technologies efficiently, (Abrahamse, 2007; Steg,
2003). In addition to this a possible rebound effect, as identified by Khazzoom (1980), may also occur, in
that consumers may increase the use of efficient appliances, thus counterbalancing initial efficiency gains.
4.3.3 Legal regulation
Also there is legal regulation as entailed by the introduction of legislation by the government, such as speed
limits for cars in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Often this form of measures is associated with
some form of punishment to those whose behaviour deviates from the regulations and is based on the
assumption that these rules will eventually become internalized. Regulatory measures may be an effective
strategy for behavioural change, provided the monitoring and enforcement system works properly.


61
4.4 Psychological interventions
In contrast to structural interventions, psychological interventions aim to change existing perceptions,
knowledge, attitudes, norms and values (i.e. individual-level variables), so that behaviour will change
accordingly, (Southerton et al., 2011). A recent review of the potential of structural and psychological
intervention strategies has proved that the most promising approaches involved energy audits, community
based interventions and the combination of more than one type of intervention, and producing savings of
between 2 and 20 percent, depending on the type of intervention, (EEA, 2013). There are a number of
models that attempt to support psychological intervention, such as the three term contingency ABC
11

(Antecedent-Behaviour-Consequence), model of behavioural change, (Geller, 2002), that assumes that
behaviours are directed by antecedent stimuli that preceded them and that state the availability of a
positive, or negative, consequence, (Dwyer, Leeming, Cobern, Porter, & Jackson, 1993; Geller et al., 1990;
Lehman & Geller, 2004). Antecedent-Behaviour interventions attempt to influence one or more
determinants prior to the performance of the determinant behaviour. Examples of antecedent
interventions such as commitment, goal setting, modelling and information, (Abrahamse et al., 2005) aim at
influencing underlying behavioural determinants (e.g. knowledge). On the other side of the ABC model are
Behaviour-Consequence interventions, which are based on the assumption that once positive or negative
consequences are attached to certain behaviour, this will subsequently lead to an alteration of this
behaviour, (Geller, 2002). Within the environmental context this implies, for example, that pro-
environmental behaviour becomes a more attractive alternative, once positive consequences, such as
monetary incentives, are attached to it. Feedback and rewards are another possible Behaviour-
Consequence strategy. For instance, once households receive feedback about their efforts to reduce energy
use, they may, as a result of the positive consequences attached to their behaviour, be motivated to further
conserve energy since they might have become knowledgeable, (Geller, 2002). Savings have been shown in
the region of 5 – 15 percent for direct feedback and 0– 10 percent for indirect feedback, (Darby, 2006).
Recent research on smart metering and householder engagement has, however, equally found that
feedback alone is not enough to interest occupants, (Darby, 2010).

11
Not to be confused with the ABC behavioural change model developed by Stern et al (1995)


62
Following, a number of such psychological intervention approaches will be discussed.
4.4.1 Information provision
Providing information aims to increasing knowledge regarding energy use, which in turn is expected to
result in the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, (Geller, 2002). This assumption of information
provision as a predecessor of behaviour can be grounded in the Knowledge Deficit Theory (KDT), a theory
that advocates for a causal relationship between knowledge and behaviour, (Schultz, 2002). KDT’s primary
assumption is that people want to help themselves and the environment, but they lack information about
how and/or why they should make changes to their behaviour. As such, the provision of information about
how, or why, one should act would help overcoming inaction and lead to the desired behaviour. From the
literature it is, however, not entirely clear whether this cause-effect is indeed taking place and that
information regarding energy saving measures is leading to a reduction of energy use. This cause-effect
relation might be, for example, negatively impacted by limited time and capacity to process all the available
information, or because insight alone does not necessarily change behaviour, or since the subject of energy
use might be too complex to be changed by single, stand-alone interventions, such as information and
feedback provision.
Information provision, as a way to increase individual awareness of problems related to energy use, as well
as to increase the knowledge about possible alternatives, has been widely used for promoting energy saving
and conservation behaviours, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). In the spheres of policy and the energy research
community, the information deficit model tends to dominate, (Janda, 2011). The provision of information,
or feedback, is perceived as a way of ‘teaching’ people the required energy management skills and in giving
people a sense of their ability to control energy use, (Chatterton, 2011). Information provision covers a
large spectrum of interventions, mass media campaigns, information and training centres, technical
manuals and brochures, labelling and energy audits, and can be used for providing detailed information to
various actors, consumers, equipment operators/technicians, managers of building complexes, engineers,
architects and decision makers, (BPIE, 2011). Individuals are often presented with a number of suggested


63
pro-environmental behaviours in the form of, ‘To Do’
12
lists, which are unranked lists of recommended
actions which aim to provide some guidance and help to individuals having an understanding of the type of
pro-environmental behaviours they could adopt, (Gardner & Stern, 2008). It has been observed however,
that such guidance and ‘To-do’ lists could equally lead to individuals deciding to take no action at all, or to
only carry out one or two actions, or perhaps, to engage with those actions that are the easiest to
remember and perform, regardless of the environmental impact those actions might have, (Barr & Gilg,
2006; Darnton, 2008; Gardner & Stern, 2008).
Information campaigns are also found to be cost efficient and an easy to implement means to overcome
information barriers, though the literature equally found that information campaigns often have little, or
no, impact on promoting behavioural change and thus can be expensive in relation to their effectiveness,
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Southerton et al., 2011). Evidence suggests that information alone is seldom
sufficient to promote change, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Geller, 2002; Staats et al., 1996). Yet, in cases where
lack of knowledge has been identified as a barrier to participation, information dissemination seems to
motivate changes in behaviour, (Geller, 2002). Nevertheless, research also found that people often possess
the knowledge required to engage in modifying behaviour, but they lack the motivation for doing so, which
indicates the existence of an, ‘information-behaviour gap’, between the held information and behaviour,
(Geller, 2002; Jackson, 2005; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992; Schultz, 2002; Southerton et al.,
2011; Stern, 1999). One example for such an information-behaviour gap is Al Gore’s film, ‘An Inconvenient
Truth,’ that emphasized the seriousness of the global climate crisis, argues that it could be solved with
present and foreseeable technology, and concludes that all citizens could play a meaningful role in the
solution, thus creating a sense of awareness regarding the need for change for the better. Research found
that watching the movie increased knowledge about the causes of global warming, concern for the
environment and willingness to reduce greenhouse gases, but this willingness didn’t necessarily translate
into action, (Gardner & Stern, 2008; Nolan, 2010). A review of intervention studies on household energy

12
To Do lists come in a number of formats:
‘20 things you can do’ http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/20things.htm
‘101 Ways To Heal The Earth’ http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC22/Guide.htm
‘100 Ways to Save The Environment http://www.seql.org/100ways.cfm


64
conservation carried out by Abrahamse et al. (2005), provided some further evidence for the existence of
an information-behaviour gap. They found that workshops, mass media campaigns and even targeted
information provision in general led to higher levels of concern about the energy crisis, to an increased level
of knowledge about energy conservation, of (self-reported), conservation behaviours and to stronger
intentions to adopt energy-saving measures. However, even though information might have influenced the
underlying determinants of energy use, Abrahamse et al. (2005), found no clear evidence that this also
resulted in any reduction in energy use.
The literature does provide, however, some evidence that information provision could support the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. Information provision might support the adoption of energy
efficient behaviours when used in combination with other type of intervention, such as feedback provision,
or auditing and personalised advice, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Equally, information strategies that made use
of, for example, face-to-face interventions, which used feedback mechanisms such as monitoring
equipment (water or energy), or that included individual pledges to a long term commitment to reduce
consumption, seemed to support the adoption of energy efficient behaviours, (Southerton et al., 2011). For
example, Staats, Leeuwen, and Wit (2000), found that office workers improved their energy efficient
behaviours, such as keeping thermostat settings consistent and removing objects from heating grates,
immediately after an informational brochure was handed out to them. Subsequently, other intervention
components, such as poster prompts and feedback, were added to maintain these energy efficient
behaviours. The results of these subsequent intervention components demonstrated that energy efficient
behaviours benefited from the combination of different strategies. Secondly, information provision might
also be more effective if such information-based interventions are tailored to fit specific situations,
(Abrahamse et al., 2005). Tailored information is highly personalized and specific information. An advantage
of this approach is that people, instead of getting an overload of general information, which may not apply
to their situation, receive tailored information only. Examples of tailored information are energy audits, i.e.
a home visit by an auditor who supplies a range of energy-saving options based on their current situation.
For instance, auditors may advise a household to apply insulation and/or to lower thermostat settings as
well as a complementary set of curtailment behaviours, (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rotehengatter, 2007).
Previous research shows that home energy audits (mainly focusing on heating and air conditioning), might


65
be a very efficient intervention measure to increase energy savings in households, (Abrahamse, 2003, 2007;
Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Thirdly, tailored information, targeted at an intended population segment, also
appeared to support the adoption of energy efficient behaviours, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009; Southerton et
al., 2011). Successful information campaigns seem to use practices that are nowadays commonly accepted
as good campaign design practices: simple, clear messages, repeated often through a variety of
interpersonal and media channels, by a variety of trusted sources, (Streimikiene, 2012).
4.4.2 Commitment and goal setting
Commitment strategies involve asking participants to make a verbal, or written, commitment to perform a
desired behaviour, such as to save energy, which is often linked to a specific goal or reference point, for
instance, to reduce energy use by X percent, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Goal setting is often used in
combination with other interventions, such as feedback (to indicate how households are performing in
relation to the goal), or as part of a commitment to conserve a certain amount of energy. Cialdini (2001),
argued that once people have made a commitment, they are more likely to perform their target behaviour,
especially, if the commitment is active, public, and perceived as voluntary. Commitment strategies might
also draw on the social norm of consistency, which creates pressure to be internally and externally
consistent, depending on whether the pledge was to oneself, or public, (Cialdini, 2001). Pledges to oneself
may activate a personal norm, meaning a moral obligation, with public pledges activating social norms, the
expectation of others to pursue the behaviour. Commitment strategies are often seen as a way to use the
‘foot-in-the-door’ technique that assumes that compliance to a first (smaller), request will result in
compliance to a subsequent (bigger), request, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). The efficacy of commitment and
goal setting in bringing about changes in energy use is expected to increase once used in combination with
other type of interventions, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). For instance, commitment strategies that have been
combining goal setting with feedback appear to be more effective than using goal setting alone, (McCalley
& Midden, 2002). Commitment strategies have been, for example, successfully applied to reduce household
energy use, especially in the long-term, as found in several studies, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Similarly
McCalley and Midden (2002), found that participants who had been given a goal as well as feedback, saved
more energy per washing trial, than participants who had only received feedback (without a goal). In


66
addition to this, Becker (1978), highlighted the care one should have in defining goals. During this study,
households were either given a relatively difficult goal (20 percent), or a relatively easy goal (2 percent), to
reduce electricity use. The results suggest that an easier goal appears not to be effective, as a 2 percent
reduction may be perceived as not being worth the effort. Finally, previous research found that there
appeared to be no significantly different behaviour between participants who had been able to set a goal
and those with an assigned goal, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Becker, 1978; Bittle et al., 1979; Brandon & Lewis,
1999; Gerdes, 2009).
In summary, commitment, goal setting and feedback appear to be viable mechanisms for reducing
household energy use and, especially, in view of realising long-term behavioural changes, (Abrahamse et al.,
2005); and particularly when used in combination, (McCalley & Midden, 2002).
4.4.3 Behavioural intervention through design
As has been explored and demonstrated in previous sections, infrastructures and technologies are at the
core of energy consumption, whether that is cooking, bathing or surfing the internet, but these also lock
people into behaviours that can be very difficult to change, (Maréchal, 2010; Southerton et al., 2011), as
has been shown in Chapter Two. Thus, behavioural interventions might make use of environmental design,
or material context adjustments that focus on the introduction of devices, or objects, that create
opportunities for a desired behaviour modification, such as pro-environmental behaviour, more salient, or
convenient. This is also known as choice architecture and the concept of nudge, where the default options
are set in order to facilitate the selection of the individual’s best choice, (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), through
changes in the context in which they are made. According to Grist (2010), nudging is of particular use to
influence habitual behaviours. To facilitate better decision making in individuals, Nudge approaches can use
product design as a mechanism to nudge behaviour in a particular direction in specific contexts. An example
of nudging can be seen in Portland, USA, where the timing of traffic signals were changed in a way that was
supposed to allow a reduction in petrol use by motorists, (Southerton et al., 2011). The Portland case thus
illustrates how nudging can be used without individuals having to make a choice, or necessarily aware that
they have been ‘nudged’. Another example of nudging is the default opt-in for discretionary charges to
finance carbon offsetting schemes, (Southerton et al., 2011), or the default of a TV, or power box, from


67
stand-by to off. In this way, choice architecture can contribute to framing individual options by making it
easier for people to adopt the desired rather than, the undesired behaviour, (Dobson, 2011; Thaler &
Sunstein, 2008). Nevertheless, there are some critics to the nudging approach. For instance, Dobson (2011),
argues that nudging fails to engage people at the level of principle and, could be considered as a
paternalistic, anti-democratic approach to changing behaviour without prior knowledge. This will be further
examined in Chapter 8 when it comes to perceived requirements (RQ3a) and individual perceptions on the
effectiveness of intervention strategies (RQ3b). Dobson (2011), further argues that though nudging is
perceived as a ‘low-cost’ and ‘low pain’ strategy, this actually might not necessarily be the case.
Physical infrastructures are also an important design element, since they support the development of social
context, of the norms of consumption and is prominent in energy, building, transport, water and
waste/recycling sectors, (Southerton et al., 2011). Shove and Southerton (2000), provided one example
with the introduction of the freezer within households, which has developed alongside an entire frozen-
food infrastructure. This has resulted in changes to the design and use of houses and kitchens, the
development of the out-of-town supermarkets and a subsequent decline of local food stores, which in turn
render household food provisioning, without a freezer, increasingly difficult. Shifting infrastructure thus
holds a significant potential to facilitate individual decision-making and to shift social norms toward more
sustainable behaviours. As such, interventions in material infrastructures not only create the conditions for
new habits to emerge, but they also hold the potential to lock people into sustained environmentally
friendly behaviour. The main constraint with regards to intervention relates, consequently, to the
infrastructure and cost involved in establishing those, as has been discussed in section 4.3.2.
4.4.4 Rewards and punishments
Reward and punishment approaches appeal to people’s self-interest and can be effective in the short term.
Individuals have an apparent natural tendency to avoid losses, rather than to seek gains, (Kahneman &
Tversky, 1979). They discount future gains more than future losses, (Thaler, 1981), prefering to have short
term gains rather than long term ones, (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002, 2003; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ølander,
2002) and they tend to give preference to taking action where these create potential gains, rather than
taking action to avoid potential losses, (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). With this, the logic behind the reward


68
and punishment approach is simply to avoid pain (punishments) and embrace pleasure (rewards). As long
as the incentives and disincentives are aligned with the goal, the adoption of different behaviours is
evaluated as possible. Dobson (2011) highlighted two main benefit of this approach: it can work very fast,
often resulting in observable positive outcomes as soon as a charge and incentive measure is put in place
and, people do not need to agree with the environment agenda for it to work. Acceptance might be an
issue in particular in the case of taxes, charges, or fees. As an example, a BBC World Service Poll (2007),
survey showed that 50 percent of responders’ were in favour of raising taxes on energy sources that
contribute to climate change, whilst 44 percent opposed this. Acceptance levels did, however, increase
once it was noted that the revenues of those taxes would be devoted to improving efficiency and seeking
out sources of energy that do not produce climate change, or if other taxes were reduced in line, so that the
total tax bill remain the same. Less agreement seems to exist regarding the effectiveness of financial
incentives. Southerton et al. (2011), highlighted that financial incentives often interfere with market
mechanisms, supporting earlier findings from Thøgersen and Møller (2008) that illustrate that financial
incentives do not necessarily foster long term changes in behaviour, once the incentive is removed. Even
though there is evidence that rewards seem to have a positive effect on energy saving and have effectively
encouraged energy conservation, there is less evidence that this is not a short-term effect and that desired
behaviours are not dropped to baseline levels once the reward contingency is discontinued, (Abrahamse et
al., 2005; Dwyer et al., 1993; Geller, 2002; Geller et al., 1982). Dobson (2011) suggested that a reason for
such a reversal might be the fact that the strategy seems to fail to engage people at the level of principle,
since with punishments and rewards, people do not need to have any environmental commitment
whatsoever for it to work. This is to say that what initially could be perceived as a short-term advantage
with immediate impact, can actually become a disadvantage in the long-run, due to the fact that people
respond to the prompt and not the principles underlying it (Dobson, 2011). Nevertheless, Geller (2002),
added to this discussion by suggesting that relapses can also result from interventions that were, relatively,
short in duration and not in place long enough to lead to long-term behaviour change. In contrast,
strategies geared towards punishment seem to have been more successful in enforcing change, such as
monetary penalties discouraging unwanted behaviours, i.e. the London congestion charge. Nevertheless,
this might be, again, of short-term impact, as (Dobson, 2011), studies of the London congestion charge have
shown that after an initial period of traffic reduction, levels increased again. This relapse potential perhaps


69
also explains why, in recent years, less focus has been placed on environmental interventions that use
reward schemes to incentivise change. During the 1970’s, reward over punishment strategies were a
popular component of environmental interventions due to the negative attitudes and counter-control
measures that can result from perceived punishment, (Brehm, 1972; Skinner, 1971). 55 percent of the
interventions reviewed by Geller et al. (1982) involved the use of tangible rewards. In contrast, only 27
percent of the studies (15 of 54), from the 1980’s reviewed by Dwyer et al. (1993) used rewards, compared
to 13 percent (4 of 32), of environmental related studies published since 1990.
In summary, reward and punishment systems have an, apparent, positive and viable short-term impact but
are less promising in the long-term, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Dobson, 2011; Dwyer et al., 1993; Geller,
2002; Geller et al., 1982; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002, 2003; Southerton et al., 2011; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen &
Møller, 2008; Thøgersen & Ølander, 2002). But, they might equally contribute to the disconnection of
people thinking about the moral and ethical dimension of sustainability and thus reduce the potential for
social learning within the process (Dobson, 2011). Rewards and punishments systems thus hold the
potential to reduce the likelihood of sustainability being thought of in normative terms. Sustainability
becomes a non-normative policy objective achieved by the mobilisation of a reductive view of human
motivation (self-interested utility maximisation), without making reference to sustainability at all; so
missing the principle and opportunities for long-term social learning. In addition to this, rewards and
incentives might have a different impact depending on the household income. Household energy use is
related to people’s income, with wealthier families spending more on energy than poorer ones (section
2.2.5.). This punishment and reward system might have differing impacts dependant on the different
income groups and on how much is spent, as a fraction of income and/or expenditure and is likely to effects
their reaction to such types of interventions. Finally, rewards and punishments systems do not, apparently,
address the performance context of habits, (Maréchal, 2010), thus they do not seem to take into account
one of the identified barriers to energy savings, as has been discussed in Chapter three.
4.4.5 Learning theories and modelling
Modelling is a way to provide examples of desired behaviour to encourage learning by, trial and error and
by observing how others behave, (Bandura, 1977b). Modelling thus assumes that examples will be followed


70
once they are understandable, relevant, meaningful and rewarding, in terms of positive results to people.
Evidence regarding the use of modelling in energy conservation areas seems to be scarce. In studies from
the 80s, Winett and Kagel (1984) and Winett, Leckliter, Chinn, Stahl, and Love (1985), demonstrated its
utility in increasing energy saving and conservation at home, at least in the short term, with participants
who viewed a 20-minute video presentation of conservation behaviours significantly decreasing their
residential energy use by 10 percent over a nine-week period when compared to controls. Additionally,
before and after testing revealed a significant increase in knowledge for the experimental group, but not for
the control group. A follow-up study, one year later, showed, however, that the savings were not
maintained, thus modelling intervention did not lead to a long-term behavioural change. More recently,
McMakin, Malone, and Lundgren (2002), used videotaped modelling, as part of a multi-component
campaign, to reduce home energy use of residents at military bases; this proved to be moderately effective
in promoting behavioural change.
4.4.6 Social learning community based approaches
Community-based initiatives appear to be well in line with social practice theory, (Giddens, 1984) and often
seek to change consumer behaviour by influencing social norms, by focusing in on the importance of social
networks for circulating information and expectations regarding appropriate behaviours. They seek to
support individual efforts in order to live more sustainably by framing what it is that, ‘we’, like to consume,
as well as what, ‘we’, understand to be appropriate, or inappropriate, conduct, (Southerton et al., 2011).
Within this structure, community based initiatives target behaviour, followed by careful analysis of the
barriers that prevent the desired behaviour, leading to the piloting of a community-wide intervention plan,
within a small segment of the community and finally, to the implementation and evaluation of a
community-wide application, (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Thus, the objective is to help reduce the gap
between current intervention strategies and to optimize the conditions to enable individuals to carry out
energy efficiency behaviour. Namely (1), people value energy efficiency measures more if the benefits
remain directed to themselves; (2), energy use and savings must be visible; (3), goals and motives for
energy efficiency measures must be provided; and finally (4), information must be personalized and
presented in a clear way, (McMakin et al., 2002). One example of Community-based initiatives is the


71
EcoTeams Program (ETP) that consists of small groups, e.g. neighbours, friends and families, who come
together once every month to exchange information about energy-saving options, (Abrahamse et al., 2005)
and to receive feedback about own and other EcoTeams energy saving practices. Staats, Harland, and Wilke
(2004), suggest ETP could be a promising type of intervention, since it has been successful in reducing
energy use in several domains, both shortly after the program and during a follow-up two years later.
However and as already mentioned, due to the combined set of interventions that is often used within ETP,
it is difficult to attribute success to a single intervention domain, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Furthermore,
ETP participants presumably were highly motivated, making it difficult to generalize results to wider
populations which might be holding different levels of motivations regarding energy use and energy saving
behaviour, (Abrahamse et al., 2005).
4.5 Combined Structural/Psychological interventions
Some interventions identified within the literature, which appear to be a rather combined approach of
structural and psychological interventions, follow on below.
4.5.1 Prompting strategies
Prompting strategies are verbal or written messages that designate desirable target behaviours and
prompting messages are considered to be a way to provide information, (Staats et al., 2000). Prompting
strategies might be an attractive intervention, since they can be of relatively low cost and can have
considerable impact if used properly. In accordance to Geller, Winett, and Everett (1982), prompting
strategies should meet a number of conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, namely that the target
behaviour should be easy to perform, clearly defined and that the message is displayed, in close proximity,
to where the target behaviour can be performed. In addition to this, messages should be stated politely to
avoid eliciting negative reactions, (Brehm, 1972; Skinner, 1971) and labelled in such a way as to provide
information designed to help consumers make informed choices, (Shove, 2004). To further increase
effectiveness, products would need to be fully and consistently labelled so as to provide consistent and
comparative levels of information for consumers, (DGGE/IP-3E, 2004). The general challenge for carbon


72
labelling is to ensure that the information provided within the label is meaningful, easy to understand,
standardised, and that motivates consumers into wanting to take action, (Southerton et al., 2011).
4.5.2 Feedback provision
Feedback involves providing information to participants about their environment-relevant behaviours and is
thus similar to information provision. A distinctive difference to information provision is that feedback
strategies tend to be more tailored so to make the consequences of behaviour more salient. Feedback in
the energy use area could be, for example, to provide households with information about their energy
consumption, or achieved energy savings, with the expectation that households can associate certain
outcomes, e.g. energy saving, with their behaviour, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). In most homes, attempts to
understand energy use have been, aptly, compared to shopping at a grocery store without any prices on
display and receiving a bill at the end of a month’s worth of purchases, (Kempton and Montgomery, 1982,
Janda, 2011).
Feedback might vary in frequency, purpose and type, (Darby, 2006; Fischer, 2008). First of all, the frequency
of feedback is associated with the way feedback is provided, e.g. monitoring devices can provide continuous
feedback, compared to energy bills, which provide feedback, perhaps, on a monthly base. Secondly,
feedback can also be provided for specific households or, as a comparison to other, similar households,
neighbours, or communities. Feedback about individual performance relative to others may be helpful in
reducing household energy use by the mediation of social norms, by comparison of their energy use to that
of friends, or neighbours, (Cialdini et al., 1991; Cialdini et al., 1990; Triandis, 1977). Comparative feedback
could thus influence the perception of what constitutes ‘normal’ energy use and also produce a feeling of
competition, social comparison, or social pressure, which may be especially effective once important, or
other relevant factors are used as a reference group, (Steg, Dreĳerink, & Abrahamse, 2006). Yet, evidence
appears scarce that using comparative feedback could indeed be more effective than individual feedback,
(Brandon and Lewis, 1999). This impact might also be influenced by the way comparative feedback is
provided. This is to say that when people become aware of a social descriptive norm (what is done), their
behaviour tends to change to become closer to the norm, which could then negatively impacting those
users that use less energy, as they might feel tempted to increase their energy use, (Brandon & Lewis,


73
1999). The power of these messages can nevertheless be harnessed by using injunctive norms instead, with
messages conveying approval of particular actions considered to contribute to decrease the effect, (Schultz,
Nola, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). Thirdly, it is not clear whether it makes any difference to
give feedback in terms of monetary rather than environmental costs, since studies investigating this
difference did not find any evidence for this, or determination as to which could be more meaningful to
recipients, (Brandon & Lewis, 1999).
4.5.3 Monitoring systems and metering
The ‘invisibility’ of energy might contribute to individual unawareness of consumption levels and fostering
support towards measures, such as feedback on energy consumption and personal contribution, could
provide an access to the problem of providing information, (Darby, 2006; Roberts & Baker, 2003).
Monitoring systems, such as energy meters, could be seen as a way to, ‘commoditize,’ behaviour into a
good proxy, in order to make consumption visible, (WWF, 2008). Today's monitoring systems offer new
opportunities to observe and give feedback to people and to engage with them, in real time, about the
complex ways in which they consume energy. They are however not entirely new and smart metering, for
example, was initially proposed in the 1970s, though only recently has come into full view, (Darby, 2010).
Recent research on smart metering and householder engagement agrees that feedback alone is not enough
to interest occupants, (Darby, 2010), but nevertheless, feedback strategies have shown modest, but
consistent, energy savings, although some exceptions do exist, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Dwyer et al., 1993;
Geller et al., 1982). Research shows that in-home displays give interested users feedback information to
help them understand and manage their electricity more efficiently, achieving savings in the range of 5–15
percent, (EEA, 2013). There is also evidence that displays have an enduring impact, even if only used for
short periods, through changed habits and investment in efficiency measures, (Darby, 2006; Rossini, 2009).
Monitoring systems have been shown that feedback efficacy is expected to be influenced by the time that
the feedback is provided; and favouring feedback provision immediately after the behaviour occurs, (Geller,
2002). The more frequent that feedback is given, the more effective it is with the most positive effects
being observed with continuous feedback, (Abrahamse, 2003; Abrahamse et al., 2005). However, the use of
energy meters has been under discussion since their acceptance and impact levels, apparently, do vary. On


74
one side, appreciation could be observed, but equally there had been annoyance, (Hargreaves, Nye, &
Burgess, 2010; IPPR, 2009). In addition to this, the impact of energy meters, in terms of energy saving, is
considered to decrease with time (EEA, 2013) which is in-line with findings from Darby (2006), that
feedback on consumption could have an impact, but might not be sufficient for people to understand and
thus change their behaviour regarding energy saving. Yet, the joint use of feedback and commitment could
be a viable way to achieve impact, (Maréchal, 2010; Stern, 2000).
4.5.4 Social marketing
Social marketing can be defined as the application of marketing principles and tools to achieve socially
desirable goals, (Andreasen, 1995; Kotler & Zaltman, 1971). Social marketers understand that behaviour
change is the main goal and that to change behaviour it is not necessarily required to change people’s
fundamental attitudes and beliefs, but rather to work within their current attitudes and beliefs. As such
social marketing opens the opportunity to promote behavioural change based on existing values that are
not necessarily pro-environmental, but still could foster more sustainable behaviours, (Southerton et al.,
2011). Social marketing has been used in a variety of areas to promote individual behavioural change and,
in particular, to provide solutions in public health areas, (Grier & Bryant, 2005; Helmig & Thaler, 2010).
Social marketing generally promotes voluntary behavioural change based on building beneficial exchange
relationships with a target audience for the benefit of society, (Schwartz, B. in Hastings, 2008). This draws
from the exchange theory, (Hastings & Haywood, 1991), which states that people change their behaviour
because they are offered something in exchange that, they perceive, provides greater benefits and fewer
barriers than the alternative. As a result individuals will take action to adapt as it is in their interest and
ability to do so. That is, they will take measures where the benefits outweigh the costs to them. As such,
promoting individual change requires an understanding of some of the relevant principles which are the
core of social marketing: the target population, segmentation of the population and aligning change
interventions to specific segments. With this, the principle of change is clearly distinct from the regulatory,
or the education principle, (Andreasen, 1995), as the regulatory principle focuses on rewards and
punishments, while the education principle assumes that people modify behaviour as they acquire
information or skills that they did not previously have. Voluntary behavioural change also means that there


75
is no coercion and as such, it does not exclude the Nudge approach, since changing the conditions in which
behaviour occurs is not viewed as coercion as individuals are allowed to choose. Contrarily, choice
architecture should rather be seen as a tool for making the ‘right’ individual decision as easy as possible for
people to do.
The history of commercial marketing shows that knowing and segmenting one’s audiences is a precondition
for success. Behavioural change interventions that are drawing on social marketing thus need to be
targeted at specific segments of the population. For example, in the case of adopting more energy efficient
behaviour one would have to take into consideration the existing needs, barriers and motivations to save
energy, actions already undertaken and those that individuals intend to take and accurately targeting
segments, using messages, messengers, communications channels and policies that are appropriate to
them, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009; Southerton et al., 2011). Whilst similar to commercial marketing, social
marketing works on the principle of population segmentation using the 4Ps (product, price, place and
promotion). These are the basic structural elements that social marketing addresses to produce a
competitive benefit for a particular segment of the audience, once orientated through the market exchange
filter, (Grier & Bryant, 2005; Weinreich, 1999), aimed at changing individual behaviour and attitudes,
(Andreasen, 1995; G. Hastings & Saren, 2003; Helmig & Thaler, 2010; Kotler et al., 1989). The basic idea is to
rebalance the 4Ps mix compensating for missing or weak Ps. The difference between commercial and social
marketing is in what the 4Ps stand for. For social marketing the 4Ps have the following objectives:
• ‘Product’ means the social proposition, the desired behaviour one is asking the audience to adopt,
the associated benefits of adopting the desired behaviour and any tangible objects, or services,
which support, or facilitate, the desired behaviour.
• ‘Price’ means the cost of involvement and also the barriers that the target audience needs to face
once changing towards the desired behaviour. Non-monetary costs such, as time, should also be
considered. Here is where the exchange principle is important, since the benefits of changing
behaviour should be greater than the costs.


76
• ‘Place’ stands for accessibility, either the location where the target audience will perform the
desired behaviour, or where the product, or service, is made available to the target audience.
• ´Promotion’ covers communication, how the product, or service, is made known to the target
segment. For the energy area, the product is rather the adoption of new behaviour regarding the
usage of energy consuming appliances and actions and not just of purchasing new appliances,
(Peattie & Peattie, 2003).
The academic literature on social marketing, behaviour change, and even commercial branding, suggests
that people are motivated to purchase products and/or change their behaviour based on three broad
categories of benefits, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009). These are; (1), functional benefits: what the product, or
behaviour, will do; (2), self-expressive benefits: what the product, or behaviour, says about one; and (3),
self-evaluative benefits: how the product, or behaviour, makes one feel about themselves. Leiserowitz et al.
(2009), further proposed that functional benefits are ones that are relatively simple to promote and that
promotional communication campaigns need only to invoke the functional benefits of the product, or
behaviour that members of the target audience find most persuasive. On the other side, self-expressive and
self-evaluative benefits, though being more challenging to promote, are often more powerful and of longer
duration. Enhancing the functional benefits of saving energy could therefore involve messages such as, ‘It
will save me money’, as those seem to be at the centre of individual motivation to save energy. Enhancing
self-expressive benefits, on the other hand, might involve messages such as, ‘I’m the kind of person who
cares about helping to reduce global warming’, while, associated self-evaluative benefits might including, ‘I
feel good about myself once I do this because it’s the moral thing to do’.
Judging from the literature, there appears to be, however, three limitations to the use of social marketing in
the energy area. Firstly, a relation between the success and failure of behavioural change interventions
could be influenced by the ability to remove barriers that currently impede target audience members from
performing recommended behaviours, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009). As such, enhancing individuals’ motivation
to change is necessary, but likely won’t be sufficient alone and in order for the recommended behaviour to
be widely adopted, there will also be a need to remove the barriers that individuals face. In Chapters 2 and
3, a number of such barriers towards more pro-environmental behaviour, more specifically towards less


77
energy intensive ones, have been discussed and removing those barriers was seen to require addressing
cultural, normative and individual psychological variables that are often hard to change. Secondly, the social
marketing approach might actually serve to defer, or even undermine, the prospects for more far-reaching
and systemic behavioural changes that are needed in the area of energy consumption. According to the
WWF (2008), this is to say that social marketing might lead to feelings of uncertainty, despair and guilt,
contributing to states of denial, paralysis and apathy resulting in people feeling helpless in regards to
adopting more energy efficient behaviour, as discussed within section 3.4.3. Thirdly, in the case of energy,
there might be no visible, direct benefit of saving energy. It is difficult for individuals to perceive the
benefits of the social good that social marketing intervention promotes. As such, the use of social marketing
within the energy consumption area might look for inspiration in other related areas, such as reducing the
number of non-voters during elections, or donation campaigns. Kotler et al. (1989), recognized, for
example, that social marketing campaigns could have limited success in promoting behavioural change,
since individuals, even if aware of the consequences of their behaviour, might lack motivation, or ability, or
simply because the competitive behaviour is more attractive.
As has been discussed throughout this chapter, achieving lasting behavioural change might be a difficult
undertaking, in particular since environmental values, beliefs and attitudes apparently do not have any
significant influence on energy consumption. It can also be seen that there are a number of frameworks
that attempt to support intervention strategies, by trying to find the right interplay between the various
strategies each showing a slight variation in terms of existing factors and approach. This includes the right
interplay between contextual factors and micro-level factors, plus a diversity of other determinants,
motivations and barriers that may need to be taken into account for any successful intervention attempt. It
has been discussed that there are a number of potential intervention layers and that any type of
intervention might also have to take into account the role of communication and persuasion, so that the
credibility of the sender, the persuasiveness of the argument/message, or the responsiveness of the
audience can be assured. The literature shows a diversity of existing intervention strategies and types that
could be broadly grouped into either, structural or, psychological interventions. While structural


78
interventions aim to change the (social), context in which behavioural decisions take place, psychological
intervention aims at changing existing perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, norms and values (i.e. individual,
micro-level variables). To date however, most intervention strategies have predominantly focused on
voluntary behavioural change, rather than on changing contextual factors aimed at determining individual
decisions. The difference here is, that contextual factors set the context where individual decisions are
made and intervention strategies that include both, voluntary behaviour change and contextual factors,
might, therefore, increase the level of success in promoting lasting behavioural change. Despite a growing
body of research and evidence, there still appears to be no clear evidence for the potential long-term
effectiveness of change interventions within the field of home energy use which this research attempts to
explore further in Chapter 8. In regard to this, it can also be seen that there are numerous persuasion
theories that might be applied to promote behavioural change, with each one providing a different
approach that could be useful. Chapter 8 will thus investigate how such possible approaches, factors and
determinants might be best considered within interventions (RQ3b) and what these requirements might be
(RQ3a).

5. Research methodology and design

79
5 Research methodology and design
This chapter discusses the methodological approaches taken in the research study. It also considers other
theoretical applicable methodologies and reasons for discounting these approaches. The chapter provides
an overview of the research design, the methods used to address research questions and details how
research questions have been derived from previous literature review chapters. An overview of the
research design is shown in Figure 5-1 outlining the relation between the different phases of research.

Figure 5-1: Research design from initial framing to implementation.
This research is of an exploratory nature and aims to explore how the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours at home could be encouraged. With this the research has the objective to gain an understanding
of energy use at home and how the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours could be promoted. The
methodological approaches chosen for this study thus must be compatible with the exploratory nature of
the research and to support answering the overall research questions:
• RQ1: What explains energy use at home?
• RQ2: What influences energy use at home?


80
• RQ3: How to promote energy efficient behaviour?
As can be seen from the questions, this research does not attempt to test existing theories, but to obtain an
insight and in-depth knowledge, of the topic under investigation through the different phases of research.
The study targets both energy users and energy conservation intervention practitioners in the area of
energy efficiency, so to provide a more comprehensive and complete overview of potential behavioural
interventions that would result in the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour.
5.1 Literature review on available methods
The methodological approaches chosen for this study have been selected based upon the exploratory
nature of the research and after careful evaluation and consideration of the possible theoretical applicable
methodologies that are available.
5.1.1 Inductive or deductive
Through this research a preference has been given for inductive research, with the emphasis on an
exploratory approach to improve the understanding of energy use at home and how the adoption of more
energy efficient behaviour could be promoted. In an inductive approach theory is developed from the
observation of empirical reality; which involves moving from individual observation to statements of
general patterns, or laws, (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). This is in contrast to a deductive approach where a
conceptual and theoretical structure is developed and then tested by empirical observation, so to move
from the general to the particular, (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Empirical research requires choosing
between the deductive or inductive research paradigms. Figure 5-2 demonstrates the differences between
these two paradigms and research approaches.

Figure 5-2: Inductive vs. deductive research approaches, (Rudestam, Newton, 2001, p.5).


81
As this research has been placing an emphasis on an exploratory approach an inductive approach has thus
seen to be more appropriate to improve the understanding of energy use at home and how the adoption of
more energy efficient behaviours could be promoted.
5.1.2 Subjective or objective
Another decision that had to be taken relates to the question of subjectivity and objectivity, which means
the extent to which the researcher is subjective (involved in or has an influence on the research outcome)
or objective (distanced from or independent) in the execution of the fieldwork (empirical work). Easterby-
Smith et al. (2002) and Tashakkori & Teddlier (2003) both discussed the traditional assumption that in
science the researcher must maintain complete independence if there is to be any validity in the results
produced. However, within this research, the researcher seeks to explore and understand the narratives
built around energy use at home, uncovering the perceptions of reality, which is by its very nature,
subjective. It is accepted that such a subjective approach, as used in the research, requires the recognition
of any influence or limitation such subjectivity may have on the conduct or findings of the research. It is
argued that the selection of a mixed method approach with the inclusion of qualitative methods implies the
existence of a subjective approach (Hussey & Hussey, 1997), since qualitative data is subjective by nature
since different people can perceive the truth differently. With this, the researcher’s experiences, beliefs,
and values are incorporated into the research design and analysis of data, with qualitative researchers
studying things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of
the meanings people bring to them.
5.1.3 Positivism or constructivism
Positivism is based on a deductive, scientific process, looking for a cause and effect relation, drawn from an
initial hypotheses, whereas constructivism is by nature more inductive, based on the interpretation of data
to generate a conclusion, (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Within the inductive approach theory is developed
from the observation of empirical reality, and thus it is constructed. The inductive approach is thus similar
to constructivism in so far as constructivism uses inductive reasoning. From a constructivist perspective
knowledge is developed through the interaction with the natural world (Glasersfeld, 1990; Piaget, 1952;
Piaget, 1969). Knowledge is thus not passively received but it is actively constructed through social


82
interaction and it has an important influence on the formation of language, thought, and finally of
personality. (Vygotsky 1978). In accordance with Piaget (1952) knowledge is not a representation of the real
world, but instead a collection of conceptual structures that results from the development of human
intellect and proceeds through adaptation and organization. The existing knowledge of an individual is thus
a result of past and existing experiences (Glasersfeld, 1989).
This research further combines positivist and constructivist paradigms, as use of both paradigms was seen
to be an appropriate means to provide the researcher with the ability to statistically analyse the data, whilst
also allowing for an exploration of the complex set of variables that influence human behaviour.
5.1.4 Qualitative or quantitative
Empirical research requires choosing whether to adopt a quantitative or qualitative approach, or some mix
of the two. If in one way, quantitative research aims at generating statistics through the use of methods
such as surveys or structure interviews, qualitative research aims at exploring attitudes, behaviour and
experiences through such methods as interviews or focus groups (Dawson, 2002). A quantitative study,
consistent with the quantitative paradigm, is an inquiry into a social or human problem, based on testing a
theory composed of variables, measured with numbers, and analysed with statistical procedures, in order
to determine whether the predictive generalizations of the theory hold true. In contrast, a qualitative study
is an inquiry process of understanding social or human problem, based on building a complex, holistic
picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting
(Cresswell, 2009). The purpose of qualitative research is to examine the patterns of meaning which emerge
from the data and these are often presented in the participants' own words. The task of the qualitative
researcher is to find patterns within those words (and actions) and to present those patterns for others to
inspect while at the same time staying as close to the construction of the world as the participants originally
experienced it. Denzin and Lincoln (2002) point out that qualitative research is multi-method in focus,
involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers
study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the
meanings people bring to them by the use of a variety of empirical materials. This constructivist notion that
reality is changing whether the observer wishes it or not is an indication of multiple or possibly diverse


83
constructions of reality. Constructivism values multiple realities that people have in their minds. Therefore,
to acquire valid and reliable multiple and diverse realities, multiple methods of searching or gathering data
are in order and the use of investigators, method and data triangulations to record the construction of
reality is appropriate (Creswell & Clark, 2007).
In accordance to the literature, (Creswell and Clark, 2007; Morse, 2003), the use of quantitative and
qualitative approaches in combination also provides a better understanding of research problems than
either approach used alone. It can help answer questions that cannot be answered by quantitative or
qualitative approaches alone, which was seen as relevant and to support the nature of this research.
Quantitative methods appear to be in particular suitable to address a large population and thus produce
results that are easy to code and standardize, (D. Morgan, 2007; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). Such
quantitative approaches are however limited to provide in-depth and detailed information and thus
qualitative methodologies were subsequently used to explore the topic in more detail and to allow the
voice, concerns and practices, of research participants to be heard, (Cole, 2006; Weaver and Olson, 2006).
Using narratives and qualitative methods appeared to be however more adequate to better understand
everyday energy practices, with structured questionnaires to gather a broader spectrum of data. As this
research seeks to understand people and the social and cultural contexts within which they live, the
qualitative approach of data gathering had thus been dominant throughout this study. Quantitative
research in this study is therefore aimed to gain insight and identify issues for the subsequent qualitative
phases of the empirical work, while the qualitative research aims to explore attitudes, behaviour and
experiences through such methods as interviews or focus groups.
The use of both, qualitative and quantitative methodologies allowed the researcher to embrace different
aspects of energy related behaviours, as well as to address their diversity and complexity so as to better
understand the meaning that people assign to energy use, exploring the full complexity of determinants
that influence energy use, and to increase general understanding on how the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviours could be promoted. The use of both groups of methods also supports the reliability,
validity and quality of the findings, since both qualitative and quantitative researchers need to test and
demonstrate that their studies are credible (Golafshani, 2003). With this the use of triangulation, a means
of combining qualitative and quantitative research methods, could be seen as a viable approach to allow for


84
the “convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a
study” (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p. 126) and to reflect the multiple ways of establishing truth (Golafshani,
2003; Bergmann, 2011). Triangulation can be a means to overcome the influence the researcher has on the
behaviour of participants, or in terms of the bias the researcher brings himself or herself into the conduct of
the research (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Lowe, 2002; Patton, 2002).
Triangulation therefore allows for an increase in the reliability, quality and validity of the findings,
(Bergman, 2011; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Golafshani, 2003; Patton, 2002). Triangulation in this context
was thus also seen as a means to overcome the influence that the researcher has on the behaviour of
participants, or in terms of the bias that the researcher brings into the conduct of the research. As Hussey &
Hussey (1997) argued, the selection of a mixed method approach with the inclusion of qualitative methods
implies the existence of a subjective approach, since qualitative data is subjective by nature as different
people can perceive the truth differently. Further to this the research used some of the triangulation
categories proposed by Stake (1995), namely data and methodological triangulation and multiple methods
like surveys, focus groups and individual interviews, as well as theory triangulation during which more than
one theoretical scheme in the interpretation of the phenomenon is used. As this research seeks to
understand people and the social and cultural contexts within which they live, a mainly qualitative approach
to data gathering was used. This research is designed based on a mixed, multi-method research approach,
using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. As detailed by Cresswell & Clark (2007) and
Morse (2003) the premise of using a mixed methods research approach is that the use of quantitative and
qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either
approach alone. As such a mixed methods research approach can help answering questions that cannot be
answered by quantitative or qualitative approaches alone.
5.1.5 Available research instruments
This research has been drawing on the following triangulation categories proposed by Stake (1995): data
and methodological triangulation by the use of multiple methods (survey, focus group and individual
interviews) as well as theory triangulation. In this exploratory study, qualitative and quantitative data
collection techniques were used and the research methods applied throughout this work consist of


85
literature review, survey questionnaire, focus group interviews and in-depth individual interviews as
depicted within Figures 5-1 and 5.4.
Towards the beginning a range of potentially available methods was explored by drawing on available
reviews of research methods, such as Creswell & Clark (2007) and Denzin & Lincoln (2002). Methods
reviewed included:
5.1.5.1 Surveys and survey questionnaires
Surveys, and more specifically survey questionnaires, are an instrument for collecting survey information,
providing structured, often numerical data, that can be administered without the presence of the
researcher (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000:245). Surveys are often used to quantify or measure a
concept. The goal may be to discover frequency of behaviour or to compare attitudes. Survey
questionnaires are seen to be appropriate for those cases where the researcher intends to explore a topic
by addressing a large number of people and to produce results that are easy to code and standardize,
particularly if closed questions, with a limited set of possible responses (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003).
Survey questionnaires are however limited in order to provide in-depth and detailed information and they
have a limited scope of the data that be collected, and the limited flexibility of responses (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2000:245).
5.1.5.2 Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis is highly inductive, with the themes emerging from the data and not being imposed upon
it by the researcher, (Dawson, 2002). This type of analysis is highly inductive, that is, the themes emerge
from the data and are not imposed upon it by the researcher. In this type of analysis, the data collection
and analysis take place simultaneously. Even background reading can form part of the analysis process,
especially if it can help to explain an emerging theme. Themes then form the overall structure for a content
analysis that was carried out manually, using spread-sheets, (Litoselliti, 2003).


86
5.1.5.3 Content analysis
Content analysis is commonly used by researchers in social sciences to analyse recorded transcripts and is
based on the assumption that an analysis of language in use can reveal meanings, priorities and
understandings, as well as ways of organising and seeing the world, (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003).”
Often the message is delivered as a text, or converted to one (for example, an interview transcript may be
produced or focus-group notes may be developed). In the conceptual analysis model, categories are
developed and coded, and the number of occurrences of themes or issues is recorded. Content analysis
thus could include the study and interpretation of written and visual material, for example, magazines,
television advertisements, photographs.
5.1.5.4 Comparative analysis
Comparative analysis uses data from different people that is compared and contrasted in a continuing
process until the researcher is satisfied that no new issues are arising, (Dawson, 2002). Comparative and
thematic analyses are often used in the same project, with the researcher moving backwards and forwards
between transcripts, memos, notes and the research literature, (Dawson, 2002.
5.1.5.5 In-depth individual interviews
Individual interviews are easier for the researcher to control than a focus group, in which participants may
take the initiative, (Creswell & Clark, 2007). Individual interviews are a purposive sampling method, i.e. a
sample based entirely on one's knowledge of the population and the objectives of the research, was
selected as the most appropriate and in accordance with the literature, (Creswell & Clark, 2007, Powell,
1997). This is an understanding shared also by Leedy & Ormrod (2001) where people, or other units, are
chosen for a particular purpose, implying the use of judgment by the researcher.
5.1.5.6 Telephone interviews
Face-to-face interviews are the most expensive form of interview. The interviewer has to arrange a place to
hold the interview and has to make the arrangements to get there and thus telephone interview requires
far less resources, (Cassiani, Zanetti, & Pelá, 1992; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). However, a major


87
limitation of telephone interviewing is its complexity and length of the interview since unlike the dynamics
of face-to-face interviewing; it can be tiresome to keep the average person on the telephone for longer
than 20–30 minutes and all of the body language data will be lost using this method (Lavrakas, 1993;
Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). In addition to this, complicated questions, and in particular those that
require the respondent to see or read something, are impossible via the telephone; so they are perhaps
best used for short and very focused interviews (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). The most common
method to reduce resistance to participation has been to offer incentives (Tourangeau, 2004).
5.1.5.7 Grounded theory
Grounded theory is a form of inquiry used in the areas of education and health research where the
emphasis is on the generation of theory that is grounded in the data and that emerged from the data,
(Dawson, 2002). This is different from other types of research that seek to test a hypothesis. In grounded
theory, methods such as focus groups and interviews tend to be the preferred data collection method,
along with a comprehensive literature review, which takes place throughout the data collection process so
to help explaining the emerging results, (Dawson, 2002). In grounded theory the number of people to be
interviewed is not specified at the beginning of the research as the researcher is open and responsive to
where the research will lead and the research and data collection continues until a saturation point is
reached at which no new information is being collected, (Dawson, 2002).
• Ethnography as a phenomenological methodology using observed patterns of human activity
The emphasis in ethnography is on describing and interpreting cultural behaviour and where the
researchers immerse themselves in the lives and cultures that they study, including to live within the
research population so to participate in their activities whilst observing the populations behaviour, taking
notes, conducting interviews, analysing, reflecting and writing reports, (Dawson, 2002). Ethnographers
highlight the importance of the written text because this is how they portray the culture they are studying,
(Dawson, 2002).


88
5.1.5.8 Action research
Action research is a systematic enquiry with the objective to obtain practical results that allow for
improving a specific aspect of practice and to make those results available for further scrutiny and testing
(Wright, 2008). Action research aims to deliver practical results that can be utilized to improve or correct a
current state. Action research follows a four stages cycle (Figure 5-3) that emphasizes the importance of
reflection on action (McMahon, 2007).

Figure 5-3: Action Research Cycle (Wright, 2008).
Action research is a deliberate and planned intent to solve a particular problem, or a set of problems, and
by its nature involves strategic action, (McMahon, 2007 p.167). It is thus different to the reflective
practitioner model as expressed, for example, in Kolb’s learning cycle as going through the cycle will not
result in action research, (McMahon, 2007 p.167). Action Research draws on the interplay of dialogue and
the involvement of a group of ‘stakeholders’ that are engaged in the process of inquiry and that
collaboratively engage in a continuous cycle of analysis, reflection, planning and action, (Burns, 2006). In
practice a challenge that action research faces is to establish a continuous inquiry circle, (Burns, 2006).
5.1.5.9 Focus groups
Focus group research is a form of qualitative method used to gather rich, descriptive data in a small group
format where participants have agreed to focus on a topic of mutual interest and where the emphasis is on
understanding participant’s experiences, interests, attitudes, perspectives and assumptions (Wilkinson &
Birmingham, 2003). Focus groups are an appropriate means to explore multiple perspectives of reality and
how participants feel and think, (Cole, 2006; Morgan, 2007). They allow to explore individual beliefs and
perceptions regarding motivation and barriers towards the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour at
home and as such to gain insight into people’s shared understandings of everyday life, (Gibbs, 1997). They


89
draw upon respondents’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions; and explore the role that
these individual beliefs, perceptions and social norms could be playing, (Gibbs, 1997; Mischler, 1986;
Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). The purpose within the interview is not to elicit a multiplicity of views and
emotional processes within a group context, but rather to explore on an individual basis the meaning and
significance of what is happening, (Gibbs, 1997; Mischler, 1986; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003).
Focus groups allow participants to share their specific experiences about the topic under investigation and
with those experiences being explored in relation to predetermined research questions, (Merton and
Kendall, 1987). They thus allow exploring the everyday use of language and culture of particular groups
(Morgan, Krueger, & King, 1998; Powell & Single, 1996) so to produce data and insight that would be less
accessible without the interaction found within a group, (Morgan, 1998). They allow for the interaction
within the group based on topics that are supplied by the researcher, which for instance, group interviewing
would have not allowed for, (D. Morgan, 1998, p. 12). This allows one to find out why certain topics are
more salient than others, though on the downside there is less control over the data produced than in
either quantitative studies or one-to-one interviews, (Morgan, 1998). Another possible downside of focus
groups is that participants might not be expressing their own definitive individual view, but might be
influenced by others in the group and/or the group dynamic, (Morgan, 1998). They are also not suitable to
generalize findings due to the small numbers of people participating and the likelihood that participants will
not reflect a representative sample, (Gibbs, 1997).
5.1.5.10 Direct participant observation
Direct observation tends to be used in areas such as health and psychology and it involves the observation
of a ‘subject’ in a certain situation, often using technology such as video, (Dawson, 2002). Direct
observation is characterized by a prolonged period of intense social interaction between the researcher and
the subjects, in the milieu of the latter, during which time data, in the form of field notes, are unobtrusively
and systematically collected, (Bogdan, 1972:3).
Given the nature of the research problem as outlined in Chapter 1, it was then decided to adopt a mixed
method approach as being the most appropriate for this research project and as following further detailed.
Each of the data collection methods used in this research project could be considered part of an overall


90
approach to improving the quality and validity of the research data and in accordance to the triangulation
approach adopted. For the quantitative study a survey instrument had to be used as this was the
methodology of choice for the Energyprofiler study with which this quantitative part of the research had
been integrated. For the qualitative part of the study focus groups and in-depth interviewing were seen as
the most adequate ways to provide evidence on how energy is used at home in the context of people’s
everyday lives. In comparison to in-depth interviewing, focus groups appeared to have also an advantage
when it comes to observing a large amount of interactions in a limited period of time. Despite the potential
disadvantage of telephone interviews, the in-depth interviewing was made based on telephone interviews
for logistical reasons and as existing research also suggest that telephone interviews are still suitable for
short and very focused interviews (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003), which had been the case.
Free translation was seen to be the most appropriate means, though it is acknowledged that potentially
other methods could have been equally used, such as word-for-word, literal or semantic translation.
5.2 Methods used
Through this research a preference has been given for inductive research, with the emphasis on an
exploratory approach to improve the understanding of energy use at home and how the adoption of more
energy efficient behaviour could be promoted. This research further combines positivist and constructivist
paradigms, as use of both paradigms was seen to be an appropriate means to provide the researcher with
the ability to statistically analyse the data, whilst also allowing for an exploration of the complex set of
variables that influence human behaviour. As a result of blending such different approaches, this research
applies a mixed, multi-method research methodology, using both quantitative and qualitative research
procedures.
As this research seeks to understand people and the social and cultural contexts within which they live, the
qualitative approach of data gathering had been dominant throughout this study. Quantitative research in
this study is therefore aimed to gain insight and identify issues for the subsequent qualitative phases of the
empirical work, while the qualitative research aims to explore attitudes, behaviour and experiences through
such methods as interviews or focus groups.


91
Initial research was undertaken using secondary sources, such as published literature, discussions with
other researchers, or general media sources, to explore the overall aim of the research. This provided the
basis for drafting an initial set of research questions and to deduce from those a number of questions for
inclusion within the energyprofiler study questionnaire, (see section 5.3.2. for details). The energyprofiler
study was being carried out in Portugal at the time of this research and offered the researcher an
opportunity to contribute several questions and to access the survey data. Inclusion of data from this
survey was seen as appropriate to support the initial exploration of the topic under research and so to be
able to address a large population and thus produce results that are easy to code and standardize, (Morgan,
2007; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). Such quantitative approaches are however limited to provide in-
depth and detailed information and thus qualitative methodologies were subsequently used to explore the
topic in more detail and to allow the voice, concerns and practices, of research participants to be heard,
(Cole, 2006; Weaver and Olson, 2006). As such, the initial insight from the survey produced an indication
into the characteristics and determinants of energy usage at home, as well as the factors that influence
such. The objective was to obtain a basic understanding of the subject area, so to identify on where to focus
in more detail subsequently, to fill gaps in the information.
Focus group work was followed by individual interviews, which were considered an appropriate means to
explore multiple perspectives of reality and how participants feel and think, in accordance to the work of
Cole (2006) and Morgan (2007). The initial focus groups, (see section 5.4 for details), allowed the researcher
to explore individual beliefs and perceptions regarding motivation and barriers towards the adoption of
more energy efficient behaviour at home and as such to gain insight into people’s shared understandings of
everyday life, (Gibbs, 1997). One objective in this regard has been to draw upon respondents’ attitudes,
feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions; focus groups allow for this. Individual interviews, (see section
5.5 for details), were then used to explore the role that individual beliefs, perceptions and social norms
could be playing in terms of energy use and energy saving on a day-to-day base. The purpose within the
interview is not to elicit a multiplicity of views and emotional processes within a group context, but rather
to explore on an individual basis the meaning and significance of what is happening, (Gibbs, 1997; Mischler,
1986; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003).


92
The use of triangulation, (Bergman, 2011; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Golafshani, 2003; Patton, 2002), is
thus seen to embrace different aspects of energy related behaviours, as well as to address their diversity
and complexity so as to better understand the meaning that people assign to energy use, exploring the full
complexity of determinants that influence energy use, and to increase general understanding on how the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviours could be promoted. Triangulation in this context was thus
also seen as a means to overcome the influence that the researcher has on the behaviour of participants, or
in terms of the bias that the researcher brings into the conduct of the research, (Hussey & Hussey, 1997).
Further to this the research used some of the triangulation categories proposed by Stake (1995), namely
data and methodological triangulation and multiple methods like surveys, focus groups and individual
interviews, as well as theory triangulation during which more than one theoretical scheme in the
interpretation of the phenomenon is used.
Figure 5-4 provides an overview of the research; namely literature review, survey questionnaire, focus
group and in-depth individual interviews, as further detailed in the following sections.

Figure 5-4: Research design.
At the beginning of the research, a systematic search of published work had been carried out so to gain an
insight and understanding into the research problem, to set the background and context for the research,
and to identify gaps in knowledge and variables to consider in developing the key research questions. With
this, information was collected about: (1) the challenge of sustainable development and how it relates to
household energy use; (2) the contribution of the fields of economics, psychology and sociology to
understand human behaviour; (3) the factors influencing energy use, saving and conservation at home; and
(4) the different alternatives to enable and promote individual behavioural change. The literature review
also included key academic theories within the chosen area and at a later stage, it helped to make sense of


93
the results obtained during the different phases of the research by comparing the findings with the
literature.
Pre-defined keywords were used to search a variety of on-line available academic journals and databases. In
addition to this, bibliographies of works were examined so to locate additional published material that
could be of interest to the research. Official homepages of public and private research institutes were
consulted as well as personal homepages and blogs from established researchers in the field. Finally, the
outputs of national, European and USA research projects and newsletters were reviewed, such as the
Sustainable Development Research Network, (SDRN), so as to include the latest research findings. The
results of this literature review allowed for the refinement of the initial research questions, as well as
forming the basis for the empirical part of this research, and for the research methodology that are
presented in the following.
5.3 Survey questionnaire
A survey questionnaire was used during the initial phase of the research to gain insight and identify issues
for the subsequent qualitative phases of the empirical work. The objective in using this survey data was to
explore key issues identified during the literature review and more generally, to explore attitudes and
behaviours to energy use in the Portuguese context. The survey questionnaire was designed and as part of
a wider study, the energyprofiler study, that was being carried out at the time of this project. The
energyprofiler study was a collaborative Portuguese national funded research project coordinated by the
author of this research on behalf of Energaia, a local energy agency in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal, together
with two additional project partners, Factor Social and Terrasystemics. A number of questions that were of
equal importance to the energyprofiler study and the PhD research study were included in the survey. The
researcher was allowed to reword some of the initial energyprofiler questions, as well as to introduce a set
of further questions into the survey, so as to explore issues that were identified during the initial literature
review. These questions were concerned with the visibility/invisibility of energy related behaviours, the role
of individual beliefs, motivations and perceptions with regards to energy use, and on saving and
conservation aspects, (as detailed in section 5.3.2). The energyprofiler study was the first national survey
conducted in Portugal that collected data regarding individual perceptions, attitudes, competence and


94
patterns of energy consumption in the residential sector. With this the study attempted to identify and
characterize the different segments within the Portuguese population, based on socio-psychological and
demographic factors, so to support the development of policies, programmes and interventions with
regards to energy efficiency at an household level, (Energyprofiler, 2011).
5.3.1 Survey questionnaire and data analysis methodology
The energyprofiler study was based on telephone interviews with 1,019 Portuguese inhabitants, (aged 18+),
that had been carried out between January and February 2010. The questionnaire was designed by the
project team with the support of an external advisor, Professor Brenda Boardman (UK), drawing on a
number of questions from previous surveys and it was refined through pre-testing before execution. The
representativeness of the data was controlled through sample design, fieldwork quotas and post-fieldwork
weighting.
Data was weighted for the following characteristics: age, gender, area and sub-area. Results included in this
thesis are based on weighted data unless otherwise stated. The survey data was analysed by the
energyprofiler project team using descriptive statistics and included comparisons of means, (using t-test,
ANOVA) and proportions, (using chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Binomial). This statistical analysis was used
to characterize individuals regarding their perceptions, attitudes, competency, (cognitive and behavioural)
and their associated energy use patterns. The results of these analyses provide the data used in this
research.
The energyprofiler survey questionnaire, (Appendix I), included the following four groups of questions:
• Group 1; targeted at individual perceptions, attitudes and beliefs regarding climatic change,
environmental problems, energy consumption and energy saving.
• Group 2; targeted at energy consuming behaviour, existing level of information, competence and
frequency of specific behaviours, motivations and barriers to action, as well as the usual sources of
information regarding energy saving behaviour.
• Group 3; targeted at household characteristics, such as the type of house, ownership, type of
appliances in the house, as well as the amount of energy consumed.


95
• Group 4; targeted at the individual respondent, looking at characteristics such as age, gender,
education and income.


96
5.3.2 Question added for the specific purpose of this research work
For the purpose of this research three specific additional questions, (Q2, Q15 and Q6), were included in the
energyprofiler questionnaire to provide an initial insight on two relevant concepts for this research: the
visibility/invisibility of energy related behaviours and the role that individual beliefs, motivations and
perceptions might play in terms of energy use, saving and conservation at home. The three questions that
were included were:
• Q2: “Which home appliances do you have at home that consume energy, (think about gas and
electricity)?” This question related to the research question RQ1.
• Q15: “Which reason(s) do you consider to be important to saving energy, (gas and electricity)?”
This question related to the research question RQ2.
• Q16: “Why don’t you try to save energy more often?” This question related to the research
question RQ2.
Q2 was included as an open format question where people were asked to provide a list of their home
appliances that consumed energy. This question was expected to provide some insight into those
appliances that people are aware of and also it might have been an indicator for the energy invisibility of
certain types or groups of appliances, as well as for energy related practices.
Q15 and Q16 aimed to provide an insight on individual beliefs with regards to, (a), individual motivations to
save energy and (b), individually perceived barriers to saving energy. As for Q2, an open format was used.
In addition to those three questions another seven questions, (Q8 to Q14), had been collaboratively
formulated together with the energyprofiler project team and are detailed below. These questions were
aimed to explore research questions RQ1 to RQ3 in a broader attempt to form the base for subsequent
focus groups and individual interviews. The seven questions, (Q8 to Q14), are:
• Q8 “Can you please order the following five behaviours from the one that saves the most energy,
to the one that saves the least?”: the five behaviours were: 1. Reducing shower time from 15 to 10
minutes; 2. Turn off equipment, as opposed to leaving them on "stand-by" mode; 3. Replacing


97
incandescent lights by fluorescent lights; 4. Periodically defreeze freezer/fridge; 5. Wash at low
temperatures (30-40 degree).
• Q9 “When you turn the heating on in a room, what do you do with regards to the doors and
windows?” with a list of four possible answers being provided.
• Q10 “When is cold outside, what do you do to increase your comfort at home?” with a list of four
possible answers being provided.
• Q11 “Regarding the fridge and freezer, what do you do once you need to open it?” with a list of
four possible answers being provided.
• Q12 “Regarding the washing machine, what do you do when you need to use it?” with a list of four
possible answers being provided.
• Q13 “How do you turn off the TV and other appliances?” with a list of four possible answers was
provided.
• Q14 “Once you leave a room, what do you do with regard to the lighting?” with a list of four
possible answers was provided.
Q8 aimed to explore the existing level of knowledge regarding specific behaviours and to highlight any
potential gap between the intent and impact of behaviour in terms of the energy use. The six questions, 9
to 14, relate to six specific energy related behaviours and to what people currently do when facing those
specific situations. For each of the questions a defined set of answers was provided and respondents had to
choose the behaviour that they could identify most with. The aim of these six questions was to assess the
behaviours that are currently being performed and the frequency of their performance, so to assess the
level of competence and performance to best practice.
The energyprofiler study was thus important to contextualize the topic of the research, with the initial
findings from the survey subsequently being further explored through the qualitative phase of this research
work. The energyprofiler study also provided some understanding regarding the motivations to use and to
save energy at home, as well as the main perceived barriers to change and provided some answers to what
enables, explains or influences energy use and saving at home. The question on how to promote different
behaviours, (RQ3), was not addressed with the energyprofiler survey. The energyprofiler study revealed


98
what seemed to be a gap between existing behaviours, motivations and barriers to saving energy, which
was further explored during the subsequent phases of the empirical study.
5.4 Focus groups
Focus groups, (FGs), were carried out with the aim of exploring in greater depth beliefs and perceptions
regarding motivations and barriers towards the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home. This
enabled the researcher to explore the more general process of energy related behaviour, without limiting
the research to environmental questions, such as why individuals do not choose less environmentally
damaging and less energy efficient behaviour. In this research, focus groups were used in a way similar to
the work of Merton and Kendall (1987) by attempting to get participants to share their specific experiences
about the topic under investigation and with those experiences being explored in relation to predetermined
research questions. For the purpose of this research, focus groups were used to gather insights into, energy
use, home energy saving and conservation, to explore motivations, attitudes and behaviours, as well as to
prepare the ground for subsequently conducted interviews. The purpose was to explore the everyday use
of language and culture of particular groups as suggested by Morgan, Krueger, & King (1998) or Powell &
Single (1996).
Instead of focus groups other research methods could have been used, such as direct participant
observation, group interviewing, or in-depth interviewing, as a way to provide evidence on how energy is
used at home in the context of people’s everyday lives. However in comparison to direct participants’
observation and in-depth interviewing, focus groups appeared to have an advantage when it comes to
observing a large amount of interactions in a limited period of time. Since the FG methodology uses group
interaction to produce data and insight that would be less accessible without the interaction found within a
group, (Morgan, 1998). The focus groups did provide access to individuals' interaction on topics that would
otherwise have been difficult to observe, such as informal group conversations regarding daily energy
related behaviours, the determinants of actions and motivations to change. In line with the literature, the
FGs allowed for, “The interaction within the group based on topics that are supplied by the researcher”,
(Morgan, 1998, p. 12), which for instance, group interviewing would have not allowed for. The Interaction
between participants allowed the researcher to understand their view of the world, the language they use


99
when discussing energy use, their values and beliefs, or the interaction with participants asking questions to
each other so as to re-evaluate and reconsider their own understandings of their specific experiences. This
allowed the researcher to find out why certain topics where more salient than others as the FGs simulate
what in the literature is known as ‘a social gathering and interaction’, (Morgan, 1998) and which allowed for
what seemed to be multiple interpretations that had been expressed by participants, with a number of
explanations being provided as to their respective behaviours.
Focus group methodology does nonetheless also have limitations. Firstly, there is less control over the data
produced than in either quantitative studies or one-to-one interviews, since FG research is open ended and
cannot be entirely predetermined, (Morgan, 1998). Secondly, because individuals might not be expressing
their own definitive individual view, but might be influenced by others in the group and/or the group
dynamic, (Morgan, 1998). Thirdly, the fact that focus groups are not suitable for generalizing findings to a
population, due to the small numbers of people participating and the likelihood that participants will not
reflect a representative sample, (Gibbs, 1997). Fourthly, the selection of group members will likely affect
the outcome of the discussion itself, (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). However, since the purpose of this
research was to gain a particular insight into the topic and not to apply generalize findings to a population,
FGs were still seen to be the most suitable research method.
5.4.1 Focus group objectives
The objective of the focus groups was to explore a set of emerging findings from the energyprofiler study
regarding the motivations to use and to save energy at home, as well as to identify the main perceived
barriers to change, (RQ2). During the FGs the following themes were explored:
• Perceived roles and functions of energy use at home
• Self-perception of own energy use at home
• Factors influencing energy use at home
• Factors that could facilitate the adoption of more energy efficient or related behaviours
FGs were structured with a predetermined list of open-ended questions and activities in order to elicit the
constructions and perceptions of the participants and without imposing the researchers’ preconceptions.


100
Table 5-1 presents a free translation from Portuguese to English of the predetermined list of questions in
relation to the objectives and techniques that were used.
Table 5-1 – Focus group roadmap and techniques used.
Question Objective Technique
Q1.Think back to yesterday. What
have you done that used energy?
To list perceived energy consuming
behaviours.
Take people back + open question:
write down on flipchart.
Q2.When you think about energy
what is the first thing that comes to
your mind?
To list first thoughts so to introduce
discussion; expected results:
identified daily practices.
Open question.
Q3.If energy was an object, what
would be the individuals’
characteristics?
Evaluate whether people can picture
energy and to make it visible
through the use of
adjectives/characteristics.
Follow up questions + metaphor and
association; prompt colour, smell, 5
senses.
Q4. If you would have the chance to
save energy why would you do so?
Identify motivations to save energy.
Open question, followed by probing
and prompting questions if required.
Q5.Think back to any attempt you
made to save energy. How would
you describe the experience?
Identify individual perceptions once
saving energy, such as experiences,
motivations or perceived barriers.
Open question.
Q5.1. What were the reasons for
such a success/lack of success?
Follow up question.
Q6. Some people have been
reporting difficulties to change their
energy consuming behaviours. What
is your personal experience?
Open question and third party
projection.
Q7. We have been hearing that
people say they already save/do all
they can. How do you fell about it?
Identify perceived barriers.
Open question and third party
projection.
Q7.1. A number of reasons have
been mentioned. I would like to ask
you to write down the 3 most
important ones one per post-it
Follow-up question and group
activity so to promote discussion for
grouping those post-its and label the
groups.
Q7.2. How would you like to be
helped to overcome such barriers?
Follow-up question.
Q8. Imagine you have been asked to
develop a future intervention
program to be launched nationwide.
What would you include within it?
Identify characteristic of
interventions that were deemed to
be desired.
Role-play; prompting for mediums
to use, type of message.
Q9.Can you share an example you
recall from any campaign promoting
energy saving?
Identify initiatives at the level of
recognition and recall.
Open question.
Q9.1.Which components of the
campaign have called your
attention?
Identify distinctive factors of
campaigns, including characteristics
that were deemed as being desired.
Follow up question.
Q9.2. In your opinion how useful do
you find this type of campaign?
Follow up question.
Q10. Can you please draw an image
for the campaign, or write the
slogan you would use? To provide a summary of the
discussion.
Image and word association,
drawings and slogans on paper base,
group activity.
Q10.1. What was the difference
between this campaign and the ones
you have just been mentioning?
Follow up question.
As can be seen from Table 5-1, a variety of techniques have been used to promote the discussion and
interaction between FG participants, but also to reduce the influence of the researcher. To generate
practical comparable discussions, a set of energy related behaviours were prompted during the FGs, such as


101
showering, lighting and cooking habits, but also room temperature and standby practices. These behaviours
were determined by considering a number of factors, namely their impact on the energy bill, their likely
visibility, their acceptability to the group, the feasibility of adopting the behaviour and the frequency the
behaviour occurred.
Within the FGs, the first set of questions explored those behaviours that were perceived as energy using
ones, as well as the role and characteristics of daily energy use. Subsequently, participants were asked for
motivations and barriers to saving energy at home and lastly they were asked for their input and
perceptions about possible intervention programmes or communication campaigns to promote the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home. They were not specifically told that such
programmes or campaigns must be appealing to them, but rather that it should be suitable for the
population in general. This last part provided the researcher with an understanding of the kind of
narratives, focus and messages that were perceived to hold a potential to promote behavioural change, to
highlight potential gaps between motivations and barriers and to derive from this a possible roadmap for
action.
Though this research is focusing on day-to-day behaviours, discussion also included investment types of
decisions, which provided an insight into how FGs’ participants understood the contribution to energy
saving efforts of both groups of behaviours.
5.4.2 Focus group composition
Results used within this research are the outcome of the seven FGs that took place between June and
September 2011 in three different locations in North Portugal. In total 41 volunteers participated in the
study and this sample is by no means representative, though, an attempt had been made to provide a
heterogeneous mix of genders, age, education and income levels so to allow for a reasonable diversity of
opinions and experiences to be revealed. Therefore participants were selectively chosen to assure the
desired level of heterogeneity. Variable gender was chosen over age to promote a dialogue that could
underpin specific gender energy consuming practices at home. Though any of these two variables could
have been chosen, since findings from the energyprofiler study indicated that age, region and gender all
seemed to influence the way individuals can be grouped in terms of energy use at home. Different


102
education and income levels had not been a variable for the FGs’ composition, though 4 of the FGs
consisted of currently unemployed that were studying to obtain high school equivalent education, while the
other 3 FGs consisted of participants in regular employment that held at least high school level education.
When this research was initially designed, 4 FGs were planned: one with low behaviour, two with medium
behaviour and one with high behaviours as the following Figure 5-5 shows.

Figure 5-5: Initial focus group design.
The initial assumption was that the participants for the four focus groups, (Figure 5-5), could be recruited
from the group of over 900 people that answered the energyprofiler questionnaire and agreed to be
contacted for follow-up activities. After contacting some of those respondents, it became nonetheless clear
that such recruitment process would not be a viable option because of geographical distance and for the
majority of cases the inability to drive long distances. Since the objective was to have face-to-face focus
groups there was the need for a different FG format to overcome these barriers. Participants were instead
recruited from the local population via two strategies. Firstly through invitation, (FG1, FG2 and FG3) and
secondly by collaborating with a local training institute, from which two classes of adults that were enrolled
in vocational training were recruited, (FG4, FG5, FG6 and FG7).
As a result of this, a total of 7, (instead of the initially 4), FGs have been taking place, which still allowed for
the desirable heterogeneity. In addition to this, this new approach allowed one dedicated FG that consisted
of participants that work within the energy efficiency and renewable energy sector and as such to explore
any notable differences in terms of behaviours, levels of knowledge, language, and motivations that could
exist between expert and non-expert groups. Figure 5-6 presents the grouping of the 7 FGs.
High behaviour
Both genders
Any age
Medium behaviour
Women
Any age
Low behaviour
Both genders
Any age
Medium behaviour
Men
Any age


103

Figure 5-6: Partial and total distribution of focus group participants.
At the beginning of the FGs, participants were invited to answer a simplified paper-based pre-
questionnaire, which was a reduced version of the energyprofiler questionnaire, (see Appendix II). Based
upon their responses participants were classified as, ‘low behaviour’ for those performing none or one
energy saving behaviour, ‘medium behaviour’ for those performing between 2 or 3 energy saving
behaviours, and ‘high behaviour’ for those performing more than 3 energy saving behaviours. Figure 5-6
shows the results of this questionnaire and highlights that the age group 25-45 might be overall
overrepresented but also that almost half of the FGs’ participants report already performing more than 3
energy saving behaviours, (since they are classified as High frequency of behaviour (H)). Participants were
not given a financial incentive to participate in their FG.

H M L H M L
<25 <25
25-45 5 25-45
>45 >45
<25 <25
25-45 1 1 25-45 2 1 2
>45 >45
H M L H M L
<25 <25
25-45 4 25-45
>45 >45 1
<25 <25
25-45 25-45 1 1 1
>45 >45 1 1
H M L H M L
<25 <25
25-45 1 25-45
>45 1 >45
<25 <25 1
25-45 25-45 1 3 2
>45 2 1 >45
H M L H M L
<25 <25 0 0 0 0
25-45 1 25-45 9 2 0 11
>45 >45 1 1 0 2
<25 1 <25 1 1 0 2
25-45 2 3 25-45 7 9 5 21
>45 >45 2 2 1 5
20 15 6 41
Frequency of behaviour
Male
Female
Male
Female
FG7
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
FG5
Male
Female
FG6
Male
Female
FG3
Male
Female
FG4
FG1
Male
Female
FG2


104
5.5 In-depth individual interviews
The information collected during the focus groups was subsequently used as the basis for six semi-
structured in-depth interviews: three with focus group participants representing the energy consumers and
three representing energy conservation providers. Interviews were semi-structured with a predetermined
list of open questions so to guide the conversation and to allow the participants to express themselves
without any restriction and without imposing on the researchers’ preconceptions. Individual interviews are
easier for the researcher to control than a focus group, in which participants may take the initiative,
(Creswell & Clark, 2007). Other qualitative methods that had been considered were direct observation or
diaries. Direct observation tends to be used in areas such as health and psychology and it involves the
observation of a ‘subject’ in a certain situation, often using technology such as video, (Dawson, 2002). For
this research direct observation had been seen not to be suitable due to the difficulty of such
methodologies once it comes to observing individual energy consuming behaviours at home and within the
participants’ natural settings. Diaries are used as research instruments to collect detailed information about
behaviour, events and other aspects of individuals' daily lives, with the narrative being built from the
‘actors’’ point of view, (Corti, 1993). Due to the number of energy related behaviours individuals perform
on daily basis, diaries did however not seem to be a suitable method of research.
5.5.1 Interview objectives
The in-depth individual interviews built on the findings of the FGs, namely the importance that individual
beliefs, perceptions and social norms play in terms of energy use and energy saving on a day-to-day base.
The objective of the interviews was thus to better understand the individual motivations and barriers
towards the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home.
In-depth interviews were used to explore the following topics:
• To explore barriers to adopt more energy efficient behaviours from a consumer and a practitioner
point of view.
• To understand the meaning of ‘comfort’, ‘convenience’ and ‘normal’ and their perceived influence
regarding energy use from a consumer and a practitioner point of view.


105
• To understand whether ‘comfort’, ‘convenience’ and ‘norms’ have been part of the considerations
of practitioners when designing behavioural change interventions.
• To explore different approaches that could integrate ‘comfort’, ‘convenience’ and ‘norms’ within
behavioural change interventions in order to promote a reconsideration of these at home.
To generate practically comparable discussions, a set of motivations, barriers to action and energy related
behaviours sourced from the roundtable discussion of the focus groups were prompted during the
interviews with energy consumers. Two different sets of questions were developed, (see Appendix III and
IV,) one targeted at energy consumers and one targeted at energy intervention providers. Both groups were
initially questioned about the overall degree of easiness or difficulty to save energy at home, as well as the
reasons for such evaluation. Energy consumers were then asked for their understanding of ‘comfort’ level
and ‘normal’ energy use at home, about the impact of energy saving behaviours and to identify potential
energy saving behaviours that they would be willing to engage in. Energy intervention providers were asked
for their understanding about what consumers perceived as level of ‘comfort’, ‘convenience’ and ‘normal’
energy use at home. They were also asked about their experience on behavioural change interventions and
in particular for those interventions focusing on promoting the adoption of a different norms regarding
energy use at home. Finally they were asked about possible intervention strategies that could be pursued in
the future.
5.5.2 Sampling of interviewees
A total of six interviews were performed, three with consumers and three with intervention providers.
Considering the nature of the research, a purposive sampling method, i.e. a sample based entirely on one's
knowledge of the population and the objectives of the research, was selected as the most appropriate and
in accordance with the literature, (Creswell & Clark, 2007, Powell, 1997). This is an understanding shared
also by Leedy & Ormrod (2001) where people, or other units, are chosen for a particular purpose, implying
the use of judgment by the researcher. Consumers interviewees were selected from the participants of the
FGs based on answers provided during discussion and notable with regards to ‘comfort’, ‘convenience’,
‘normal consumption’ and ‘norms’. These topics have been discussed to a greater extent within FG1, FG2
and FG3. Participants of the other four FGs were more concerned with saving energy as they could not


106
afford to pay higher energy bills and thus evaluated comfort as something that requires money. The three
consumers interviewed were two men, (CID1 and CID2), and one woman, (CID3). Intervention providers
were chosen as they had been involved in designing behavioural change interventions, or as they were
involved in the policy making process of defining the priorities for national intervention. More precisely
PID1 works in a department promoting energy efficiency at one of the Portuguese energy utility companies.
PID2 works for the ADENE – Agência para a Energia, a Portuguese national energy agency, that is
responsible for home energy certification, supporting the Portuguese government in the definition of
policies and new legislation, but also managing a number of interventions promoting energy efficiency
themselves. Finally, PID3 is a middle manager at ERSE- Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos, the
Portuguese energy service regulation body, responsible for managing a Portuguese national programme
targeted at financing and sponsoring behavioural change intervention to promote energy saving,
conservation and efficiency within the residential, services and industry sectors.
5.6 Summary of empirical study methods
The previous sections discussed the main research methods that were adopted during the empirical part of
this study and Table 5-2 provides an overview of the participants for each of the three activities as well as it
clarifies the sample and process for selection of it.
Table 5-2 – Summary of research activities.
Survey Focus Group In-depth interviews
Sample criteria
The objective was to
have a representative
sample of Portuguese
citizens from all regions,
collected through quota
sampling procedures,
considering the aim of
the study. The sample
should be evenly
distributed with regard
to gender, age group,
region and urban/rural
area (see appendix X for
detailed sample
distribution).
Participants were
selectively chosen to
assure the desired level
of heterogeneity in
terms of genders, age,
education and income
levels.

A purposive sampling
method, i.e. a sample
based entirely on one's
knowledge of the
population and the
objectives of the
research, was selected.


107
Selection process
Only one participant per
household was
considered for
telephone interviews,
performed by a
recruitment and survey
company - Consulmark
(Gallup Group)
nationwide. 1019
interviews were
conducted in a total.
Participants were
recruited from the local
population via two
strategies. Firstly
through invitation, (FG1,
FG2 and FG3) and
secondly by
collaborating with a
local training institute,
from which two classes
of adults that were
enrolled in vocational
training were recruited,
(FG4, FG5, FG6 and
FG7).

A total of six interviews
were performed, three
with consumers and
three with intervention
providers.
5.7 Qualitative data analysis: Focus group and in-depth individual interviews
Focus group and in-depth individual interviews were audio recorded and afterwards transcribed. In terms of
primary qualitative data, a combination of thematic, comparative and content analysis was used. Thematic
analysis was firstly used to search for keywords or concepts mentioned during the FGs and ID, and to
identify overarching themes. Discussions of energy use could usually be found linked to words such as
comfort, convenience, normal, and money or saving. Thematic analysis is highly inductive, with the themes
emerging from the data and not being imposed upon it by the researcher, (Dawson, 2002). Drawing from
Litoselliti (2003) themes then formed the overall structure for a content analysis that was carried out
manually, using spread-sheets as the following example in Table 5-3 demonstrates:


108
Table 5-3 – Content analysis.
Transcript extract Argumentative categories Overarching themes
Male, FG3: we cannot separate energy
use from economic development. 20
years ago once we were our kids’ age,
our country was less developed, we
were a poorer country. Our parents
could not offer us what we today do
to our kids… The appeal to
consumption, with PlayStations, sound
systems, a TV set in each room… once
I was a child my parents had a single
TV at home, and nowadays how many
do we have?
Change in consumption patterns;

Change in the number of home
appliances owned;

Need to cater for a growing number of
expectations and needs.
Economic development as a
factor influencing energy use at
home;

Number of owned appliances as a
factor influencing energy use;

Evolution of social norms as a
factor influencing energy use.
Content analysis is commonly used by researchers in social sciences to analyse recorded transcripts and is
based on the assumption that an analysis of language in use can reveal meanings, priorities and
understandings, as well as ways of organising and seeing the world, (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003).
Comparative analysis uses data from different people that is compared and contrasted in a continuing
process until the researcher is satisfied that no new issues are arising, (Dawson, 2002), and has been
attempted within this research. Further to this, background reading was used as part of the analysis
process, in particular to explain any emerging theme that was not considered in the initial literature review
process. The results of the qualitative data analysis were then discussed as themes and subthemes and
illustrative quotes are provided throughout this work.
Both quantitative and qualitative data phases were conducted in the Portuguese language with findings and
analysis translated into English by the researcher. Questionnaire roadmaps, analysis or illustrative quotes
presented in this work were then translated, using a free translation style, focusing on the meaning in order
to capture the idea and context of what was said. Other methods could have been used, such as word-for-
word, literal or semantic translation, however free translation was seen to be the most appropriate means.
5.8 Research ethics
For the purpose of this research, primary and secondary data were collected to explore how energy is used
at home. The use of secondary data is identified and sources acknowledged. The target group for collecting
primary data were citizens aged 18 and above, who have their main residence in Portugal. Permission to
collect, transcribe and to use the data for the purpose of this research had been granted by the participants
at the beginning of each of the quantitative and qualitative data gathering sessions.


109
In the case of the national survey questionnaire, respondents were chosen randomly through a professional
company and they were informed about the purpose, methods and intended possible uses of the research
as well as what their participation in the research entailed.
FGs’ participants and ID interviewees participated voluntarily in the data gathering phases and no coercion
was used at any time during the research. FGs’ participants and ID interviewees were informed about the
purpose of the research, had the procedure explained that would follow and were given the option to leave
the room if they wished. Neither EP respondents nor FGs’ participants and ID interviewees were given any
type of compensation for participating in the study. Due to the methodologies used it is extremely unlikely
there would be any direct harm to the research participants. No private and/or sensitive data was collected
for the purpose of this research and as a consequence no ethical clearance was required from the OUUK.
Once conducting the focus groups and interviews, commonly accepted techniques were used and special
attention was paid to the design, revision and undertaking so to ensure integrity and quality. The
confidentiality of information supplied by participants, and the anonymity of respondents, was respected
and guaranteed due to the use of codes to represent FG participants and interviewees. Further, audio
recordings and transcripts of the focus groups and interviews were kept confidential and in a secure
location. No image that would allow visual identification was made during any of the phases of the
empirical study. Collected primary data from the survey questionnaire was computed by the energyprofiler
project team using SPSS, with the researcher being directly involved during the pre and post analysis of the
data. This research uses the results of such analysis and no further analysis of data was performed.
Qualitative data was analysed using commonly accepted analytical techniques, with a combination of
thematic, comparative and content analysis used.
5.9 Summary
This chapter explains the various options available during the field research part of this study and the logic
for the selection of the specific approach, strategy and methods, some of which required a more subjective
approach due to the nature of collecting, analysing and interpreting the more qualitative focus group and
interview data. In summary the research is mainly of an inductive nature in terms of formulating a theory


110
from bottom-up, and using a multi-method approach that combines a survey, with focus groups and
individual in-depth interviews as the primary research methods.

6. Exploring domestic energy use

111
6 Exploring domestic energy use
Chapters 6, 7 and 8 present and discuss the findings from the empirical work as outlined in Chapter 5;
namely from the energyprofiler survey questionnaire, ((EP), see 5.3), the Focus Groups, ((FG), see 5.4) and
from in-depth individual interviews, ((ID), see 5.4). Individual interviews involved consumers, (CID), as well
as intervention providers, (PID). The objective of using data from the EP was to set the broader context of
the research, with the FGs and ID interviews exploring specific topics that emerged from the EP findings.
The relationship between chapters 6, 7 and 8, and the research questions is shown subsequently in Table 6-
1.
Table 6-1 – Relation in between chapter and research questions.
Chapter RQs
Chapter 6 RQ1: What explains energy use at home?
Chapter 7 RQ2: What influences energy use at home?
Chapter 8 RQ3: What is the potential role of intervention strategies on energy use at home?
6.1 Characteristics of domestic energy use
The characteristics of energy use were explored in all stages of the research and two main characteristics
emerged during the empirical study: the invisibility of energy in home and the fundamental role that it plays
on day-to-day practices.
6.1.1 Invisibility as a distinctive characteristic of energy use
During the FGs and ID interviews, energy was often reported as invisible, in particular referencing
electricity. In fact, some of the FGs’ participants said that utilities such as water or gas were less abstract to
them than electricity, as one FG participant summarized:
“For instance with electricity I think it is more difficult because it's something one can't see.
With a water tap open one can see the amount of water flowing”, Female, FG3


112
A few FGs’ participants expressed this invisibility by comparing energy use with the purchase of goods and
how less visible, intangible and more immaterial the purchase of energy can be:
“Because energy, one does not buy in packages, (comparing it to the purchase of goods at a
supermarket)”, Female, FG6
Given the overall agreement among FGs’ participants that energy and in particular, electricity, is something
invisible and immaterial, the topic was not further prompted during the ID interviews. During CID,
interviewees did not establish this relationship by themselves; whilst, contrary, it was brought up by PID
interviewees, who frequently discussed how invisibility could increase the difficulty of promoting more
energy efficient behaviours. This indicates a different level of awareness between consumers and
intervention providers.
On a day-to-day basis energy was reported as visible through a number of ways. During FGs, participants
discussed their interaction with energy namely, (1), through the services and amenities energy provides for
their home appliances, or, enrolling in practices, such as cooking, lighting, or washing for example; (2),
when purchasing home appliances, as a moment in time where energy use was considered within the
purchase process; (3), when paying energy bills, or buying bottled gas, or wood; this action reminded them
of their energy use.
As a starting point to exploring the question during the EP survey questionnaire, respondents were asked, in
an open-format type of question without being prompted, to name all the energy-consuming appliances
they owned at home. This question was aimed at understanding the respondent’s perception regarding
those home appliances that consumed energy. An assumption in asking this question was that there would
be a body of un-reported home appliances, as respondents either do not have those appliances, or because
they do not recall having them as they did not associate such appliances with energy consumption, (i.e.
insignificant or invisible energy consumption), (Energyprofiler, 2011). To exclude the possibility of non-
existent equipment, the EP team compared the findings of the EP survey questionnaire with the
penetration rate of such appliances within the Portuguese population, using the latest available data
13
.

13
"Household Expenditure Survey" (2005-2006 - INE)


113
Figure 6-1 compares the difference between the numbers of home appliances EP respondents reported
owning, (here presented in percentage) and National reported figures.

Figure 6-1: Percentages of home appliances reported by EP respondents [n=1.014] in comparison to national
ownership data, (Energyprofiler, 2011).
Based on the findings illustrated in Figure 6-1, the EP team concluded that there appeared to be a gap
between reported and owned home appliances, (Energyprofiler, 2011). EP findings indicate that
respondents may have not reported some appliances and tend to underestimate, mainly, the smaller and
technology/entertainment related appliances. The only exception to this is the cooker, which was the main
underestimated large appliance. An explanation for this might be, that in Portugal cookers are frequently
run on gas and not electricity, and that gas is, perhaps, not understood as being an energy source. With
regards to underestimating small and technology/entertainment related appliances, one interpretation for
this is that EP respondents have those appliances at home, but forgot to report them, due to their
perceived insignificant energy consumption. From the data presented in Figure 6-1, this cannot be clearly
concluded, therefore this matter was further explored during FGs by asking participants to report how they
used energy at home the previous day. This question provided an extensive list of answers as summarized
in Figure 6-2.


114

Figure 6-2: Reported home appliances and practices during FGs once participants were asked what they did the day
before.
As can be seen in Figure 6-2, the list of reported home appliances and practices is extensive and
comprehensive, and do not support the assumption that EP respondents might have forgotten to report
home appliances based on low energy consumption. From the findings of the FGs’ participants it is not
possible to conclude for or against any predominant reason. However, FG interactions seemed to have
facilitated a recalling of a more comprehensive list of home appliances, as well as the respective practices.
This suggests that during the EP survey, respondents might have simply forgotten to recall some of the
home appliances that they owned. One such reason for forgetting home appliances could be simply not
having recent interaction with the appliance or associated practices, and as the following quote indicates:
“Usually I will use the washing machine each second day”, Female FG6
A further reason for not reporting appliances and practices has been an, apparent, underreporting of
those which people do not need to interact with in terms of ‘switching on or off’:
“W1: we are talking about the lights but there are other things that are always on like the
fridge. W2: yes, I was excluding those things”, FG2
It could further be observed, that the moment of purchase served as a reminder to a few of the FGs’
participants and CID interviewees as to how much energy they use at home. Thus, it could be seen as a
moment in time when energy appears to have a higher visibility, through product energy labelling for
Practices
Lights Entertainment appliances Lighting
TV Stove Doing the laundry
PC Fridge Doing the dishes
Microwave Freezer Cooking
Iron Radio Prepare some toasts
Microwave watch Light and engine of the aquarium Listening to music
Standby lights Water engine Ironing
Washing machine Electrical gates Charge mobile
Hoover Drill Charge camera
Exhaust fan Playstation Watching TV
Tumble dryer Gas for shower Charge tooth brush
Presence light for kids Coffee machine Showering
Boiler Fan
Television set Battery of mobile phone
Hot water Hair dryer
Heat pump to heat water Vacuum cleaner
Coffee machine Small appliances
Hand-blender All other appliances that are on 24h
Home appliances


115
example, with narratives during the discussions suggesting a period of reflection before the purchase of
such appliances. Overall, FGs’ participants reported considering different alternatives when buying home
appliances, as well as being more aware of energy efficient items; but, that those might not be the final
purchase, as the following quote summarizes:
“I think we don't pay much attention to A-class appliances which allow you to use less
energy. However, once we are looking for buying an home appliances there is a big
difference in price”, Female, FG6
The quote above, also highlights that the purchase decision process embraces not only the amount of
energy the appliance will use but also the investment required in buying more energy efficient ones, a
phenomenon that research to date has identified as a barrier to the purchase of more energy efficient
appliances, as well as the adoption of renewable energy sources, (Barenergy, 2011; Gardner & Stern, 2002,
2008; Jackson, 2005). From the findings of the FGs and the ID interviews, it was not possible to understand
whether purchasing more energy efficient home appliances accounted for the majority, or not, of the
purchasing decisions, but that the purchase itself might indeed provide energy with some visibility.
In addition to this, energy bills were considered by the majority of FGs’ participants and CID interviewees as
a moment in time when energy appears to gain some visibility. It remained, however, unclear as to how far
energy bills actually contributed to energy visibility. FGs’ participants prevalent feelings was that energy
bills provided little helpful information, in terms of the amount of energy being used, which suggests that
energy bills in Portugal might be obscuring rather than helping understanding of their energy use. FGs’
participants provided a number of reasons for this: (1), energy bills are usually sent out bi-monthly and
often report on estimated energy consumption, rather than real consumption levels; (2), Not all energy
sources are accounted for through the energy bill. FGs’ participants seem to overlook energy sources that
were not accounted for in the energy bill, such as bottled gas and firewood. FGs’ participants seemed to
have difficulties in estimating their monthly use of bottled gas and firewood; (3), The fact that a significant
number of FGs’ participants reported paying a fixed amount during 11 months of the year with the
difference being paid in the 12
th
month. Thus, this contributes to a lack of understanding of energy
consumption on a monthly base, as the following quote illustrates:


116
“I pay the same amount each month and only at the end of the year I pay the difference of
the energy use. It's very difficult to know how much energy I used during the months” Male,
FG3
The 12
th
month energy bill was, apparently, a subject of close reflection for a significant number of FGs’
participants and CID interviewees; (4), Pay bills using direct debit, was reported to contribute towards the
increased invisibility of energy use; (5), Portuguese energy bills also include surcharges, that are not related
to energy use and that could account for up to 44.9 percent of the final price for electricity, (Eurostat, n.d.),
that could hinder understanding how much energy is used. Some, but not all, of these surcharges are
disclaimed within the bill, which contributes to a lack of transparency. Commonly, the above reasons
question the efficacy of energy bills in the one form or another to provide an adequate level of information.
6.1.2 The fundamental role of domestic energy use
The FG discussions and the CID interviews showed strong agreement in the fundamental role that energy
plays for people, as the following quote summarizes:
“Electricity allows us to use our five senses, by seeing TV, listening to music, (…), also the smell
with a freshener, (…), to cook…,(not finishing to go through the remaining senses)” Female
FG2
FGs’ participants and CID interviewees agreed that energy is fundamental to fulfil basic needs, such as
cooking or bathing, but also aspects that belonged to normal needs and lifestyles and related to comfort,
convenience or common practices. With this, some of the FGs’ participants also expressed some frustration
that they could not fulfil all their needs without having to worry about the next energy bill, since energy was
too costly to fulfil all their needs. As such there was an overall agreement among FGs’ participants and CID
interviewees regarding energy as fundamental, vital or essential.
6.2 Determinants of domestic energy use
Energy use at home is often explained as based on a set of factors and existing conditions, (EEA, 2013;
Maréchal, 2010) and this section aims to explore such factors and conditions that had been reported during


117
the empirical study and to reflect on determinants that are influencing home energy usage. The results for
this section are given as a series of themes that emerged during the FGs and the ID interviews, as FGs’
participants and ID interviewees had not been directly asked for what determines their energy use at home.
6.2.1 Relation of behaviour and energy use
Findings from the EP survey, FGs and CID interviews indicate that people have already adopted some more
energy efficient behaviours. Q6 of the EP survey questionnaire, an open-ended question, asked
respondents to explain what they were already doing to save energy at home. EP respondents were invited
to provide a list of everything they did to save energy and as the resulting data is presented in terms of the
frequency of answers in relation to the total amount of respondents. As Figure 6-3 shows, the responses
provided by the EP survey included a range of efficiency and curtailment behaviours, (Appendix V provides
a full list of answers).

Figure 6-3: Reported energy efficient behaviours, in percent of total No. of respondents [n=1.014] (Energyprofiler,
2011).
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%
Bought a smaller fridge
The thermostat is at a maximum of 18 ° Celsius
Double glasses
Insulation of the house
I don’t use the pre-wash step in the dishwasher
Have solar panels at home (thermal/photovoltaic)
Insulation of doors and windows
Energy efficient heating system
Turn off the central heating during the summer
Energy class A appliances
Always use the washing machine/dishwasher completely full
Cook with gas
Hand wash the dishes
Turn down the washing machine/dishwasher temperature
Air dry the clothes
Take a quick shower
Others
Use of efficient lamps
Turn off appliances (and don’t leave them on stand-by)
Turn off the lights when there is no one in the room
0,3%
0,4%
0,6%
0,7%
0,8%
1,2%
1,5%
1,7%
3,5%
8,2%
9,2%
10,3%
11,4%
11,6%
12,2%
13,8%
20,2%
34,4%
44,0%
61,7%
Energy efficient behaviours


118
The results, as presented in Figure 6-3, show that the most commonly adopted behaviours are curtailment
behaviours of turning lights off and avoiding standby consumption. These curtailment behaviours are
followed by the purchase of energy efficient light bulbs and home appliances, (energy class A appliances in
Figure 6-3). In contrast to this, efficiency behaviours related to water and space heating were less reported.

Figure 6-4: Frequency of reported energy saving behaviours in FG pre-questionnaire.
Figure 6-4 shows the results of the FG pre-questionnaire, (see Appendix II for the full version of the pre-
questionnaire) and as can be seen 34 out of 41 FGs’ participants reported to use energy efficient light bulbs,
followed by 25 participants using A class or more energy efficient appliances, 17 participants controlling
room temperature and 14 insulating their doors and windows. Equally, during the FG discussions and CID
interviews, the purchase of energy efficient light bulbs and home appliances, as well as turning lights off
and avoiding standby, had been reported as the most widespread efficiency and curtailment behaviours.
These four behaviours could, during the discussion, be traced back to past nationwide interventions in
which energy efficient light bulbs had been provided for free, or discounts offered for more energy efficient
major home appliances. The four energy saving behaviours most often cited in the pre-questionnaire might,


119
however, be the result of a bias, since they were already provided as options to answers for Question 2 in
the same questionnaire. Since controlling room temperature and insulating doors and windows, had a high
response rate in the pre-questionnaire, it only was discussed within the FGs once prompted. Thus, the
reported behaviour appeared to not correspond to the actual, current, behaviour. However, the fact that
the FGs took place during summer, when such behaviours are not performed, might have been an equally
valid explanation and from observations this remains unclear.
A second set of questions, (Q9 to Q14), in the EP survey questionnaire further explored the level of
adoption of best practice, in terms of energy efficient behaviour, in six specific situations, as can be found in
Table 6-2.
Table 6 -2 – Reported energy efficient behaviours [n=1.014], (Energyprofiler, 2011).
Specific Situation (by survey
question)
Reported results
Question 9 – “When you
turn on the heating system
in a room, how do you leave
the windows or doors?”
22.2 percent of respondents reported the adoption of best practice by answering
that they not only close doors and windows, but additionally they insulated the
house to prevent heat losses. Most respondents, (38.8 percent), closed doors and
windows, without thermally insulating the house. Only about 4 percent of
respondents did nothing, or only close windows/doors once they remember.
Question 10 – “When it’s
cold outside what do you do
to enhance the comfort at
home?”
42.8 percent of respondents reported the adoption of best practice by first putting
on extra clothes and then increasing room temperature if necessary. Only about 5.6
percent of respondents seek high thermal comfort without worrying about energy
conservation. A large percentage, represented mainly in "other" procedures, have
no electric heating or fireplace and thus, don’t fit in this question.
Question 11 – “What do you
do once you open the
fridge/freezer?”
65.5 percent of respondents reported the adoption of best practice by trying to close
the door as quickly as possible and remove everything they need at once. Only about
5 percent of respondents did not indicate concerns about energy conservation
related to fridge usage.
Question 12 – “What do you
do once using the washing
machine?”
75.8 percent of respondents reported adoption of the best practice by always using
the washing machine at maximum load and air drying their clothes. Only about 8
percent of respondents did not indicate concerns about energy conservation at this
level.
Question 13 – “How do you
turn off the TV and other
appliances?”
64 percent of respondents reported the adoption of best practice by turning
appliances off. Still, a high percentage of respondents, (24.2 percent), reported using
the stand-by option of the equipment. Only about 11 percent of respondents did not
indicate concerns about energy conservation at this level, never shutting off or doing
it once they remember.
Question 14 – “When you
leave a room what do you
do in relation to the lights?”
About 86.8 percent of respondents reported the adoption of best practice by
reporting that, "As a rule, I turn off the lights when I leave a room". Only about 3
percent of respondents did not indicate concerns about energy conservation at this
level, never turning off the light or only doing so once they remember.
The responses shown in Table 6-2 indicate a good level of knowledge and adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours regarding lighting and stand-by practices. Nevertheless, when it comes to other behaviours,
such as interaction with major home appliances, home thermal insulation or showering practices, this level


120
of reported knowledge and adoption of energy efficient behaviour, is less often reported which indicates it
might also be less often adopted.
From the above findings, in combination with the FG discussions and interview responses, the following
could be learnt. Firstly, the energy efficiency of appliances does not, on its own, appear to necessarily be a
guarantee of lower energy use, since it is the way that people use their appliances that influences actual
energy consumption. This point will be discussed more in section 6.2.3 and is supported by literature,
(Goldblatt, 2005; INE, I.P./DGEG, 2011; Lomas, 2010). The responses of FGs’ participants and CID interviews
indicated that there, indeed, seemed to be a dissonance between the behaviour of purchasing an appliance
in relation to its use. For example, a significant number of FGs’ participants reported buying energy efficient
light bulbs, whilst at the same time paying less attention to the way they used the lamp, as exemplified
within the following quote:
“That's the reason why they developed the energy efficient light bulbs. They know we will not
switch lights off”, Male, FG7
This suggests that, despite technological developments and the use of more energy efficient appliances,
energy intense habits might still be maintained and therefore potential energy gains could be lost. This is
described in literature as the, “Rebound effect”, (Khazzoom, 1980) and as illustrated in the quote, as a
direct rebound effect. Findings further show that reported energy saving behaviour frequently focused on
easy to perform behaviours that have no apparent impact in terms of comfort, convenience and wellbeing
such as the one expressed in the quote above. These findings should, however, be evaluated with care for
two reasons. Firstly, it was not always clear whether FGs’ participants and ID interviewees were influenced
by what they perceived the researcher wanted to have as an answer, or, whether the responses are a
consequence of participants wanting to maintain a consistency in their own reasoning, which from the
literature is influenced by the, “Cognitive dissonance theory”, (Festinger, 1957). Secondly, energy seems to
be strongly associated with electricity and seen as a synonym for electricity, or perhaps for electricity plus
gas. Therefore responses might well be limited equally to such energy sources only.


121
6.2.2 Building characteristics
The majority of the FGs’ participants and ID interviewees seemed to understand the role building
characteristics have with regards to the amount of energy used on a day to day basis, as well as the
limitation that they represent to adopt energy efficient behaviour. Building characteristics discussed
included age, orientation, size, building envelope, performance of installed heating/cooling system, as well
as the potential to refurbish, or install renewable energy systems. Situations, such as not being able to
reduce energy use due to lock-in effects, were reported by all 6 ID interviewees and by a few FGs’
participants, as the following quotes demonstrate:
“There are already a number of technical solutions within building options that could protect
the environment that, due to the fact of being so expensive, are not often used”, Male, FG3
“If we want to install a solar panel they are so expensive”, Female FG6
Two of the PID interviewees further considered building characteristics to be a strong determinant for
domestic energy use and that other factors, such as location or style preferences, were of a higher, decision
making, importance than energy efficiency when purchasing property. PID1 argued that only a small niche
of the population seemed to take the energy efficiency of their new homes into consideration. Given that
ownership of a house was not a segmentation criterion for selecting FGs’ participants and CID interviewees,
it was not possible to understand whether the energy efficiency of new homes was a variable in the house
selection process.
6.2.3 Growing number of home appliances
A number of FGs’ participants and CID interviewees further acknowledged that they own a growing number
of appliances in comparison to the past. By the past, they were usually referring to what their parents
owned at that age, or when they were younger and still lived with their parents. However, no relationship
was established by them between technological efficiency gains per appliance, the overall growing number
of appliances, and the impact that this could have on the amount of energy being used. As a result of this
and, apart from two cases, FGs’ participants and CID interviewees did not seem to be aware of the impact
of the growing number of home appliances and related higher energy consumption. This phenomenon is


122
discussed, within research, as one of the explanations for the, “Energy efficiency gap”, (Feenstra et al.,
2009) and the PID interviewees supported this.
Though not understanding the full scope of the increased number of appliances they owned, FGs’
participants provide a number of examples of this evolution of ownerships, such as increased numbers of
TV sets per household, the change from washing clothes by hand towards a washing machine, or the
growing penetration rate of heating/cooling systems.
“I have an AC at my holiday house that I use to heat during winter and cool during summer.
For sure afterwards I need to pay the bill, but it feels good. Maybe 15 years ago I didn't have
an AC and I survived”, Female, FG2
The quote above not only shows that some of the FGs’ participants started to own home appliances they
were not used to owning, but that this can also represent an evolution of needs and expectations, as a
combination of comfort and affordance.
Heating systems, both water and room, were also a part of the discussion among all 7 FGs. In general, FGs’
participants seemed to be aware of the impact that such home appliance can have in terms of contribution
to electricity and/or gas bill. Nevertheless, in three FGs, one misconception was often observed in regard to
the belief that one is saving energy by using wood, instead of gas or electricity. FGs’ participants seemed to
believe they were saving energy without recognizing they were simply exchanging one energy source for
another. Only one FG participant mentioned that the energy efficiency of their heating system had been a
discussion point once building their house.
6.2.4 Energy efficient home appliances and overall energy prices
Findings from the EP survey show that energy consumption was reported as the most important
characteristic, (31.1 percent), when deciding to purchase electrical appliances. This is followed by energy
labels
14
, with 29.2 percent. Lower percentages include the price/quality ratio, (17.8 percent), price, (16.8
percent), or power, (e.g. watts), (14.3 percent). However, those findings should be analysed with some

14
According to the European Union Energy Label Standard.


123
caution since they are not in-line with other research in this area that shows a different order of purchasing
factor priorities, with quality being first, followed by price and only then comes energy consumption, as
presented within the results of the energyprofiler study, (Energyprofiler, 2011). One of the reasons for such
a result might be that people were questioned about the main characteristics of their home appliances that
they bought the year before, within a survey that related to energy use. This could have triggered energy
consumption as the first answer. This apparent contradiction could also be observed within the responses
of some of the FGs’ participants and ID interviewees:
“I think we don't pay much attention to A-class appliances which allow you to use less energy.
However, once we are deciding to buy an home appliances there is a big difference in price”,
Female, FG6
The findings from the FGs and ID interviewees did not also provide any clear evidence on how relevant
energy use can be when purchasing a home appliance. FGs’ participants and CID interviewees, however,
identified higher purchasing prices as a barrier to the purchase of more energy efficient appliances, since
this would require, – inter-alia – investing up-front with savings benefits only achievable in the medium-
long term:
“The price difference of A-class appliances is considerably more expensive which is a reason
for not buying such class of appliances”, Female, FG6
During the FGs and the CID interviews, it was not possible to fully understand whether participants were,
indeed, purchasing energy efficient home appliances, or whether their monetary situation presented a
limitation to such purchases. Evidence was provided for both cases, both buying more energy efficient
appliances and also for being unable to afford them, even though they were aware of the benefits:
“I'm proud of having a heat pump at home since it was sold as being a very efficient solution
to heat water…this makes me feeling happy with my decision”, Female, FG2
In order to fully understand the impact of the higher price of energy efficient appliances, in terms of energy
use at home, requires understanding how the costs of running such an appliance could compare to the


124
initial investment required. This is, in particular, meaningful since saving money had been reported as the
main motivation to save energy at home, during the energyprofiler survey and one could expect that any
change in energy prices, be it in absolute or relative, would influence consumption. However, this is not
always the case and during the empirical work evidence was provided that challenged this assumption.
During the FGs stage, two categories of participants were identified. Firstly a group that appeared to be
able to afford higher energy bills and, secondly, a group that reported to have a limited amount of money
to spend on energy. Participants belonging to the first group seemed to be aware of the need of saving
energy and reported trying to do so. However, they also reported to be willing to spend a higher amount on
energy, in order to maintain their desired level of comfort at home, which suggests that concepts of
comfort and perceived needs might increase with income level. The second group included participants that
reported reducing their energy use, to the minimum required, in order to fulfil what they perceived as basic
needs, with some of those participants reporting that they could not afford services and amenities, such as
room heating during winter, as they would have liked to. For this second group, using more energy was
reported as not being a viable option because they simply could not afford it. This group of, what seemed to
be, less affluent FGs’ participants might even be in an energy or fuel poverty situation as during the FGs, a
significant number of participants from FG4, 5, 6 and 7 reported experiences that appear to be situations of
energy and/or fuel poverty. Yet, there was an overall agreement among these less affluent FGs’ participants
to aspire to lifestyles which lead to the adoption of more energy inefficient behaviours. Within this, they
could be considered frugal consumers who are obliged to keep costs down.
The discussions also showed a consensus among FGs’ participants that, if the price for energy was lower, or
they could have more money to spend, (meaning the relative price of energy was reduced), this would
result in them using more energy:
“The reason for reporting to save is a monetary one, perhaps if they had more money they
would use more energy”, (reporting on how she perceived others motivation to save energy),
Female, FG4
“Depends on the individual financial circumstances: those spending more money on energy
can afford doing so (…) they can pay more and save less”, Male, FG4


125
These quotes indicate a possible relationship, not only between decreasing price and higher energy use, but
also of increasing income levels and increasing energy use and that energy use would almost certainly
increase if FGs’ participants either had more money to spend, or if energy prices decreased, making energy
relatively cheaper. On the other side, if energy price did go up, this might not impact energy use that much
in the short-term. Those, more frugal, FGs’ participants appeared to, perhaps, not manage to save energy as
they already only use it for, perceived, basic needs. Some, more affluent FGs’ participants, in contrary
appeared to not have such constraints. These findings provide further evidence, supporting the literature
regarding energy use, as inelastic in the short term, but more elastic in the long term, as suggested by
Sorrell (2007). This suggests that only at a certain price could one expect to see a reduction on energy use.
Other, more affluent, FGs’ participants pointed out, however, that if they could afford to pay higher energy
bills, they also would be doing so. This provides evidence supporting the body of literature that advocates
that higher income might lead to higher energy use, (DECC, 2011; Gatersleben et al., 2002).
These findings nevertheless raise a question regarding the effectiveness of those types of interventions
targeted at changing energy prices. During the FGs, a number of such intervention types were discussed,
such as taxes or subsidies, with subsidies being favoured by participants over taxes. Within five of the seven
FGs a type of intervention was discussed that aimed at penalizing bad behaviours, (i.e. energy overuse),
providing some further incentive for the good behaviour, (i.e. energy underuse). A significant number of
FGs’ participants were receptive to the position of paying a penalty, which could be an increased energy
price, compared to the standard price. Similarly, in those cases where energy was underused, FGs’
participants suggested a bonus for good performance. Nevertheless, the initial enthusiasm of FGs’
participants towards such type of intervention and the effectiveness of the intervention was not clearly
established. In light of the discussion of the previous paragraph the validity of these responses is, perhaps,
not entirely clear.
6.2.5 The evolution of cultural and social norms
Institutional, social and cultural factors influence the way lives are lived based on the norms that are
established. During the FGs and ID interviews, a common theme related to the evolution of standards of
comfort, namely thermal comfort, or convenience of newly established practices, which were considered by


126
FGs’ participants and ID interviewees to be a mix between individual preferences and social/cultural
common understandings. FGs’ participants provided a number of examples for practices that have been
evolving over time, as for instance heating or doing their laundry and dishes and how a new way of doing
these has developed that was expected to be followed. This evolution seem to be the result of the
interaction between the introduction of home appliances, the ability to operate them and what has become
a normal way of doing these activities, as one of the FGs’ participants summarized it:
“I don’t know how I could live without my washing machine. I know in older times people
didn’t had one but nowadays…I mean I do know how to wash clothes by hand but just the idea
of the cold water…”, Female, FG4
The quote expresses not only how people seemed to have adapted new practices at home, but also how
these new ways might lock individuals into these new practices, creating a dependency on a day-to-day
basis, with individuals finding it hard to change their domestic routines and behaviours. This is to say that
the evolution in the number of appliances and associated practices seemed to be accompanied by an
evolution of individual needs and aspirations that become normal:
“We got used to the comfort, to have all lights, to see TV, we got used to all of this. That does
not mean that if someone would take all of that away we would not survive.” Female, FG7
A question, therefore, was whether FGs’ participants and ID interviewees perceived these home appliances
already as a basic need, or whether they were still considered as being a luxury. During the FGs and ID
interviews, a number of participants and interviewees acknowledged that some home appliances and daily
practices could be perceived as a luxury, based on the comfort level they were associated with. This was
particularly evident when discussing shower practices and room temperature during winter. During the FGs,
participants provided some examples of appliances that they considered to be fundamental for their day-
to-day lives, namely the fridge, the washing machine, lights and the stove, due to the essential role that
they play within daily routines. This dichotomy between basic and luxury need was explored in more detail
during the CID interviews by asking interviewees if they were to reduce their energy use what would they
consider as a basic need and what would they consider a luxury. CID interviewees experienced difficulty in
clearly separating basic needs from luxury and it appeared that basic needs were understood as everything


127
they currently do, meaning nothing would be considered a luxury for them. As such, basic needs included a
reasonable room temperature, a reasonable amount of light and the required number of showers to feel
clean. The definition of ‘reasonable’ has never been specified in detail, but rather remains as an abstract
concept of having a brighter or warmer house. Luxury needs that hold a saving potential were reported in
some areas, such as reducing shower duration, avoiding standby consumption, avoiding leaving on
unnecessary lights and appliances, which could all be considered as avoiding energy waste. This suggests
that, overall, FGs’ participants and CID interviewees appeared to be aware of what good practices are under
specific situations. However, they did not perceive non-performance of good practice as being a luxury.
Findings indicated, however, that knowing about good practice did not translate into concrete behaviour
and, particularly, when comfort seemed to be a dominant need that is both socially aspired for and
accepted. From the FGs and CID interviews no consistent narrative emerged of a moral obligation to use
energy in a different way.
This chapter discussed the findings from the empirical study that looked at how energy is used at home in
terms of its characteristics and determinants within the Portuguese context. Table 6.3 provides an overview
about the findings, how those relate to the research questions and any noteworthy observations, followed
by a summary of the findings with regards on how they relate to the first research question, (RQ1) and the
literature.


128
Table 6-3 – Summary of findings relating to RQ1
Empirical study findings RQ Noteworthy further observation
Chapter Section: 6.1. Characteristics of domestic energy use
6.1.1. Invisibility as a distinctive characteristic of energy use
Energy appears to be generally seen as an abstract concept as a result
of its invisibility.
RQ1a
Apparent gap between reported and owned home appliances, notably for the case of small
and entertainment appliances.
Energy being visible, (1), through the services and amenities it
provides once using home appliances and developing practices, (2),
once paying for energy bills and, (3), once purchasing home
appliances, as this constitutes a moment of reflection where different
alternative appliances are compared.
RQ1a, RQ1c
Scope of association between home appliance and associated practice and corresponding
energy use remained unclear.
Unclear understanding of the final purchasing decision: is it for or against energy efficient
appliances?
6.1.2. Domestic energy use as being fundamental
Energy to be seen as being essential for people to live the way they
know and, in particular, to support what is seen as their normal
lifestyle that not only fulfils the basic needs of water, food and shelter,
but also perceived needs of comfort and convenience.
RQ1c
Energy is perceived as something rare and expensive, resulting in a
need to save energy at home; in opposition with the preference to
fulfil individual needs without any limitations, or concerns.
RQ1c
Findings indicate a strong association of energy to electricity than to any other energy
source. A reason for this might be the fact that electricity is the main energy source for
domestic energy use in Portugal.


129
Chapter Section: 6.2. Determinants of domestic energy use
6.2.1. Relation of behaviour and energy use
The energy efficiency of appliances alone is not necessarily a
guarantee of less energy being used, since the way people use their
appliances equally influences actual consumption.
RQ1b
Focus on easy to do behaviours, with reduced impact in terms of
comfort, convenience and wellbeing.
RQ1b
Turning lights off and avoiding standby consumption as the most often reported
curtailment behaviours. Purchasing energy efficient light bulbs, as well as energy efficient
home appliances, is reported as the most widespread efficiency behaviour. In contrary to
this efficiency, behaviours related to water and space heating, were less often reported.
6.2.2. Building characteristics
Individual choices are constrained and shaped by the socio-technical
system, this is the homes they live in and the appliances they own.
RQ1b
6.2.3.A growing number of home appliances
Evidence of the growing number of energy using appliances to be
found in the average home.
RQ1b
6.2.4. Energy efficient home appliances and overall energy prices
Despite the increased energy efficiency of homes and appliances,
there has been an increase in domestic energy use, which could be, for
example, a result of the way appliances are used as well as the
rebound effect.
RQ1b
Unclear understanding of the importance that Portuguese people attribute to energy
consumption of home appliances at the moment of purchase. Within the energyprofiler
study energy consumption was considered to be the most important aspect, despite there
had been equally contradicting findings within the same study, (Energyprofiler, 2011). Also
through the subsequent FGs and CID interviews no clear evidence could be collected.


130
6.2.4. Energy efficient home appliances and overall energy prices (cont.)
Energy use as price inelastic in the short term but seen to be elastic in
the long term.
RQ1b, RQ1c
Unclear relation between income level and energy use, through an
observed tendency for higher reported income levels to be associated
with higher reported energy use.
RQ1b, RQ1c
Evidence of energy and fuel poverty as a social and material problem. RQ1b, RQ1c
6.2.5. The evolution of cultural and social norms
Needs developed over time, referring to basic requirements of water,
food and shelter, as well as socially perceived needs of comfort, or
convenience. All of these are perceived as belonging to a normal
lifestyle, with evidence of comfort and convenience as socially framed
needs or wants as custom within society.
RQ1b, RQ1c
Apparent social and cultural needs of owning more and more home appliances, behaving in
a way that could be considered energy intensive and favouring the maintenance of comfort
levels. A general tendency of understanding comfort and convenience as needs that must
be fulfilled, but not as luxury needs. Being able to fulfil these needs appears to be socially
and culturally accepted and almost desirable.
Social and cultural factors influence the way lives are lived once
practices have been established, with standards locking people into,
what then, appear to be normal social practices.
RQ1b, RQ1c
For the Portuguese, house heating has a lower share of total energy consumption
compared to European values, (70 percent on an average), which may be the result of
milder climatic conditions, in combination with fuel poverty (Backhaus et al., 2012; BPIE,
2011).
More affluent people appear to trade money for comfort and
convenience, giving priority to individual and family wellbeing, rather
than, for instance, environmental protection. Those in apparent
energy and fuel poverty seemed to not be able to reach an aspired
comfort level and in some cases they might even live in unhealthy
conditions.
RQ1b, RQ1c
Most energy, in Portugal, is spent on house heating, in the kitchen and on water, though
less evidence exists for Portugal, regarding the way people consume energy in their homes,
as well as behaviours which hold the highest energy saving potential.


131

6.2.5. The evolution of cultural and social norms (cont.)
Behaviours appeared to be socially determined by norms, by what
others around do and by copying the way that others around behave.
This seemed to be, in particular, true once these behaviours had
become routine.
RQ1b, RQ1c
There is little evidence that norms could help promoting more energy
efficient behaviours.
RQ1b, RQ1c

6. Exploring domestic energy use in Portugal

132
The following summary provides evidence on how the findings reported in this chapter provide answers to
the research questions 1, (RQ1), what explains energy use at home and the sub-questions, (RQ1a), what are
the characteristics of energy use at home, (RQ1b), what are determinants of energy use at home and
(RQ1c), how do individuals understand their energy use.
With regards to RQ1a and the characteristics of energy use at home, two characteristics emerged. First, the
invisibility of energy has been perceived as a distinctive characteristic of energy use. Findings provide
further evidence that energy is perceived as something invisible that, compared to other utilities, is
intangible and abstract. Improving energy visibility was seen as a means to promote and foster the adoption
of more energy efficient behaviours, though FGs’ participants and CID interviewees equally showed that
even once visible, they had little knowledge about how much energy they use, both of which are well
known from literature, (Brandon and Lewis, 1999; Darby, 2006; Goldblatt, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007). A well
discussed example, the energy bill, showed that despite making energy visible the impact is limited and the
empirical study seems to confirm the findings of Darby (2006) and Brandon and Lewis (1999). FGs’
participants prevalent feeling was that energy bills provided little helpful information, in terms of the
amount of energy being used at home, which suggests that energy bills might obscure, rather than help,
understanding of energy use. Their efficacy to provide an adequate level of information, that could support
a comprehensive evaluation of energy use at home, was also questioned, as highlight by Darby (2006) and
Brandon and Lewis (1999). In addition to this, from the findings of FGs and the ID interviews, it was not
possible to clearly understand whether when reporting on energy use, FGs’ participants and ID interviewees
only talked about electricity, or if they also referred to other energy sources, such as gas or firewood. Such
a difference might be, however, of particular importance since findings have equally shown that energy as a
concept holds a stronger association to electricity, than to any other type of energy source. Therefore, it
might be assumed that participants might have understood energy as being synonymous with electricity.
The second emerging characteristic of energy, (RQ1a), relates to the fundamental role energy plays in day
to day life, a characteristic that was not challenged during the FGs and the CID interviews and which,
indeed, is very much in line with the literature, (Geller et al., 2006; OECD, 2012; Sorrell, 2007). This
characteristic, strongly related to the way individuals understand their energy use, (RQ1c), as this
fundamental role appears to be mediated by the needs that it fulfils, including those that result from


133
existing lifestyles. Such needs in the majority related to comfort, convenience and wellbeing, practices that
become habitual and thus perceived as being normal needs. This seems to match well with findings from
literature and that suggests that concepts of comfort and perceived needs might increase with income
level; an assumption supported by earlier research, (WWF, 2012; DECC, 2011; Gatersleben et al., 2002).
Findings further show that reported energy saving behaviour frequently focused on easy to perform
behaviours that have no apparent impact in terms of comfort, convenience and wellbeing. The strong
dependency and reliance on energy might also explain why energy was perceived as expensive by FG and ID
participants. This is to say that FGs’ participants and ID interviewees appeared to be quite comfortable with
a certain level of normalization, where individual energy use is perceived and evaluated as normal, even
though it was understood as being energy intensive. This observation supports findings from literature,
(Bandura, 1977b, 1986; Cialdini et al., 1991; Cialdini et al., 1990; WWF, 2012) and only a few of the FGs’
participants challenged this normalization; but from the point of view of not being able to afford it, rather
than not aspiring to such a lifestyle. Findings from FGs’ participants and ID interviewees further show that
as long as it is affordable, they are willing to pay more for energy in order to maintain current lifestyles. This
is to say the norm is rather towards the fulfilment of own needs and family wellbeing, and less toward
environmental protection, (DECC, 2011), (RQ2). As a result of this reported normalization, little evidence
could be seen that would suggest that norms could be used to promote more energy efficient behaviours,
(RQ3), though they did appear to be determinants for energy use, (RQ1b) and consequently, a change in
norms could reduce energy use. Other strong determinants that could be seen related to building
characteristics, as these influence, to a greater degree, the amount and way energy is used at home, which
aligns well with the literature, (BPIE, 2011; DGGE/IP-3E, 2004; Goldblatt, 2005). Nevertheless, only a few
FGs’ participants understood, or have been aware, about the locked-in effect that this situation
encompasses and that this too is well known from literature, (Goldblatt, 2005; Maréchal, 2010; Shove
2004).
Energy prices were reported as influencing energy use, but not that often and provided further evidence in
support of the literature, (DECC, 2011; Gatersleben et al., 2002, Sorell, 2007), regarding energy use as price
inelastic in the short term, but more elastic in the long term. Nevertheless, this reduced level of energy use
would, in accordance to those relevant FGs’ participants, change if they could afford to pay higher energy


134
bills, providing evidence to support literature that advocates higher incomes might lead to higher energy
use, (DECC, 2011; Gatersleben et al., 2002). Findings from the FGs and ID interviewees did thus show a
positive relation between energy prices and energy use, as well as between disposable income and energy
use. This positive relation mirrors earlier research, (DECC, 2011; Gatersleben et al., 2002); Sorrell, 2007) and
has been, for example, explained by the concept of price elasticity and demand saturation, (Sorrell, 2007).
A further finding relates to what is known from the literature as energy and/or fuel poverty, (Buzar, 2007a;
Boardman, 2010; UK Government, 2013). During the FGs, a significant number of participants from FG4, 5, 6
and 7 reported experiences that appear to be situations of energy and/or fuel poverty, which is in line with
the assumptions from literature that this would be the case within Mediterranean countries, (Healy, 2003;
SEI, 2003; SILC, 2007; WHO, 2012).

7. Factors influencing energy use at home

135
7 Factors influencing energy use at home
Chapter seven explores the relationships between motivations and barriers of energy use in the home. The
chapter discusses the findings from the energyprofiler survey questionnaire (EP), the focus groups (FG) and
the in-depth individual interviews (ID) regarding what influences energy use at home (RQ2).
7.1 Motivational variables and energy efficient behaviours
Motivations were explored initially during the energyprofiler (EP) survey, with Q15, an open-format
question, (Appendix VI for full list of answers) and then further explored during the FGs and ID, to, in
particular, better understand the influence that environmental concerns could have in terms of adopting
more energy efficient behaviours.
7.1.1 The motivation for saving money
Findings from the EP survey show that 7 out of 8 respondents, (n = 1.014), reported cost-savings as the
most important motivation to saving energy. During the FGs and CIDs, to save money was put forward as
the main reason for saving energy, thus reassuring the earlier EP findings. Moreover, the motivation to
save, for monetary reasons, seemed to be even more important to those FGs’ participants with an,
apparent, lower level of disposable income. For this group of less affluent FGs’ participants, energy costs
seemed to have a higher impact on their disposable income, with participants reporting that it would be
unfeasible to accommodate additional costs. Equally for FG1, the group that consisted of participants that
work within the energy area and that are well aware of the environmental impact of energy use, monetary
motivations to save energy were reported to be the most important ones.
While cost-savings had been reported as the most important motivation, it could be equally observed that
monetary motivation appeared to be in direct conflict with curtailment behaviours that would be required
to actually realize such monetary gains. FGs’ participants and ID interviewees frequently pointed out the
effort that would be required to engage in numerous energy saving actions that, in accordance to their
view, only result in minor monetary savings for each of the actions undertaken. Engagement in a number of


136
actions on a daily basis and the requirement to reinforce the need of such actions to all family members
was seen as inconvenient and demanding, as illustrated within the following quotes.
“I try to do so, (switch lights off), but it's not easy. Sometimes I simply forget it. It's normal”,
Male FG6
“I sometimes announce at home: one of these days I will burn a CD to play over and over,
telling things as switch the lights off… switch this off…(talking about the need to recall family
members what they should do)”, Female FG6
“I usually go around and switch lights off and indeed I get psychologically more tired of doing
so than the energy I will save at the end of the month”, Male FG3
As can be seen from the quotes to engage in repetitive actions requires a constant effort, and thus while
cost-savings might be the most important motivation to save energy, in practice this might not lead to
actual savings.
During the FGs and CIDs, it could also be observed that a focus on monetary motivation might even result in
an increased energy use, for example by leaving low energy lights on, which in literature is referred to as
the rebound effect, (Khazzoom, 1980, Sorrell, 2007, Gottron, 2001). Evidence from the FGs and CIDs suggest
the existence of both, a direct and an indirect rebound effect. A direct rebound effect appeared to exists as
some of the FGs’ participants reported using more of the resource, instead of realizing the energy cost
savings, for example, by leaving energy efficient light bulbs on since they consumed less, or having longer
showers, as they were able to buy bottled gas at a lower price. An indirect rebound effect appeared to exist,
as some FGs’ participants reported that they would spend the money saved on things they could not have
purchased otherwise. This is to say that a focus on financial saving appeared to indeed support potentially
energy and carbon intensive behaviours, that then could reduce or, even cancel, the environmental benefit
achieved through the energy saved.
In addition to this, the focus on financial savings seemed to facilitate two misconceptions, namely that the
use of off peak tariffs and wood are ways to save energy. These are misconceptions, since in both of such


137
cases energy is not being saved; with off peak tariffs people consume the same amount of energy, only pay
less for it and by using wood instead of gas or electricity, people might not be saving, but rather substituting
their energy source.
“One thinks there is an associated cost and that one needs to save. This is the reason why I
think about off peak tariffs and try to use them as much as possible” Female, FG2
For these two cases, the focus on cost-savings could have easily lead to a re-bound effect, as already
discussed in 2.3.6 and 6.3.
7.1.2 Pro-environmental behaviour and pro-social motivations
Pro-environmental and pro-social motivational variables that have been identified, mainly related to
environmental concerns as well as the need for caring for future generations. Pro-environmental and pro-
social motivational variables that could be observed related for example to social norms, or to personal,
altruistic and moral motivations, such as environmental protection, or an individual feeling of doing the
right thing.

During the EP survey, the environmental motivational variable emerged as the second most important
motivation to save energy after the monetary stimulus. More than half of the EP survey respondents
reported environmental motivations as a reason for saving energy, with 1 in 3 reporting to focus on saving
resources and 1 in 6 reporting a concerned with climate change. During the FGs, the majority of the FGs’
participants reported similar motivations towards the environment, though monetary motivation remained
predominant, with the environmental component perceived as a secondary, side effect:
“It's an additional saving to save on those, (environmental), resources”, Female FG6
Furthermore 1 in 6 respondents reported that they save energy for the benefit of future generations, a
motivation that could also be observed throughout the FGs:


138
“There is the environmental motivation since our children are the ones bearing the
consequences of our current habits.” Female, FG7
For both the EP survey and FGs, the concern for future generations seemed to be, however, comparatively
low as an individual priority and notably so, when compared to the monetary variable. In 4 out of the 7 FGs,
protecting the environment was put forward as being the right thing to do, the topic mainly came up in the
context of recycling as part of pro-environmental behaviour when discussing effective ways to protect the
environment. With this, FGs, and later CIDs, provided some evidence that saving energy could be seen as
the right thing to do for environmental reasons, though the following presented evidence suggests that this
actually might not be the case.
The findings indicate that EP survey respondents and FGs’ participants hold very positive attitudes towards
the environment, not only on a broader level, but also towards energy and resource saving. During the EP
study eight composite scales were computed resulting from the aggregation of questionnaire items. Scales
were psychometrically validated based on Cronbach Alfa/inter-item reliability analysis and Pearson’s
correlation (for two item scales), which can be seen in the Table 7-1 below.
Table 7-1 – Composite scales [n=1.014, F (2.89 , 2914.70) = 434.73, p = .000, η
2
=.57], (Energyprofiler, 2011)..
Scale/Variable Items (see questionnaire in Appendix I) Reliability
General attitude towards the environment Q1 (items 1-10, 12, 14, 17) α=.82
Knowledge on climate change and energy Q1 (items 3, 12, 13, 15, 16) α=.65
Perceived risk respond to climate change Q1 (items 2 e 4) α=.65
Frequency of environmental performance Q7 (items 1-7 + 10-12) α=.64
Attitude towards the conservation of energy and
natural resources
Q1 (items 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 e 17) α=.77
Knowledge in relation to energy conservation
measures
Q1 (items 13 e15) α=.70
Responsibility in energy use Q1 (items 11 e 18) α=.76
Attitude towards energy Q1 (items 1, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17) α=.72
Competence in the use of energy Q9-14 α=.52


139
In general, the scales had acceptable (α =. 60) to high (α =. 80) internal consistency levels and strong
correlations (r above .50) suggesting the items have relatively high internal consistency and can be
understood as a reliable measure of the variables they represent. Only the competency measure in relation
to energy use has low levels of consistency. One reason for such could be the fact the individual items (Q9
to Q14) evaluate different aspects of energy consumption (heating, use of refrigerator, washing machine
and TV lighting) and as such they might not be perceived as part of a single category.
Figure 7-1, plots the average Likert scale values for the composite scales of, “General Environmental
Attitude”, “General Environmental Knowledge”, “Risk Perceived of Climate Change” and “Environmental
Behaviour”, contained within the EP survey. More information on the EP study and method are available in
Appendix VII.

Scale
General
Environmental
Attitude
General
Environmental
Knowledge
Risk Perceived –
Climate Change
Environmental
Behaviour
Mean 4.22 3.76 4.29 3.44
S.D. 0.45 0.57 0.53 0.66

Figure 7-1: Average values for risk perception of climate change and attitude, knowledge and environmental
behaviour [n=1.014, F (2.89 , 2914.70) = 434.73, p = .000, η
2
=.57], (Energyprofiler, 2011).
As can be seen from Figure 7-1, EP respondents have a high positive assessment of the environment in
general, suggesting a favourable opinion regarding environmental issues and their resolution. EP
respondents show a high positive attitude, towards the conservation of natural resources and energy,
which implies a favourable opinion in relation to energy conservation measures at home. Similarly, EP
respondents reported having a strong responsibility towards energy use at home, revealing a high level of


140
importance in this action. From another perspective, and as shown in Figure 7-2, EP respondents reported
and overall held, positive attitudes and knowledge for conserving energy at home.

Scale
Attitude (…)
resources and
energy
Attitude towards
energy conservation
Knowledge
regarding energy
conservation
Responsibility towards
energy use
Mean 4.24 4.23 3.64 4.23
S.D. 0.50 0.53 0.77 0.53

Figure 7-2: Values for attitude, knowledge and responsibility towards energy use [n=1.014; F (2.89 , 2914.70) =
434.73, p = .000, η
2
=.57], (Energyprofiler, 2011).
The positive attitudes and apparent knowledge, as presented in Figures 7-1 and 7-2, did not seem to
translate, however, into performance and frequency of pro-environmental behaviours. As can be seen from
the same EP survey responses, (Q7), to separate waste, reuse bags, or control room temperature was
reported as ranging from between, "Sometimes", to, "Often", depending on the specific behaviour, as
Figure 7-3 illustrates.


141

Figure 7-3: Reported pro-environmental behaviours [n=1.014], (Energyprofiler, 2011).
The frequency of reported behaviours, shown in Figure 7-3, was thus significantly inferior to the positive
attitude shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2, highlighting the potential inconsistency between global
environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviours. This is to say that the favourable opinion of
environmental protection presented in Figure 7-1, apparently did not translate into a high frequency of pro-
environmental behaviours, indicating the existence of an attitude-behaviour gap. This does support earlier
findings indicating that attitudes seem to have little predictive value for explaining behaviour, (Geller, 1981;
McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999) and thus, can lead to an attitude-behaviour gap, (Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002).
EP findings further show that some pro-environmental behaviours, such as re-using bags, or turning off the
light when leaving a room, are more often reported than others, such as using rechargeable batteries, or
turning off the standby mode of home appliances. During the FGs and the CID interviews the realtionship
between positive environmental attitudes and actual behaviours, was further investigated to better
understand the reasoning. Findings indicate that the positive attitudes towards energy saving seemed to be
surpassed by the, individual, direct benefits of energy use, such as comfort and wellbeing, which were
reported to rank higher on individual priorities as long as they remain affordable, (see 3.4.4.). This is to say
that overall attitudes towards environmental and energy conservation, as demonstrated in Figures 7-1 and


142
7-2, might be high when evaluated in isolation, but when compared to other factors, they might be
surpassed. In such cases there appeared a preference for comfort and wellbeing, over environmental and
energy conservation. Thus in isolation, environmental and energy conservation might be strong
motivational variables, but in conjunction with other variables, they might be comparatively weak. In such a
situation, saving energy to save money or the environment enters into direct competition with the
expectation and desire of maintaining established practices and fulfilment. This is well-known from the
literature with suggested benefits and motivations, for example, being convenience and comfort,
(Barenergy, 2011, Darnton, 2008, Darnton et al., 2011, Jackson, 2005, Prendergrast et al., 2008).
A further observation of inter-dependent and inter-related factors concerns financial and pro-
environmental variables, in conjunction with differing points in time. The majority of FGs’ participants,
being more or less affluent, demonstrated concern with their current financial-economic situation, which
was seen as a concrete, near term threat, compared to the potential consequences of their energy use in
environmental terms which was perceived as a more abstract long-term threat. This was, for instance,
expressed by a number of participants through their understanding that today’s generation would not
suffer the consequences of predicted environmental problems. Only a few FGs’ participants, and only one
CID interviewee, reported to be sceptical that they would not suffer at all from such negative
consequences. Negative consequences, referred to the fact that today’s generation might already be
suffering from scarcity of resources, such as petroleum or water, but not necessarily from the
environmental impacts of their use. In the opposite direction, the financial economic crisis was described as
something that FG participants and CID interviewees were currently experiencing and perhaps, even
affected by and that, therefore, did concern them. FGs’ participants, CID and PID interviewees also
acknowledged the difficulty in understanding the relation between individual energy use and the
environmental damage, which together negatively influenced their individual motivation to save energy.
Some FGs’ participants claimed to not be able to understand the value of the contribution of their individual
energy consuming behaviours and thus they do not know whether their consumption could be classed as
normal or not, as the following quote shows:


143
“What is a normal use? How much energy is it per day? And if I consume above that level, what
happens? Do I need to use x more kilos of coal? Is that what it means? One cannot understand”,
Female, FG2
With this, it appeared as if the inability of understanding the consequences of ones actions led to a sense of
helplessness and disempowerment. This supports earlier findings from Thøgersen (2005), that reduced
levels of knowledge, regarding the environmental impact of ones behaviour, including energy use, appears
to influence the ability to act in accordance to individual positive environmental attitudes. Further to this,
the majority of the FGs’ participants perceived the behaviours of others as having a more direct impact on
the environment then their own energy saving behaviours. There was a strong consensus among FGs’
participants that they perceived saving energy as having a lower impact on the environment in comparison
to other behaviours, such as water saving or recycling, though no underlying reasons could be perceived:
“I don't think one thinks I will save energy in order to protect the environment, I will recycle to
save the environment, that might work out”, Male FG7.
Another motivational variable that had been examined was the limitedness of resources as a motivation to
use less energy, which the majority of the FGs’ participants did not seem to take into account. All three CID
interviewees, in contrary, reported to understand energy sources as something limited and one reported
energy scarcity as a fundamental reason to reduce his energy use.
In summary, the findings presented in this section indicate that environmental motivations appear to not
play an important role in inspiring people to adopt more energy efficient behaviours for a number of
reasons as has been discussed through this section, most notably because of an apparent lack of
motivation. FGs’ responses have further shown the potential existence of an attitude-behaviour gap, thus
support earlier findings provided by Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002). Such an attitude-behaviour gap might
explain the, apparent, observed dissonance between very positive attitudes towards the environment and
resulting actions. Once it comes to action, participants seemed to position environmental concerns at a
lower priority level, compared to, for example, financial, or family comfort and wellbeing issues.


144
7.1.3 Needs and expectations and its relation to motivation for saving energy
As can be seen in section 6.2.5, social norms have been found to be potentially strong determinants of
energy use. From a motivational perspective, social norms, however, did not appear to be a strong
determinant to save energy at home, though it was extensively recognised, once talking about barriers, as
detailed in section 7.2. During the EP survey, only 3.6 percent were concerned with the social component
for saving energy, or status, (2.6 percent), or self-image, (2.7 percent). Social norms were however reported
during the FGs, the CID and PID interviews, to play an important role in pro-environmental behaviours, such
as recycling and water conservation. As a motivational variable to save energy, social norms were however,
reported to be overall of low importance. This is not surprising, as FGs, the CID and PID interviews equally
did show that current usage levels are frequently understood as being normal, (see 6.2.5), and therefore,
the social norm is determined by current energy use, which is expected to accommodate all needs and
expectations.
7.2 Barriers for adopting more energy efficient behaviours
Barriers were explored initially with Q16 of the energyprofiler survey, in an open-format question,
(Appendix VIII for full list of answers), that asked respondents to provide their reason(s) for not trying to
save energy more often at home. Findings indicate that EP respondents in the majority, believed they were
already doing everything they could to save energy and a question for the FGs and the ID interviews,
therefore, was to explore if this, indeed, has been the case, or whether there might be any barriers that
lead to the conclusion of having done everything. The frequency of responses during the FGs (see Appendix
IX for full responses), when asked to provide three reasons for not saving energy, are presented in Figure 7-
4, in the form of a word cloud, subsequently shown in grouped format in Figure 7-5.


145

Figure 7-4: Reasons for not saving energy at home – responses from FGs

Figure 7-5: Frequency of category groups of barriers during FGs.
As will be seen through this section, not all such initial reasons for not saving energy at home appeared to
ultimately play a role, while others did.
7.2.1 External/macro barriers: policy based, structural and economic barriers
As shown in Figure 7-5, economic conditions where put forward as potential barriers for adopting more
energy efficient behaviours. FGs’ participants and ID interviewees put forward two economic barriers that,
both could be classified as policy based barriers. Firstly, a few FGs’ participants felt that only those
appliances that are considered by law as being energy efficient should be available for purchase. In their
view, such compliance to minimum standards could, however, only be achieved through policy measures,
as postulated in the literature, (Barenergy, 2011). Thus a lack of such measures could be seen as a barrier.
Barrier Comfort Habits
Willingness
Laziness
Resistance to
change
Self-
indulgence
Environment
Future
Initial
investment
Return on
the
investment
Information
Actions
currently
taken
Economic
conditions
Social
norm,
social
dilemma,
hypocrisy
Frequency 6 4 6 7 6 8 34 9 16 15


146
The second barrier discussed within five of the FGs, related to penalty and incentive mechanisms that could
promote the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour at home. According to the FGs’ participants,
penalty and incentive mechanisms could only be promoted through policy-making interventions and thus,
the lack thereof again constituted a barrier to them.
Two more, further, barriers could be observed during the FGs and the ID interviews, both of which
appeared to belong to physical-structural barriers, namely housing and existing home appliances. The
infrastructure of the house was seen as being a determinant of energy use at home. This barrier was
particular discussed in CID and PID interviews and there was strong consensus regarding the importance of
house infrastructure, as well as the difficulty of intervention, even when technical and economic options are
available:
“There are a set of solutions that can protect the environment, namely in terms of the way the
house is build, that for the reason of being so expensive are not used”, Male FG3
“I have the limitation of living in an apartment building which does not allow me to take
actions in an independent way in order to save energy”, CID2
“If we want to install a solar panel they are so expensive”, Female FG6
There was a strong consensus that changing existing infrastructure will not only be cost intensive, but also
only feasible once existing home appliances are out of service, or when technological solutions become
more economically viable. As such, the findings aligned well with the literature, (Gardner and Stern, 2008;
Martiskainen, 2007, Goldblatt, 2005, Maréchal, 2010). For the case of efficiency behaviours, with which an
initial investment is required, not being able to afford the purchase of more energy efficient appliances was
often reported by FGs’ participants as an economic barrier towards the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviour. This barrier was more predominant within FGs 4, 5, 6 and 7, which appeared to be less affluent,
though it was also discussed with a slightly different focus with the remaining FGs. In the case of the less
affluent FGs, the discussion focused more on the purchase of energy efficient home appliances, the more
affluent concentrated on the need for improving the building itself, or install renewable energy solutions.
This division resembles the discussion from section 2.4.4, 2.4.5 and 6.2.4, regarding the influence of


147
economics, energy prices and income levels in terms of energy use at home. With this all the FGs
considered economic aspects and financial limitations as constituting barriers. For the former group, the
barrier related to curtailment behaviours, while for the latter group, it related to efficiency behaviour,
similar to the discussion in section 6.2.
7.2.2 Knowledge based barriers
With regards to knowledge based barriers, the findings have been somehow contradictory, as the results
indicated that participants had adequate information, yet they argued the existence of some types of
knowledge barrier and thus, lack of information. That participants had adequate information could be seen,
for example, from EP respondents who reported an average-high level of general environmental
knowledge, as well as knowledge of measures for conserving energy at home. Furthermore, half of the EP
respondents reported already doing everything they can and 1 in 5 reported their current actions as
sufficient. A smaller percentage, (16.9 percent), of the EP respondents reported that they would like to do
more, but did not know how. Similarly, lack of information has been the most often reported barrier for not
saving more energy at home during FGs, as can be seen in Figure 7.5 (page 127) Equally similar to the EP
responses, the wider findings of the FGs did indicate that participants actually appeared to have such
knowledge. These, partly contradictory, findings are presented below.
Both, FGs’ participants and ID interviewees, frequently expressed difficulty with regards to one of three
aspects: (1), lack of information regarding their overall energy use, (2), lack of information regarding the
contribution of specific home appliances and behaviours to the total amount of energy used and (3), as a
result of the previous two reasons, a lack of information regarding the amount of energy that can be saved
by adopting more energy efficient behaviours.
Regarding the lack of knowledge, in terms of overall energy use, during the FGs, there was overall
agreement towards the difficulty of understanding how much energy they used at home. This was even the
case for participants of FG1 that work in the energy industry. This difficulty was perhaps less a result of not
being able to understand ones energy use, but rather due to the lack of feedback systems that could
provide meaningful real time information.


148
Men1: I have the understanding of saving when I switch the lights off that I’m saving
something but I don’t know how much that is.
Men2: But that’s it...you have the feeling...I substitute my TV against a more energy efficient
one and I have no idea how much that could save me. I can’t know since I don’t have an
energy meter...if I would have one I would now how much I save, FG1
Similarly EP responses on providing a monthly, or an annual, figure for respondents’ electricity and gas
consumption, (Q29, Q30), showed a significant lack of knowledge on how much energy is used on a
monthly and yearly base. Most EP respondents provided an average annual cost for electricity, of 126.93€,
(SD= 133.81€) and of gas, 111.07€, (SD = 86.31€). For monthly values, electricity corresponds to 67.55€, (SD
= 35.33€) and gas 56.27€, (SD = 35.94€). During the FGs, few participants reported how much they pay for
energy and even CID interviewees, once asked directly, hesitated in providing a value. Once provided, the
value appeared to be rather an estimated value. In addition to this, participants in four of the FGs and also
CID interviewees reported their energy use, not in kW, but in Euros, thus indicating that the amount of
energy used is not really known and focuses, very much, on the price. Nevertheless, this evaluation seemed
to be strongly associated with monthly energy bills, (electricity and piped gas in Portugal), and less with
other energy sources, such as bottled gas or firewood. As an apparent consequence, people neither knew
how much energy they were using, nor did they seem to be able to refer to energy in any other variable
than the monetary one.
“There is no other way to measure energy use, one does not know, I personally don't know
another way to measure apart from the amount I pay for energy” Female, FG4
Further, findings did show an apparent disadvantage to the current design of energy bills, which made it
difficult to separate an increase in energy use from changes in the price, or of isolating its price from other
surcharges that are included within energy bills in Portugal.
In regard to this, most of the FGs’ participants did not understand how to interpret the amount of energy
used; with regards to if it could be considered normal:


149
“The single indication I have that I use little energy is due to the amount I pay since I don't
even know whether it's little or too much” Female, FG2
The majority of the FGs’ participants claimed to not understand what a normal energy use level at home
would be. For most of the FGs, a detailed discussion on what normal means, usually took place at this point
in terms of how to define normal, what should be included, or excluded, or how to accommodate specific
individual and family circumstances. The majority of the FGs’ participants concluded that normal energy use
would need to be calculated in relation to some sort of variable, such as persons per household. FGs’
participants showed a common agreement that knowing this normal value for the energy use at home,
would allow them to compare their own energy use with others, in order to understand whether their
energy use was above, below or normal.
In terms of the contribution of specific home appliances and behaviours, the majority of FGs’ participants
and CID interviewees revealed several doubts regarding the contribution of different home appliances and
energy related practices:
“I don't feel ready to reduce the energy I use. I don't know how much each appliance is using,
each lamp and as a consequence I can't reduce the energy used” Female, FG4
“Last year I bought an electrical oven (…) and I was curious to see how much energy it used so
I would do a roast or bake a cake and would check for how much energy it was using. And I
learned that for a roast I needed 4, a cake 2 (referring to energy units), I already cannot
remember but by that time I learned how much energy I was using” Female, FG7
“1st women: I think that we don't know things we could to do (to save energy) 2nd women:
and other times we don't do because we do not want to pay attention to the information”
Female, FG6
While the quotes above illustrate doubts regarding the contribution of different home appliances and
energy related practices, they also illustrate an apparent unwillingness to engage and lack of interest in the
subject. With regards to the perceived overall energy saving potential at home, only a quarter of EP


150
respondents answered the question, (Q31), regarding the potential for saving energy at home, reporting an
average saving of 16.48 percent. One of the respondents reported the potential reduction in Euros,
reaching an average of 18.05 Euros per month, which was less than the percentage cited. This again
suggests some difficulty in evaluating and calculating energy saving potentials. This difficulty of
understanding energy use and the saving potential of specific behaviours was further demonstrated once
EP respondents were asked to list five energy saving behaviours, from the one that saves most energy to
the one that saves the least, (Q8). The list of the five energy saving behaviours included the following: (1),
“Use the washing machine and/or dishwasher at low temperature (30-40º)”; (2), “Defrost periodically the
fridge/freezer”; (3), “Replace incandescent light bulbs by fluorescent ones”;(4), “Turn off an appliance
instead of leave it in stand-by”; and (5), “Reduce the shower time from 15 to 10 minutes”. EP survey results
show that the ordering is not aligned with the actual impact of the five behaviours computed by the
energyprofiler project team. According to the project teams’ calculations, the individual behaviour with the
highest potential for saving energy would be to reduce shower time, followed by eliminating all stand-by
consumptions. EP respondents considered those two options however to be of a lower impact, with only
17.76 percent considering a reduced shower time and 12.95 percent considering eliminating all stand-by
consumptions as having a high impact. Instead, “Replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones”,
had the highest percentage, (77.53 percent), followed by ”Using the washing machines in programs for low
temperatures”, (70.65 percent). This suggests that EP respondents might lack knowledge regarding the
impact of specific energy saving behaviours. However, this finding should be evaluated carefully, since not
being able to order a pre-given number of behaviours, does not automatically imply that EP respondents, in
general, possess limited knowledge of the subject domain. In fact, what it suggests is that respondents
might have some difficulty in comparing behaviours and understanding their individual contribution
towards energy savings. Finally, EP respondents were invited to provide information on everything they did
to save energy, (Q6), (Appendix VI) and the results suggest a good level of knowledge regarding both,
efficiency and curtailment behaviours, which could save energy at home. Equally, FGs’ participants were
asked for the same type of information, with the results being presented in Figure 7-6, listing all of these
behaviours that were discussed during the FGs.


151

Figure 7-6: Energy efficient behaviours discussed during the FGs.


152
As Figure 7-6 shows, during the FGs a number of energy efficient behaviours have been discussed and the
majority of the FGs’ participants were able to identify the best practices under specific contexts. However,
some respondents at the same time, seemed to lack the level of knowledge, (Q8, Q31), that would enable
them to compare different specific behaviours, or to evaluate the saving potential they could achieve. FGs’
participants and CID and PID interviewees strongly agreed that not knowing the individual contribution of
energy consuming behaviours could influence the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour.
In summary, interpreting the data collected, within the EP, FGs and CIDs, regarding the level of information
held proved to be difficult, as well understanding how far a lack of knowledge, could be considered as a
barrier. At first glance, there seems to be, what is well known from the literature, an information-behaviour
gap, (Jackson, 2005; Schultz, 2002; Southerton et al., 2011; Stern, 1999), since people report a high level of
knowledge on the different subjects discussed, but then do not seem to act in accordance. Findings, have
however, also shown that once looking at a more specific aspect, or more detailed information, it appears
that knowledge and information are not barriers as such, but rather a convenient excuse for not taking
action. Such findings are equally known from the literature, with previous research highlighting that people
tend to verbalize an inability to do something, (Baker and Kirsch, 1991), as a way to deny personal
responsibility for dealing with a problem. In the majority of cases, a general need for being provided with
targeted and useful information, that could support individual decision and close information circles, could
be observed across the different research phases.
7.2.3 Cultural-normative-social barriers
The evolution of cultural and social norms influence energy use at home and thus, can act as a barrier to the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviours, (see 3.3.4). This is to say that adopting more energy efficient
behaviours, might, challenge existing ways of thinking and doing: the social customs and ways of living and
the assumptions that support these attitudes and behaviours that as a consequence represent cultural,
normative and social barriers to change. During the FGs, a number of examples of cultural-normative and
social barriers could be identified. First of all, the fact that social norms seems to accept a level of energy
use without being perceived as overuse. Many FGs’ participants defined their energy use as being usual,
habitual, or normal and thus showed no actual need to save energy; FGs’ participants seemed to be quite


153
comfortable with how society will judge their energy use. An exception to this normal energy use was
discussed by a few FGs’ participants, who reported the pressure from society to reduce energy use and to
behave in a way, outlined by the participants as being green, in order to fit the social norm. Those FGs’
participants equally expressed that this perceived need of being green, might even result in reporting things
that they do not actually do in order to fulfil the social expectations:
“To fit the society norm people say I save, I do all but in reality they do nothing”, Female FG7
As an example of how social norms can influence individual behaviour, FGs’ participants frequently
highlighted two cases: recycling and saving energy. They felt that for recycling, the social norm expected
one to recycle, while for energy saving this was not the case. For energy, the majority of the FGs’
participants and all three CID interviewees reported to feel somehow entitled to overuse energy and
admitted an egoistic focus, i.e. a focus on fulfilling individual needs the way they wanted.
Overall however, the question of what could be understood as normal use of energy remained unanswered.
This topic was thus further explored during the ID with both, energy consumers, (CID) and energy
intervention providers, (PID). CID interviewees were asked to choose one of five alternatives, (high, normal,
average, reduced and conditioned), that could best describe their energy use at home. Those five categories
were chosen in order to use the terminology that FGs’ participants used during their discussion when they
described their energy use at home. Two out of three CID interviewees considered their energy use as
average and one as normal, which mirrored the FGs’ results. During the CID interviews it was possible to
underpin, to a certain degree, this understanding of normal and average. CID interviewees evaluated their
energy use as normal, or average, in comparison to what their friends and family used, as well as how much
they paid for energy. Normal or average energy use was additionally defined by all three CID interviewees,
through a self-evaluation process by comparing what they did to what they know the best practices were.
Yet, normal energy use also seemed to equal minimum energy use. Once asked about what could be seen
as the possible minimum energy use at home, CID interviewees enumerated a number of situations that
were also perceived by them as being current normal energy usage, such as having a reasonable amount of
light, room temperature, or the number of showers required to feel clean.


154
In summary, from a consumer’s point of view, there seemed to be an understanding that their energy use is
in line with that of their friends and family, therefore it is seen as being normal. PID interviewees reinforced
the perception that people will base their understanding of normal use on the amount of energy used, on a
daily basis, to fulfil their needs. One of the PID interviewees highlighted this perception of normal use as
being influenced by society and current lifestyles. Two of the PID interviewees further highlighted the need
of defining normal energy use, taking into consideration the different variables that influence energy use at
home, whilst, latterly, being able to communicate these to the consumer.
7.3 Individual psychological factors as a barrier
Individual psychological factors such as comfort, habits, willingness, laziness, resistance to change, self-
indulgence, or actions that individuals have been already taken at one point in time, are all potential
barriers towards to the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour and are discussed below.
7.3.1 Habits as an obstacle to the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours
Habits and practices are considered to influence energy use, in both ways, i.e., if bad habits exist they will
increase energy use, or good energy habits will decrease use, (see 3.4.1.). FGs’ participants and CID
interviewees shared an understanding that a great number of behaviours are habitual in nature and impact
their daily life, as the following quotes exemplify:
“Human beings are creatures of habits, regardless whether you like it or not (…) people get
used. Human beings are creatures of habits, it's a routine”, Female, FG2
“It's really an habit, I enter a room and I switch the light on, I could go back and switch the one
before off but I don't and I go further on like this”, Female FG4
“I simply forget it, (to switch appliances really off avoiding standby consumption)”, Female
FG7
Habits and practices were perceived as being acquired over time and performed in an automatic way,
highlighting the habitual character of energy related behaviours:


155
“There are habits that are easier to change than others”, Female, FG2
“Those are habits, some people like to switch lights on”, Male, FG4
“I didn't have that habit, but I started switching appliances really off to avoid standby
consumption”, Female, FG7
The majority of the FGs’ participants agreed that adopting more energy efficient habits might be hard to
achieve, and even if managing to do so, it was felt that this would lead to a reduced impact in terms of the
energy that was used, or saved. Once approached on this topic, some of the FGs’ participants highlighted
that they were well aware of some undesirable habits that would lead to higher than necessary energy use,
such as showering practices, having the TV on even if not watching it, or not switching the lights off once
leaving the room. Though being aware about such undesirable habits, almost all of the participants still
found it hard to change them. In their view changing habits would require an individual effort of
remembering and repeatedly performing the desirable practice.
“We as human beings develop habits which are later on hard to renounce or change”, CID2
Three main reasons were provided, during the FGs and the ID interviews, for the difficulty of changing
habits. First of all, most of the FGs’ participants reported the general difficulty in changing any type of habit
and this is well reported in literature, (IPPR, 2009; Green Alliance, 2011). This was seen to be particular true
when the overall objective was to save energy by engaging in numerous individual actions that, individually,
only result in minor monetary savings for each action. Secondly, FGs’ participants and CID interviewees
agreed that habits provided a level of comfort, convenience and well-being, that allowed them to be lazy
and self-indulgent, repeated what they are used to doing and what seemed to work, again these findings
are well in support in literature, (see section 3.4.1.). This resistance was found in almost all established
behaviours during the FGs and CIDs. However, resistance was particularly predominant on changing the
number, duration and temperature of showers, heating rooms during winter, avoiding standby
consumption or switching lights off:


156
“No, I don’t close the water once washing myself. No, I open the water, in the meantime I get
undressed the water is running to get the right temperature, I get in and the water keeps on
running”, Female5, FG2
Male2: If someone would tell me that in the summer I could only have one shower…I would be
very disappointed…
Male3: no for me it’s also a question of duration…I take ages in the shower, it’s one of those
things that make me feel good.
Male2: but do you close the water once washing yourself?
Male4: no
Male2: why?
Male4: because of convenience, self-indulgence, FG3
Thirdly, and related to this resistance of changing habits, the majority of FGs’ participants and CID
interviewees revealed scepticism regarding the impact of changing such habits in terms of the saving
potential that could be realized and, as will be discussed in more detail in section 7.2.3., on self-efficacy and
expectations regarding the outcome of own behaviour.
However, it could also be observed that a constant awareness of some of the FGs’ participants, might
eventually lead to an unfreezing of old habits, as described by Giddens (1984), that would allow for new
habits to form.
“My conscience is already saying, no, go back and switch that light off”, Female FG7
Nonetheless, some of the FGs’ participants, and of the CID and PID interviewees, agreed that if one could
see the impact of habits on the energy bill, then this could facilitate individual behavioural change:
“If someone would explain and prove to me that changing an old habit will have a significant
impact on my energy bill and on the environment I don't think it would be too complicated to
change”, CID1


157
During the FGs and CID interviews, a group of participants and interviewees could be identified that seemed
to think and act in a different way. This group appeared to behave more often in a more energy efficient
way, as a consequence of the way they were educated and raised from an early age. One of the CID
interviewees explained the difference between her and her partner’s energy use and that this was related
to the different education that they received in their parents’ home, which would have influenced and
remained into adulthood. All three CID interviewees argued that some habits, such as leaving light on/off,
was something they got used to doing from an early age and that those habits remained over time
becoming perceived as normal. For those already used to saving energy, not saving was considered to be
irrational, a waste. This could be a reason for an overall agreement, among FGs’ participants and CID and
PID interviewees, towards an effort to educating younger generations, to enable them to understanding the
impact of their behaviours and positively to help in educating a more energy and environmental responsible
generation.
The above discussion shows that habits seem to play an important role in energy use at home and are part
of one’s narrative once discussing the topic. Participants used habits to justify doing things the way they do
it, be it positive or negative and these habits need to be taken into consideration when promoting the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviour.
7.3.2 Comfort and convenience
Maintaining current levels of comfort seem to be fundamental to FGs’ participants and CID interviewees.
Saving energy was often perceived as impacting current levels of comfort, or as one of the PID interview
suggested, interventions should be rather targeted at promoting energy conservation, thus avoiding energy
wastage, instead of focusing on saving energy, as this is often associated with losing comfort. This
relationship between saving energy and a reduced level of comfort, were predominant responses within
FG1, FG2 and FG3, where participants seemed to have more disposable income to spend on energy and as a
consequence, were willing to trade-off comfort and wellbeing, for more energy use and less savings. This is
also known from literature, as the impact of saving energy, on disposable income, might be insufficient to
motivate individual action to save energy, since, for example BPIE’s research (2011), suggests that for most
households, energy bills account for a small, (3-4 percent), share of their disposable income and thus


158
constitutes a barrier for meaningful action towards reduced energy use. However, a distinction could be
seen during the FGs and the ID interviews, between behaviour that could impact comfort and those that
were just inconvenient to do. Examples of comfort reduction included reducing shower duration, or room
temperature, with examples of inconvenience being the need to get out of bed to really switch the TV off,
instead of leaving it set on standby mode. Several FGs’ participants felt strongly that convenience could be
linked to laziness and self-indulgence, in the sense that it was more convenient to leave appliances on,
instead of really switching them off and later, on again. Overall, there was a tendency to consider family
wellbeing as more important, than the financial or the environmental impact for saving energy. In
particular, for those cases where FGs’ participants were parents, their children were reported as having a
significant impact on the energy use at home and this does not always mean using energy in an
unsustainable way. This influence starts at an early age, with parents reporting the need for
installing/improving their heating systems, or of increasing room temperature, in order to maintain family
wellbeing:
“At home we only installed a heating system once our child was born”, Female, FG7
However, having children at home seems to have a higher influence, once children get older and adopt less
energy efficient behaviours, such as leaving the lights, computer or TV on as well as having longer showers.
This connects back to the need for educating this, new, generation, in order to better understand the
impact their behaviour can have and promoting the development of more energy efficient expectations.
Overall, comfort and convenience appeared to constitute a clear barrier towards reducing energy use at
home, which is also known from literature as being a strong reason, (e.g. Barenergy, 2011, Darnton, 2008,
Darnton et al., 2011, Jackson, 2005, Prendergrast et al., 2008).
7.3.3 Efficacy and outcome expectations
The initial findings from the EP survey questionnaire suggested, that respondents held a low level of self-
efficacy towards the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours, with more than half of EP respondents
reporting to already be doing everything they can in order to save energy at home and with 22.1 percent
reporting that they, “Save already enough”. In contrast, the majority of FGs’ participants and CID


159
interviewees, when asked if they agreed with such a statement, rejected that they could be already doing
everything they can do to save energy at home. Most FGs’ participants strongly felt, that there is always
something one can do to save energy at home, which indicates a level of self-efficacy regarding their
potential to save energy at home. However, this opinion gradually changed during the FGs’ discussion,
when the discussion moved from the abstract level of saving energy, to specific behaviours that were
explored in more detail. When asked for the reasons for not saving more energy at home, a number of the
FGs’ participants used their existing energy saving behaviours as a reason for not saving further. As such,
reporting to already act in a more energy efficient way, apparently, provided a feeling of indulgence that
justified no need to take further action. The findings from the EP, show that 16.9 percent of respondents
claim that they would like to do more, but do not know how, while only 2.3 percent do not believe their
efforts towards saving energy would be worthwhile. In contrast to the EP findings, the majority of the FGs’
participants and CID interviewees appeared to be confident regarding their ability to adopt more energy
efficient behaviours, with emerging narratives revealing that they were, nevertheless, unsure regarding the
outcome of such behaviour in terms of energy used and saved. During both, FGs and CIDs, there were no
significant differences regarding the topic that appeared to be noteworthy. Some of the reasons, for such
disbelief, on the outcomes provided by FGs and CIDs include, the need for collective action and that
individual responses alone would not be sufficient. As one FG participant summarized it:
“I can know how to perform more energy efficient behaviours, but if the remaining family
members don’t do the same them his effort might be easily cancelled off.” Male, FG3
For all of the FGs, though to a varying degree, the discussion seemed to move from a question of being
able, to being willing to adopt more energy efficient behaviours, when comparing individual and collective
efforts. Being able and being willing, seemed to be aligned when discussing change in the easy and simple,
rather than difficult and complicated behaviour. In terms of saving energy, as something easy and simple to
do, meaning just a matter of changing habits, appears to be valid for those day-to-day actions that do not
require much effort to perform and that do not impact on the level of comfort and wellbeing at home. FGs’
participants provided some examples of such behaviours that they reported to be willing to change namely,
switching lights off, cooking with the lids on and reducing the number of times and duration of opening the


160
fridge. Avoiding standby consumption was not always reported as being easy, since there is a convenience
factor attached to the behaviour that was reported as hindering best practice. The perception of behaviours
that were difficult to change included those that were directly associated with perceived and desired levels
of comfort and wellbeing, such as reducing room temperature or reducing the number and duration of
showers. This question of evaluating how easy, or difficult, it would be to save energy, was further explored
during the ID interviews where interviewees were asked how easy, or difficult, they found energy saving at
home to be. CID interviewees were divided, with two reporting it to be difficult and one considering it
moderately easy. Once asked to explain their choice, CID interviewees provided a list of reasons for energy
savings to be considered difficult to achieve, namely, existing ingrained habits, unwillingness to change
those habits, the need to invest in order to realize significant savings, the focus on maintaining comfort
levels, as well as the fact that individual efforts can be negated by other family members’ non-saving habits.
Similar answers were reported by PID interviewees that considered energy saving as something easy to
achieve, or at least to reduce the amount of wasted energy, but simultaneously, also as something difficult
to achieve. PID interviewees argued that people do not hold enough information in order to understand
and realize their energy savings in terms of their energy bills and as a consequence, this could lead to the
abandonment of energy saving behaviours, in particular where previous, negative energy saving
experiences could work as a barrier towards future energy saving attempts. With regards to information,
knowledge and self-efficacy, the PID assumptions were aligned with EP and FGs’ responses that they felt
they had, overall, a good understanding on how to save energy, including the behaviours that might need to
be changed to save energy.
In summary, it might be inferred from the findings that EP respondents, FGs’ participants and CID
interviewees, overall hold a good level of knowledge, that could help them adopt more energy efficient
behaviours and as such, appear to believe they have the ability to adopt those behaviours it they want to,
but, that for some reason, they resist and are unwilling to doing so, as explored further in the following
section.


161
7.3.4 Resistance to and unwillingness to change
During the FGs and CIDs, an apparent resistance and willingness to change could be observed amongst the
interviewees and three broad reasons could be identified for this. Firstly, the majority of the FGs’
participants and all three CID interviewees reported a disbelief regarding the outcomes of their actions,
notably on the amount of energy that could be indeed saved, by adopting more energy efficient behaviours.
FGs’ participants and CID interviewees expressed an overall frustration, regarding the outcomes of previous
behaviour change attempts in order to save energy at home. Not being able to realize the outcome of their
savings, was reported by the majority of the FGs’ participants and by all three CID interviewees, as
influencing not only the abandonment of the newly acquired behaviour, but also as influencing future
attempts to save energy, as they felt discouraged by such attempts:
“I stopped doing so, (unplugging appliances and switching lights off), since the invoice went
up once I was doing it (…)…I got disappointed and currently I just don't care, I do my normal
use”” Male, FG7
“My individual perception is that by switching the light off 20 seconds before won’t solve my
problem of reducing my energy bill”, CID1
These quotes highlight the low outcome expectancy associated with curtailment behaviour. During the FGs,
it was possible to observe that expectations were apparently different, once it came to efficiency
behaviours that required an investment in more energy efficient solutions. This is to say that the expected
energy savings that could be realized through day-to-day curtailment behaviours were perceived
insignificant or low, when compared to the, perceived, saving potential that could be achieved through
investments, such as buying energy efficient appliances, investing in renewable energy sources, or even by
moving into a different house. However, the majority of FGs’ participants and all three CID interviewees
were aware that realizing such outcome expectations, through efficiency behaviours, would require
surpassing a set of financial and technical barriers.
A second reason appears to relate to the individual effort that is required to maintain those behaviours, as
well as to promote them within family members. This seemed to be in particular important for those FGs’


162
participants and CID interviewees, whose family members were not supportive with regards to more energy
efficient lifestyles at home. During the FGs and the CID interviews, a number of examples were provided,
such as the use of TV and PlayStations, or leaving lights on, once not in use. It also could be observed that
family members either reinforced, or served as a driving force, to save energy, or in the opposite direction
they behaved in a way that would increase energy use. These different points of view hold the potential to
cause stressful situations at home and are in particular evident in parent-child relationships, with two FGs’
participants reporting threatening to adopt extreme measures, like switching warm water off, if their
children spend too much time under the shower. Those FGs’ participants and CID interviewees with
unsupportive family members reported either to be willing to make an additional effort to convince other
family members to use less energy, or to just accept what the remaining family members did in order to
avoid conflict.
This feeling of being alone in their individual efforts to save energy relates to the third observed reason,
unwillingness to adopt more energy efficient behaviours; where individual efforts were perceived as having
only a small impact and that they would require a collective effort, from the remaining family members, as
well as society in general. The majority of FGs’ participants and CID interviewees reported believing their
behaviours have little effect impact on the environment, without collective effort. This is mirroring findings
in Kaplan (2000), on the potential impact of one’s contribution and the perception of helplessness and
personal sacrifice. During the FGs and the CID interviews, this feeling of being alone in their individual
efforts, was often reported to exist within the participants’ households, e.g. between partners and parents-
children relationships, but also with the majority of the FGs’ participants, who reported the feeling that
saving energy is not a widespread practice among society. For this reason, doing something that others
were not doing was reported as a discouragement to their attempts to save energy, because singular
activity was not felt to be worthwhile, or effective, with an overall tendency for FG participants to ascribe
the responsibility of saving energy to others, namely neighbours, local and national government or,
perceived, big polluters, such as industry:
“Our first example should come from the government. If they don't do it, (talking about saving
energy), why should we do it?” Female, FG7


163
In summary, adopting more energy efficient behaviour frequently did not appear to be a question of ability,
but rather of willingness of doing so and thus relates to the outcome expectations, such as the expectations
regarding energy savings and individual impact, or contrarily, the perceived negative aspects, such as loss in
comfort, wellbeing and family harmony.
This chapter discussed the findings from the empirical study looking at what influences energy use at home,
(RQ2), within a Portuguese context.
The following table summarises the findings from the research presented in this chapter. These are related
to the RQs and highlight the gaps identified by the empirical studies.


164
Table 7-2 – Summary of findings relating to RQ2.
Chapter Section: 7.1.Relation of behaviours and energy use
Chapter Section: 7.1. Motivational variables and energy efficient behaviours
7.1.1. The motivation for saving money
Saving money as the most reported motivation to saving
energy.
RQ2a, RQ2b
There appears to be a misconception regarding the concept of saving, with saving
energy being interpreted as saving money.
While cost-savings have been reported as the most important
motivation, it could be equally observed that monetary
motivation appeared to be in direct conflict with curtailment
behaviours that would be required to actually realize such
monetary gains.
RQ2a, RQ2b
The motivation to save for monetary reasons seems to be even more important to
those that appeared to have a lower level of disposable income.
Direct and indirect rebound, with financial saving being used in
energy and carbon intensive behaviours, reducing the
environmental benefit achieved through the energy saved.
RQ2b
Misconceptions, in terms of individual behaviour, that could save energy without
necessarily impacting the environment, i.e., the use of home appliances during the
off peak tariffs and the use of wood as a way to save energy.
7.1.2. Pro-environmental and pro-social motivations
Positive attitudes towards energy saving seemed to be
surpassed by the direct, individual, benefits of energy use,
such as comfort and wellbeing.
RQ2c
In isolation, environmental and energy conservation, might be strong motivational
variables, but comparatively weak when in conjunction with other variables such
as comfort and convenience.
Attitude-behaviour gap: pro-environmental attitudes seem to
have little predictive power to explain energy use at home.
RQ2c
Understanding that today’s generation would not suffer the consequences of
predicted and forthcoming environmental problems.


165
7.1.3. Needs and expectations and its relation to motivation for saving energy
Current energy use perceived as socially acceptable, with
people’s behaviour aligned to what appears to be the social
norm and expectations regarding the fulfilment of individual
needs.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Chapter Section: 7.2. Barriers for adopting more energy efficient behaviours
7.2.1. External/macro barriers: policy based, structural and economic barriers
Policy based barriers: need for product standardization and
development of penalty/incentive schemes.
RQ2c
Physical-structural barriers: infrastructure of the house, as well
as existing home appliances.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Evidence of the lock in effect: changing existing infrastructure
will be cost intensive and only feasible in the medium-term.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Reduced availability to invest in more energy efficient
solutions.
RQ2b
7.2.2. Knowledge based barriers
Lack of information, as the most commonly reported barrier to
save energy at home.
RQ2b Misconception regarding the use of off peak, as a way to save energy.


166
7.2.2. Knowledge based barriers (cont.)
Existing lack of information with regards to: (1), overall energy
use, (2) the contribution of specific home appliances and
behaviours to total amount energy use, (3), the amount of
energy that can be saved by adopting more energy efficient
behaviour.
RQ2b, RQ2c
No clear understanding of how far this lack of information is a barrier towards the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. There seems to be an information-
behaviour gap and people do not act in accordance to their reported level of
knowledge, but less certainty exists once looking at specific behaviours where
there appears to be the need for further information.
Apparent difficulty when comparing behaviour and in understand their individual
contribution to energy savings.
Acknowledged difficulty in understanding the relation between individual energy
use and environmental damage, which together negatively influenced individual
motivation to save energy (see 7.1.2).
Strong agreement that knowing the individual contribution of energy consuming
behaviour could influence the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour.
Understanding of energy in monetary terms rather than
energy units, which increase the difficulty of understanding the
difference in energy use to the price of energy.
RQ2b, RQ2c
No clear understanding whether denying to not being able to save energy, is a
strategy to deny personal responsibility.
The understanding of normal energy use is required for better
understanding individual energy use.
RQ2b, RQ2c
7.2.3. Cultural-normative-social barriers
Cultural and social norms were perceived as influencing the
normal way of using energy at home and as such, set the limits
to change and adoption of more energy efficient behaviours
and practices that were perceived as not desirable.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Adopting more energy efficient behaviours might challenge
existing ways of thinking and behaving: the social customs and
the way of living.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Social norm seems to accept a level of energy use, without
being perceived as overuse.
RQ2b, RQ2c


167
Chapter Section: 7.3. Individual psychological factors as a barrier
7.3.1. Habits as an obstacle
Most energy related behaviours are of a habitual nature and
acquired over time.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Reasons for adopting more energy efficient habits as hard to
achieve include: (1), remembering to do the right thing, (2),
habits provide a level of comfort, convenience and well-being
that allows for lazy and self-indulgent behaviour, (3),
scepticism regarding the impact of these habits in terms of
home energy use.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Early influences on energy use appeared to be critical in developing habits that are
learnt and embedded.
7.3.2.Comfort and convenience
Saving money, or the environment, enters into competition
with comfort and convenience.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Overall tendency for considering family wellbeing as more
important than the financial, or environmental, impact of
saving energy.
RQ2b, RQ2c
7.3.3.Efficacy and outcome expectations
Good reported levels of overall efficacy expectations, with
different efficacy expectations depending on the behaviour
under discussion.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Low level of outcome expectations, not only with regard to the
amount of energy that can be reduced, as well as the need for
collective effort in order to be meaningful.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Feeling of helpless and ineffectiveness of one’s own contribution that start at
home, since it was often reported to be an individual effort and not shared by all
family members, which reduced even further, the attempts to save energy within
the household level unit.
Reporting to already act in a more energy efficient way,
apparently provides a feeling of indulgence that justifies a
perception of no need for further action.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Efficacy increases for easy to do things that have no real
impact on comfort and wellbeing levels.
RQ2b, RQ2c


168
7.3.4.Resistence and unwillingness to change
Resistance to and unwillingness to change often appear to
result from: (1), low outcome expectancy, associated with
curtailment behaviour, (2), individual effort that is required to
maintain those behaviours, as well as to promote them within
the family members and (3), individual efforts perceived as
having a small impact, that would require a collective effort,
from the remaining family members, as well as society.
RQ2b, RQ2c
Findings suggest that adopting more energy efficient behaviour doesn’t appears to
be a question of ability, but rather of willingness of doing so, which relates to
outcome expectations, both in terms of energy saved, as well as the need for
collective action.

8. Intervention strategies and perceived effectiveness

169
As can be seen from this chapter, the barriers reported within the energyprofiler survey questionnaire, (EP),
focus groups, (FGs) and in-depth individual interviews, (ID), outnumbered motivations to reducing energy
use at home. In addition to this, the motivations that have been presented did not appear to result in actual
energy use reductions. Positive attitudes towards energy saving, appeared to be surpassed by the individual
direct benefits of energy use, such as comfort and wellbeing. Equally, monetary motivation appeared to be
in direct conflict with curtailment behaviours that would be required to actually realize such monetary
gains. Thus, motivational variables appeared to be in direct competition with the barriers, such as reduced
convenience and comfort. These findings support well the literature that had been presented in chapter 3
and thus support earlier results from Barenergy (2011), Darnton (2008), Darnton et al. (2011), Jackson
(2005) and Prendergrast et al. (2008).
The results do show however, that reported barriers are perhaps not actual barriers, but in part a
convenient excuse, exemplified by the information-behaviour gap, (Jackson, 2005; Schultz, 2002;
Southerton et al., 2011; Stern, 1999) This supports the earlier findings from Baker and Kirsch (1991), that
people tend to verbalize an inability to do something, as a way of denying personal responsibility in dealing
with a problem. This could also be observed with regards to efficacy and outcome expectations, which as
such, did not appear to be a major barrier. Notably, the findings from the FGs showed that the question is
perhaps, less about being able to adopt more energy efficient behaviours and more about the willingness to
do so. Thus, the overall results from this chapter reflect the literature findings presented in chapter 3.


170
8 Intervention strategies and perceived effectiveness
Chapter eight explores the perceived effectiveness of different intervention strategies and the potential
effectiveness of change interventions within the field of energy use at home. The chapter discusses the
findings from the energyprofiler survey questionnaire, (EP), the focus groups, (FGs) and the in-depth
individual interviews, (ID), regarding the findings on the role of intervention strategies in energy use at
home, (RQ3).
Intervention strategies and their perceived effectiveness, in encouraging the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviour, were initially explored during the FGs, with participants being asked to propose specific
interventions that could be launched nation-wide in order to encourage the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviour at home. The topic was further explored, within the CID and PID interviews, in order to
better understand what future interventions might look like. Figure 8-1, shows the type of interventions
discussed during roundtable discussions and how FGs’ participants perceived that these interventions could
address barriers to the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour at home. Data regarding the types of
intervention have been extracted from FGs’ transcripts, with follow up discussion identifying barriers where
intervention could be addressed.

Figure 8-1: Type of interventions in relation to the barriers that could be addressed.
Type of Intervention FG1 FG2 FG3 FG4 FG5 FG6 FG7
Monitoring systems (e.g. energymeters) .. .. ... . ... ...
Education . . .. .. . .. ..
Prompting .. .. .. ..
Benefit vs. Penalty .. . . ... ..
Provision of financial incentives .. . . .
Provision of simple comparative terms (e.g. home appliance) . .. ..
Comparison to other people . .
Provision of general information on how to save energy at home . . . . . . .
Provide an average, normal energy use value ... ... ... ...
Demonstrate good practices/Model behaviours ... ... . .. ..
Inclusion of smart features in the home appliances . . .
Provision of simple examples at the energy invoices .. .
Provision of information at the point of sales . . . .
Provision of tailored information (e.g. energy audit) .. .. . ..
Provision of free samples . . . . . . .
Labelling of products .. .. .. ... ..
Barriers: Inability to measure energy use|Lack of information|Initial investment cost | Habit | Invisibility | Social norms


171
As can be seen from Figure 8-1, education, provision of general information, or the provision of free
samples, have been put forward by each of the 7 FGs as suitable interventions. Similarly, the use of
monitoring systems, benefit vs. penalty type schemes, demonstration of good practice, as well as the
provision of tailored information, including labelling of products, were seen by FGs’ participants as possible
interventions that hold high potential for encouraging the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour.
These will be looked at more in detail through this chapter. Further, as can be seen from Figure 8-1, FG1,
FG4 and FG5 are minimally populated, in terms of type of interventions discussed, when compared to
others. This could only be seen while compiling the data and as such, the reasons for this have not been
directly explored within the FGs. However, each FG had specific characteristics, with FG1 composed of
participants that work within the energy efficiency field, that hold a consistent opinion regarding the
effectiveness of the different types of intervention. This might be a reason for them discussing a reduced
number of intervention types, that they perceived as most effective and worthy of mention. Regarding FG4
and FG5, participants seemed to hold a lower purchasing power, as well as a lower education level, which
may contribute to a reduced set of intervention alternatives that, in particular, target the financial
component of energy use.
In this chapter, the nature of Intervention strategies discussed by research participants and their perceived
effectiveness, will be presented in more detail.
8.1 Communication design and persuasion
As can be seen from the literature, persuasion can influence others, (Jackson, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007;
Simons, 1976, p. 21) and is often dependent on the credibility of the sender, the persuasiveness of the
argument/message, or the responsiveness of the audience, (O’Keefe, 1990). Thus persuading people to
change can be particularly difficult, (Jackson, 2005). Therefore, one objective of the FGs was to further
explore the perceived requirements for communication design and persuasion. FGs’ participants were
asked to recall campaigns promoting energy efficient behaviour and subsequently, were asked to design,
for themselves, a communication and information campaign on how to promote the adoption of more
energy efficient behaviour.


172
With regards to communication design, in four of the FGs the general importance of the message sender
was stressed and that they need to be both reliable and able to create empathy with the targeted audience.
The FGs’ roundtable discussion brought up a number of examples of what could be considered a reliable
and persuasive sender, with overall agreement towards ordinary people, known actors or TV reporters and
children. Messages issued by utility companies were considered helpful, but potentially less effective since
they could lead to confusion and distrust. FGs’ participants pointed out confusion when receiving advice
from their electricity supplier to save energy, as this was perceived as reducing their own business. In
addition to this, it was stressed that the message/argument needs to be persuasive, in order not to be
rejected or ignored, as a way to avoid confronting implications for appreciated energy inefficient
behaviours, as postulated by Upham et al., (2009).
Further to this, an overall agreement could be seen among the majority of FGs’ participants and ID
interviewees, that persuading people to adopt more energy efficient behaviour would be challenging to
achieve, in particular for less easy, or simple behavioural changes or, those that were perceived as
impacting desired normal levels of comfort, convenience or wellbeing. It could not be found however if
messages promoting such undesired and unpopular energy efficient behaviours could actually not backfire
and highlight the prevalence of energy inefficiency as a habit shared by other people. This, apparent,
individual unwillingness to address comfort and wellbeing levels was shared across FGs’ participants, CID
and PID interviewees and it is uncertain how successful future interventions could be that target such a
focus. Findings from this research suggest rather that promoting the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviour, perceived as having undesirable consequences, could lead people to not doing so. This situation
is known in the literature as a, ‘confirmation bias’ where people look for information that is consistent with
what they already think, want, or feel, leading them to avoid, dismiss, or forget information that will require
them to change their mind-set and, quite possibly, their behaviour, (Shome & Marx, 2009); where, “I can’t”,
simply means, “I don’t want to”. Findings from the FGs and IDs overall suggest that an individuals’ positive
attitudes towards comfort and wellbeing, are stronger than attitudes towards the environment and as such,
there might not be any emotions, such as disappointment, dissatisfaction, shame, embarrassment or guilt,
that could help lead to the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour. Therefore, interventions that
would draw from persuasion theories, (section 4. 2) and that use judgment, cognitive dissonance or self-


173
discrepancy methodologies would not be perceived as persuasive, or potentially effective, with regards to
triggering the desired response from the audience.
8.2 Structural interventions
8.2.1 Rewards and punishments
A rewards and punishment scheme was discussed within five out of the seven FGs as a way to encourage
the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour. FGs’ participants were found open to an approach that
would reward those people who underused energy and punished those that over used it. As a pre-requisite
for such a scheme, FGs’ participants agreed on the need to define a set of base values for energy use at
home, to punish those overusing and reward those underusing energy at home. In accordance with FGs’
participants, a base value for energy use should take into account the amount of energy required to fulfil
basic needs; though it was not fully understood what was considered to be a basic need and, similar to the
discussions of chapter six and seven, what is understood to be normal. Some of the FGs’ participants
suggested this base level of energy use could be provided, either for free, or at a flat rate entrance value, so
as to provide an understanding of what is considered an acceptable level of basic energy use at home. This
concept of a flat basic and an increasing non-basic rate was compared by some of the FGs’ participants with
one that they recalled for water consumption in Portugal, where people paid different prices for water,
higher consumption equalling a higher price charged. Yet, even though greeted by initial enthusiasm from
the roundtable discussion during FGs, it was not possible to determine how effective such a scheme could
be.
A number of FGs’ participants expressed an opinion that such a scheme would probably not work, due to a
lack of motivation and that people would maintain established practices as long as they could afford to use
energy as they do at the present. Despite such concerns, there was an overall agreement that such a
scheme should, nevertheless, facilitate the development of a measurable mind set for energy use, as well as
being a fair instrument to compensate those people willing to adopt more energy efficient behaviour and to
use less energy at home. In contrast to FGs’ participants, PID interviewees did not consider such scheme a
viable intervention, although each for different reasons. In PID1, the interviewee from an energy supplier,


174
argued that such a scheme could backfire since there is, currently, no value to identify what a normal,
(average), use of energy could be, as well how to best calculate such value, which could be a complex
process to implement and monitor. With PID2, the interviewee from the national energy agency argued
that people can only support penalties and punishments until a certain point and that the energy saved
should be motivation enough to adopt more energy efficient behaviour. For PID3, the interviewee from the
national utility program, preferred to promote adoption of long-term mechanisms that support a consistent
reduction of energy demand, rather than random measures focused on specific scenarios.
In summary, results from this research suggest that energy users and intervention providers have different
opinions regarding the use of reward and punishment intervention schemes. From a user point of view,
reward and punishment schemes appear to be evaluated as desirable and a partially effective type of
intervention. While from an intervention provider this intervention type does not seem to be that appealing
or perceived as effective.
8.2.2 Incentives and samples
The provision of incentives, including samples of more energy efficient home appliances, was evaluated as
an effective alternative to promoting the adoption of more energy efficient technologies, by removing or
reducing the risk energy users would need to take. The provision of samples was discussed within all 7 FGs,
with FGs’ participants providing the example of energy efficient light bulbs that were distributed, for free,
as part of a national program to reduce the market entrance barriers to the deployment of the new light
bulb technologies
15
. FGs’ participants agreed that this distribution of light bulbs, for free, allowed them to
experiment and removed the burden of investment for such initial experimentations. In addition to this,
FGs’ participants also highlighted the low personal effort that was required to get their sample light bulb:
“One only needed to exchange the light bulbs…they even sent one to home”, Male, FG7
“I got them for free, it was a bonus… they were giving them away at the supermarket”, Male
FG4

15
The distribution of more energy efficient appliances was financed through a Portuguese National Fund aiming at promoting energy
efficiency within the residential, services and industry sectors. More information available at www.erse.pt


175
Based on such positive experience, FGs’ participants suggested that the government could promote similar
interventions for other home appliances, as well as renewable energy sources, as a way to reduce the initial
investment required in purchasing more energy efficient appliances. Even though there were, at that time,
other type of financial incentives to adopt more energy efficient home appliances or renewable energy
sources, only a reduced number of FGs’ participants were aware of such incentive schemes.
Within subsequent PID interviews, interviewees were, nevertheless, reluctant towards such types of
intervention, with two out of three interviewees criticizing the unfairness in distribution that frequently
accompanies the sample, or incentive provision. As a concrete example, PID2 referred to the energy
efficient light bulbs, where the criterion of receiving one was to have lower average bills, resulted in light
bulbs being repositioned to holiday/second homes. In addition to the unequally/unfair distribution, PID3
had a general concern that supplying energy efficient appliances, for free, could promote the introduction
of more energy efficient products that are at an early stage of technological maturity, which could lead to a
lost opportunity of promoting the technology in the future, if the first user experience is negative.
8.2.3 Labelling
During the FGs’ roundtable discussion, a frequent narrative emerged, centered around the discussion of A
rated home appliances being better than others. Nevertheless, during FG1, those participants working in
the energy area, suggested that people in general do not understand the scope of energy rating labels, are
unable to compare the performance of different home appliances and that as a result, they do not know
how much energy they will, potentially, consume, or save. This view was common across the other FGs in
two different ways. First of all, during the FGs there was no discussion comparing other characteristics such
as size, load capacity, or use pattern, that influence the amount of energy used and that would
demonstrate FGs’ participants understanding the impact of their purchasing decision. Rather than
questioning if one needs a bigger fridge or washing machine, the notion was that as long as it is, ‘A rated’, it
is energy efficient and as such, it is a good purchase. Secondly, a few of the FGs’ participants recommended
that all non A-rated home appliances should be banned from the market as an alternative, to release
consumers from the need of trying to compare the different available options. During the FGs it was not
possible to fully understand if this was a strategy to promote sustainability, or rather translating into the


176
difficulty FGs’ participants might have in understanding the information provided by the labels, though it
could equally have been an example for choice architecture, as will be further discussed in section 8.2.5.
Findings do, however, question the effectiveness of labels. Even though labels apparently provided
meaningful and easy to understand information, it was not clear that the use of standardized labels across
products would indeed lead to better informed purchasing decisions and, in particular, for those consumers
that lack motivation and knowledge to compare different solutions, in terms of purchase and later use. This
might be one of the reasons for some FGs’ participants reporting looking for information at the point of
sale, as well as from the shop staff. Shop staff appeared, during the FGs and the CID interviews, to be
perceived as a trusted source of information to facilitate the purchase of more energy efficient home
appliances instead of, or in combination with, energy labels. One PID interviewee even extended the
discussion to the home energy performance certificate
16
, an energy label for homes and questioned
whether people would pay much attention to the energy class of the house, or whether other variables
would be of a higher relevance to the buyer, such as the house location. The PID interviewee questioned
the impact of such a certification due to, their, individual understanding that people mainly request the
certificate to comply with the law if they want to sell/rent a house, rather than being interested in and
motivated to adopting the efficiency measures proposed within the certificate.
In summary, results suggest that labels could be an adequate intervention type; though it equally appears
that an increased level of knowledge might be required to understand the information within such labels.
Findings also indicate that it was not understood that the A label alone is only a relative indicator and not to
be seen in isolation from the actual day to day usage. Analogous to the literature, findings did indicate that
it might thus be a requirement to provide a consistent and comparative level of information for consumers,
(DGGE/IP-3E, 2004). With this, findings show that the general challenge for labels was seen to be to ensure
that the information provided is meaningful, easy to understand and standardised. Also that consumers are
motivated into wanting to take action and thus supporting earlier findings from Southerton et al., (2011).

16
Energy Performance Certificate are today obligatory for homes under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive - Directive
2002/91/EC, EPBD.


177
8.2.4 Demonstrating and facilitating
During roundtable discussions, FGs’ participants often referred to modelling and demonstration as a way to
promote individual behavioural change. FGs’ participants discussed three situation that could be framed
within modelling and demonstration: (1), central/local government actions, that demonstrate saving energy
is an important thing to do, for instance, by switching street or monument lights off at night; (2), the
modelling effect of parents on children, and vice versa. Behaviour adopted within the family home during
childhood seem to remain into adult life and, in contrast, parents are influenced by their children and the
good practices they learn at school, (e.g. with the recycling practices); (3), demonstration of the benefits of
more energy efficient appliances. Some FGs’ participants recalled having seen a comparison, at a point of
sale, between traditional light bulbs and more energy efficient ones, placed side-by-side with an
independent energy counter attached to each, indicating what amount of energy was being used. FGs’
participants agreed that this allowed them to compare the individual energy consumption of each
technology, allowing them to have better informed decisions in a very easy way:
“They had a traditional light bulb on with the counter moving and next to it an energy efficient
one with the counter moving much slower and one could see it” Female, FG7
Findings from this research suggest that modelling and demonstration was perceived to be an effective type
of intervention, with regards to the provision of desirable behaviours and to encourage learning by
observing how others behave. Modelling behaviour was also seen as a potentially effective avenue for
changing behaviour, as people follow these examples once they are understandable, relevant, and
rewarding in terms of positive results.


178
8.2.5 Intervention through design
During the FGs, participants discussed two types of intervention with regards to environmental design and
material context adjustment. Firstly, the need to change home infrastructure and appliances towards more
energy efficient ones and secondly, the inclusion of smart features, which was perceived as a type of
communication/feedback mechanism that could facilitate using home appliances more efficiently
With regards to home infrastructure, FGs’ participants and ID interviewees highlighted the fact that the
infrastructure of their current homes is not supportive towards using less energy without having to trading-
off their present level of comfort. When asked to evaluate their current level of energy use and comfort,
and to forecast for the 10 years, all three CID interviewees agreed they would maintain, or increase, their
comfort level, whilst potentially reducing energy use by the deployment of more energy efficient appliances
and improved home infrastructure. This 10-year period was perceived as sufficient to improve their homes
and to substitute existing home appliances with more energy efficient ones, which would lead to a
potentially reduced level of energy use without needing to take additional measures. Yet, regarding energy
related practices, interventions that were put forward rather focused on improving home infrastructure, or
existing home appliances, in order to promote increased savings, but largely neglected interventions aimed
at how the home and home appliances are used, and on the impact of everyday behaviour as a way to
reduce energy use.
With regards to the way products are designed and, in particular, the inclusion of smart features that could
facilitate the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home, some examples were provided by FGs’
participants, such as the inclusion of sound alerts that would remind people to switch appliances off,
comparing this to the system recent cars have to remind you of the need to use the seat belt. This connects
with the literature on choice architecture, (Dobson, 2011; Grist, 2010; Southerton et al., 2011; Thaler &
Sunstein, 2008), which from a product perspective could, for instance, mean only having a cold wash
washing machine, rather than trying to educate people to wash at 30º. Under these circumstances the
home appliance itself would take the decision away from the user. FGs’ participants used the standby
option as a way to express how convenient and comfortable some of the default options are day-to-day:


179
“I try, but I have to recognize it’s difficult for me to switch appliances from standby. For
example, we are in bed and it’s much easier to switch the TV with the remote control…it’s
more comfortable…sometimes I remember but I’m feeling so good in bed that I don’t stand
up”, Female, FG6
Within subsequent PID interviews and, perhaps a bit unexpectedly, PID interviewees did not consider such
strategies that relate to choice architecture and the concept of nudging, (Dobson, 2011; Grist, 2010;
Southerton et al., 2011; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008) and where the default options are set in order to facilitate
individual best practice. The reason for such non-considerations did remain, however, unclear.
In summary, findings from this research suggest that product design and contextual adjustments could be
an effective type of intervention to reduce energy use at home, but that they will not necessarily encourage
the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours as such as they are based on a ‘technofix’ approach, (see
2.2.7, 4.3.2). They are perceived as being sufficient and thus release users from the daily effort to adopt
more energy efficient behaviour. Adapting product design seems to inhibit the potential for learning and
adopting other energy efficient behaviours, other than that relating to the adopted product.
8.3 Psychological interventions
8.3.1 Targeted face-to-face information
During the FGs, an overall agreement could be observed with regards to advantages of providing tailored,
preferably face-to-face, information and feedback. To illustrate the point, FGs’ participants often described
a scenario where someone with knowledge in the area would visit their home, evaluates their energy use,
and then provide tailored advice on how they could save energy and on how to account for those savings.
Though often not referring to the technical term, FGs’ participants were describing a home audit as a means
with significant potential for promoting energy saving at home. The main disadvantage of this type of
intervention relates, however, to the time required for such audits and the inherent cost resulting from
being human resource intensive, (section 4.4). Providing customized information, through a number of
alternatives, was perceived by FGs’ participants as beneficial to better understand what one could do and


180
how much energy could be saved for the specific individual circumstances, thus reducing the confusion
between the amount of information currently available and the difficulty to sort out what is important. FGs’
participants reported difficulty in understanding the available information, comparing the different sources
of data, as well as being able to reserve time for doing so. Managing and understanding existing information
was often perceived as over-demanding for the majority of the FGs’ participants, since it requires, time, a
degree of skill, and a willingness to do so. These findings suggest an overall concern regarding which
information is accurate, who to trust in the myriad of actors in the field, from utility companies to NGOs to
suppliers of energy efficient products and services, crowned by a simultaneous lack of a reliable voice,
without vested interest, in the field of energy related information.
From the narratives that were built during the FGs’ roundtable discussion, one could expect that the
provision of targeted information could encourage adoption of more energy efficient behaviours yet
evidence within this research is mixed, with FGs’ participants being divided. Some of the FGs’ participants
agreed that if they knew exactly what to do, they would act in accordance and others reported that at best
they would know they are doing something they should not, but would not change existing practices and
habits. However, FGs’ participants seemed to be more receptive to personalized information, rather than
selecting for themselves what is important or not. For this reason, a face-to-face, tailored, information type
of intervention, such as an energy audit might still be an effective type of intervention, to at least impact
the level of awareness, regarding more energy efficient behaviour. The impact this type of intervention
would have, in terms of generating energy savings, needs evaluation.
8.3.2 Information and communication campaigns
During FGs, participants were asked to recall information and communication campaigns that promoted the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, to discuss their efficacy as well as to suggest perceived
requirements that could lead to their effectiveness. FGs’ participants recalled six energy saving campaigns,
however, considering the total of 41 FG participants, this could be interpreted as a low number. During the
follow up discussion, FGs’ participants appeared to be less aware of energy related campaigns, compared to
other pro-environmental fields such as recycling.


181
Most of FGs’ participants provided a positive evaluation towards the role that communication and
information campaigns can play, in terms of providing information and raising the awareness about more
energy efficient behaviour. However, they were less certain of how effective these campaigns were in
persuading people to adopt more energy efficient behaviour. Most of the FGs’ participants reported to be
unsure if information and communication campaigns could lead them, or the others, to adopt more energy
efficient behaviour:
“Woman(W)1: Campaigns are useful but insufficient, (to promote behavioural change),
…W1: and they won’t manage to reach everybody…W2, (complementing the idea from W1):
people hold strong ideas, I always did things this way why should I change now, (discussing
the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours)” FG7
“W1: we see a campaign providing information on how we could save…W2 it’s only an
advertisement…W3: we don’t pay much attention…W1: one reads but doesn’t
memorize…W2: we do nothing, unless we are touched for some reason like the recycling
campaigns or those campaigns to feed people in need…those messages have an impact”
FG6
Findings thus indicate that information and communication campaigns could be effective in encouraging
the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, but that this encouragement alone might not be sufficient
due to a basic lack of motivation to adopt more energy efficient behaviour.
During the FGs, participants were asked to design an information and communication campaign that could
be implemented nationwide in order to promote the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour. The
issues discussed during the design process were wide ranging and highlighted the complexity of promoting
the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, with a number of desirable characteristics of future
communication and information campaigns emerging. Among these, FGs’ participants focused on the need
to provide information regarding the contribution for specific individual home appliances and associated
practices, as well as how much could be saved by adoption different behaviours. This shows that FGs’
participants attributed a high level of relevance to understanding how much energy specific home


182
appliances consume and how energy is used within day-to-day practices, in order to consider to adopt more
energy efficient ones. This is well in line with the discussion in section 8.4.1 and provides further evidence
that FGs’ participants and CID interviewees lack information regarding energy used under specific
circumstances and as a consequence, of how much energy could be saved. Also, FGs’ participants focused
on providing positive messages that could enhance the ‘fun’ part of saving energy, rather than on the
perceived obligation of doing so.
“To have a ghost that went behind and switched lights off” Female, FG7
“I don’t think there is the need for recrimination…I believe that to recriminate introduces a
negative dimension that I don’t find essential for changing behaviours…the child can
suggest to the mother and the mother can answer that you are right, I was not even
recognizing what I was doing, (discussion during the design of the communication
campaign), Female, FG2
Positive messages were perceived as stressing the results of saving behaviour, which might be a reason for
all suggested campaigns to have very similar slogans, focusing on the idea of saving, on short term-
immediate change, and highlighting the financial impact of saving. These findings highlight FGs’ participants
focus on short-term, immediate gains rather than long-term investments in energy efficiency, which, in
general, is opposite to the majority of campaigns that focus on long-term gains, as well as more abstract
terms of saving the environment, or saving the planet. A more recent communication campaign in Portugal
has been stressing the immediate gain, in particular the cost-saving potential day-to-day, that energy
efficient behaviour can have. Only a few FGs’ participants agreed to the use of shock, fear, or blame
messages to promote more energy efficient lifestyles. These messages were, for the majority of the FGs’
participants, perceived as not contributing to the success of the campaign and FGs’ participants used the
example of cigarette packets with warning messages and images and how smokers found a way to avoid
these by buying a cover for the packet. Analogous to positive, fun messaging, the opposite, fear and blame
messaging, were perceived as not leading to individual identification, as there seemed to be a related
fatigue and tiredness regarding negative messages that could enhance a feeling of helplessness and
guiltiness and as a consequence, of disempowerment:


183
“Nowadays we are addressed each day with negative things…it’s too much” Female, FG7
“I would become very frustrated since I already save in so many things, with more energy
efficient light bulbs and whatsoever, that I believe I have the right of having a longer shower”
Female, FG6
Overall, findings from the FGs suggest that communication and information campaigns can be used as a
way to provide information and to generally highlight the benefits of adopting more energy efficient
behaviour. Findings indicate further, that information campaigns might not necessarily lead to action since
there might be a lack of motivation to adopting more energy efficient behaviour. As such, findings from this
research do support the literature in that communication and information campaigns might have little, or
no, impact on promoting individual behavioural change and thus can be expensive in relation to their
effectiveness, (Southerton et al., 2011; McKenzie-Mohr 2000).
8.3.3 Education interventions
During the FGs, the provision of formal education emerged as one of the interventions that could
encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour by current, as well as future generations. A
number of FGs’ participants acknowledged that during their school education there were not that many
educative programmes that provided them with an understanding of the environmental impact of their
behaviour.
“My son went to the kindergarten and teachers focus a lot on the environment, not on the use
of water or electricity but rather in terms of recycling and the environment” Female, FG6
However, they noticed that nowadays, children at school learn how to behave in a more environmentally
friendly way, providing the example of recycling as one such intervention area. As a result of this school
effort, FGs’ participants agreed overall that this could have a positive impact on their children’s future
behaviour, which potentially could be more energy efficient and environmental friendly and simultaneously
have a side effect on the parents’ behaviours as a result of child influence and pressure. Yet,
simultaneously, this is also an example of how FGs’ participants do not perceive themselves as being


184
responsible for their current behaviour in terms of energy use at home. During the FGs, a number of
participants referred to the pressure they felt from their children to recycle at home and how this has
become ingrained into the family routine. Yet, in the case of energy, such pressure could not be clearly
identified. Nevertheless, this might also be related to the fact that recycling education efforts have a long
tradition within the Portuguese school system, as opposed to the energy-focused interventions that are
more recent.
8.3.4 Community based interventions
Findings from this research suggest FGs’ participants and CID/PID interviewees value their ability to provide
their families with comfort and wellbeing levels that are, socially, perceived as required and desirable to
have, regardless of the amount of energy that is required to supply these. During the FGs and CID/PIDs,
participants and interviewees often compared their energy use to those of family members, friends, or
people having a house with similar characteristics. This was perceived as sufficient to justify their energy
use at home as normal, or average, even if it included non-essential, but rather desirable needs. Shared
practices that are perceived as part of this normal energy use include owing several TV sets, having more
than one shower per day, or leaving home appliances on stand-by mode; with the first two representing a
normal comfort level and the last the convenience of less energy efficient behaviour. The understanding of
normal energy use as a comparison has been discussed in chapters 6 and 7 and further explored within a
reward-penalty system in section 8.2.1. By calculating the base energy use level, household energy use can
be compared against other households and would allow identification of those households that have
average consumption and those that over-consume or under-consume energy at home. Nevertheless, only
one of the PID interviewees, (PID3), was in favour of such an approach since it was considered to appeal to
a competitive nature and would influence, what he understood as an, individual’s unwillingness to lose at a
game.
“I guess those examples you provided, to measure, to use inexpensive monitoring equipment
to reach the consumer, to guide the consumer in real time. The truth is not for those in energy
poverty, but for the others this is small money when compared to a restaurant bill or a cinema


185
ticket. People will save more by enrolling in a game, that will stimulate their competitive
behavior, no one likes to lose a game”, PID3
Ultimately, it appeard as if the relative and comparative aspect of energy use did support building up an
understanding of what is understood as being a normal consumption, which in the case of relative over-
spending would thus be a questionable incentive to use less energy, in combination with feedback provision
and monitoring equipment, (see 8.4.3). Nevertheless, the results from this research are not conclusive
regarding the effectiveness of how such a comparison system would encourage the adoption of more
energy efficient behaviour. But, to provide feedback on energy use, based on a comparison system, could
be an alternative to complement the provision of individual feedback regarding energy use and
improvement in the effectiveness of interventions. As such, collective feedback strategies that use
neighbourhood data to feed comparitive use data, may be a useful addition to individual household
feedback as an intervention strategy, that encourages the adoption of more energy efficicent behaviours.
8.4 Combined structural/psychological interventions
This section provides an overview on aspects that have been discussed within the FGs from both, a
structural and psychological intervention perspective that are, thus, presented in this section, providing a
combined look at structural and psychological intervention.
8.4.1 Information, feedback and monitoring equipment
There was an overall agreement among FGs’ participants and PID interviewees regarding the role that
monitoring equipment could have as a way of, “Commoditizing”, behaviour into a good proxy, in order to
make consumption visible, as suggested by WWF (2008). FGs’ participants and PID interviewees suggested
the use of monitoring systems, such as energy meters, as one suitable option of providing continuous
feedback about the amount of energy being used. During PID, interviewees acknowledged the difficulty that
energy invisibility could add to the aim of promoting the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, as
well as the role that monitoring equipment could have in terms of providing some visibility to home energy
use, as the following quote demonstrates:


186
“One of the most important aspects for changing energy use is its visibility. During the
'ecofamílias'
17
project with the use of energy meters…we managed to materialize
energy, something that otherwise is invisible and we did it fairly successfully”, PID1
Though only a few FGs’ participants had experience with energy meters, the majority of FGs’ participants
agreed that in order to be effective, such type of monitoring equipment must provide simple information.
During the FGs some examples of what was meant by simple information were provided, such as a simple
colour system indicating whether consumption was within a certain range, or simple alerts triggered once
reaching a defined value, with the information supplied in Euros and other units, such as kW or CO2, an add-
on that could be provided if wanted. This same opinion was shared among PID interviewees, who agreed
that provided information should be simple, in order to be useful and support individual decision-making. If
these conditions were met, energy meters, or similar monitoring equipment, were perceived as holding a
potential to promote more energy efficient behaviour and thus for energy to be saved. However, this
almost unanimous, opinion regarding the use of energy meters, or similar monitoring equipment, might
need to be evaluated with care, since when questioned about the effectiveness of providing real time
information and how this could influence the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours, three
alternative opinions emerged among FGs’ participants: (1), those FGs’ participants that were convinced of
the benefits of knowing their detailed energy use, as this would lead to the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviours; (2), those that recognized that holding this level of feedback would be of interest to
them, though it would not have an impact in terms of the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours;
and (3), those that were not interested at all in learning about their energy use, since this could cause
feelings of frustration and disappointment:
“But it is only a soup I’m warming up” (note: when discussing the impact of knowing how
much energy was spent for warming up a soup at the microwave and whether this could
influence her individual behaviour, which was perceived as severely conditioned by her
financial situation already), Female, FG7

17
Ecofamílias project had 3 editions and involved a total of 1.225 families with the aim of evaluating their ability to reduce their energy
use at home.


187
This diversity of opinion thus questions the effectiveness of providing real time feedback; whether
monitoring equipment could promote long-term adoption of more energy efficient behaviours, or whether
this would rather be a short-term phenomenon. Though FGs’ participants acknowledged the potential of
monitoring systems to allow them to improve their knowledge regarding the contribution of specific energy
related behaviours to their monthly bill, even those FGs’ participants in favour of having a monitoring
system at home shared the opinion, that, with time, they might lose interest in constantly monitoring their
energy use. For this reason monitoring equipment might only have a short-medium term impact:
“I have no idea how the monitoring equipment would be but if I would need to check for the
energy being used each time, I used x amount of energy, I used x amount of energy, I believe I
would get upset after a while”, Female, FG7
The potential effectiveness of the use of monitoring equipment in combination with prompting strategies
will be further discussed in the subsequent section.
8.4.2 Smart metering and prompting strategies
Prompting strategies appeared to be less known, though ultimately, FGs’ participants provided several
examples. One FGs’ participant used post-it notes to remind family members on what they should do,
another one referred to a mobile phone that produces a noise once charged, or another referred to home
appliances that produced some kind of sound as a reminder that they are still in standby mode. Overall, the
inclusion of integrated smart features into home appliances appeared to be very well accepted by the
majority of the FGs’ participants, which could provide opportunities to effectively prompt individual
behaviour, with the message being displayed in close proximity to the place where the target behaviour can
be performed, as, for example, suggested by Geller et al., (1982), three decades ago. These smart features
were perceived by FGs’ participants as having a prompting role in reminding users to adopt more energy
efficient behaviour in order to reduce energy use. Findings, thus, suggest that prompting strategies could be
the counterpart to the barrier of, “I forgot doing so” and fall in line with literature claims (see section 4.5.1.)
that smart features hold great potential due to their proximity to where the action takes place. Findings
thus support earlier studies that suggest smart features could be a, relatively, low cost type of intervention,


188
to promote the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours, (Lehman & Geller, 2004). Yet, FGs’
participants felt overall that these prompts should be stated positively, to avoid eliciting negative reactions,
(see also 8.3.2) and that they should be labelled to provide information designed to help consumers make
informed choices, (see also 8.2.3).
8.4.3 Information, feedback and energy bills
According to the findings in this research, energy bills might not be the most efficient strategy to provide
people with information on how much energy they have used, or at least not for the case of Portugal. The
majority of FGs’ participants found it difficult to understand how much energy they used during a specific
month for a number of reasons: in Portugal energy bills include other fees and surcharges not related to the
amount of energy being consumed, often they are bi-monthly, (each covering two months) and based on an
estimated annual consumption, or fixed for 11 months. As a result of this, FGs’ participants reported
difficulty in understanding the amount of energy used for a specific month, as well as what might have
contributed to a differing energy use per month. Only a few FGs’ participants appeared to be well informed
about their actual monthly energy use and were quite happy and willing to share the data. FGs’ participants
suggested that in order to be more useful, energy bills should provide information in an easily understood
way, such as a bar graph with monthly consumption based on real consumption, or a comparison in a way
they could relate to, such a basic home appliance. Overall findings from FGs are well in-line with the
literature, (Brandon & Lewis, 1999; Darby, 2006) and provide further evidence on the role, but also the
limitations for energy bills to provide useful feedback on energy use.
This chapter discusses the findings from the empirical study looking at the potential effectiveness different
intervention strategies to encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home within the
Portuguese context.


189
In the following table the findings from the research presented in this chapter are related to RQ3,
highlighting including any noteworthy deviation from the reviewed literature that could be detected from
the findings of this research
.


190
Empirical study findings RQ Noteworthy further observations
Chapter Section: 8.1. Communication Design
Persuading people to adopt more energy efficient behaviour,
generally seen as challenging for less, ‘easy and simple’,
behavioural changes, or once not having an impact on desired
normal levels of comfort, convenience or wellbeing.
RQ3b
People do not appear to hold any inconsistency between their
attitudes and their behaviour, if one considers that their positive
attitudes towards comfort and wellbeing are stronger than their
attitude towards the environment.
RQ3a
Previous messages from interventions do not appear to be
aligned with those behaviours that people accept doing, but
rather to the ones they reject, or are not committed to doing.
RQ3a

Chapter Section: 8.2. Structural interventions
8.2.1. Rewards and punishments
Findings suggest that a rewards/punishment system might be
effective for some people to encourage the adoption of more
energy efficient behaviour.
RQ3a, RQ3b
The potential effectiveness of rewards/punishment system could not be fully understood, in
particular to the medium/long term.
8.2.2. Provision of incentives and samples
Findings suggest the provision of incentives and samples could
encourage the introduction of more energy efficient technologies
by reducing the investment required and risk of such a purchase.
RQ3a


191
8.2.3. Labelling
The efficacy of labelling could not be fully understood, as people
might lack the ability to fully understand the information
provided.
RQ3b
‘A rated’ seen as synonym for energy efficient, without considering actual use.
Observed lack of ability across all FGs to understand energy labels, to use them as a means to
actually compare the performance of home appliances, resulting in an apparent lack of
effectiveness of such labels.
8.2.4. Demonstrating and facilitating as an intervention strategy
Modelling behaviour was seen as a potentially effective avenue
for changing behaviour, as people will follow these examples
once they are understandable, relevant, meaningful and
rewarding, in terms of positive results.
RQ3a, RQ3b

8.2.5. Environmental design and material contextual adjustment
Even though the contribution of technology could play an
important role, there is some common agreement that
technological solutions to domestic energy reduction might be
insufficient without the cooperation of individuals.
RQ3a
Apparent neglecting of interventions aimed at how the home and home appliances are used
and how they can be adjusted on an everyday base.
Product design and contextual adjustments could be effective, but will not necessarily
encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, being a more technofix approach.


192
Chapter Section: 8.3. Psychological interventions
8.3.1. Targeted face-to-face information and feedback
Face-to-face information appears to be the desirable alternative
to received customized information, yet it might not lead to the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviour.
RQ3a
Information should be provided first in monetary terms, and potentially also in other units such
as CO2.
Overall concern regarding which information is correct and whom can people trust.
8.3.2. Information and communication campaigns
Information and communication campaigns are perceived as an
adequate alternative to provide information and raising
awareness, but might have little or no impact on encouraging
behavioural change.
RQ3a, RQ3b
Low incidence of recall for energy saving campaigns
Encouragement via information and communication alone might not be sufficient to lead to
change due to a basic lack of motivation to adopt more energy efficient behaviour.
FGs’ participants focused on providing positive messages that could enhance the fun part of
saving energy rather than on the perceive obligation of doing so.
8.3.3. Education interventions
The provision of education is perceived as an effective strategy to
encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour by
todays’ and future generation.
RQ3a, RQ3b
Recycling as an example for perceived success of behavioural change interventions in Portugal.
Recycling as an example for children pressuring parents to recycle at home and how this
became ingrained into the family routine.
8.3.4. Community based interventions
Comparing individual energy use to that of other community
members could be an effective means of information provision,
that could provoke and encourage the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviour by providing comparative feedback, a feeling
of competition, social comparison, or social pressure.
RQ3a, RQ3b
Collective feedback strategies that use neighbourhood data to feed comparative use data, may
be a useful addition to individual household feedback as interventions that encourage a change
in energy behaviour.


193
Chapter Section: 8.4. Structural/Psychological interventions
8.4.1. Information, feedback and monitoring equipment
Information should be provided firstly in monetary terms, and
potentially also in other units, such as CO2.
RQ3a
The use of energy meters, in terms of acceptance and impact level, apparently do vary, ranging
between appreciation to annoyance.
8.4.2. Smart metering and prompting strategies
Prompts could be an effective intervention to remember easy to
do activities.
RQ3a
FGs’ participants overall felt these prompts should be stated politely to avoid eliciting negative
reactions, (see also 8.3.2) and that they should be labelled in such a way as to provide
information designed to help consumers make informed choices, (see also 8.2.3).
Smart features could be a, relatively, low cost type of
intervention to promote the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviour.
RQ3a
Integrated smart features could provide a set of opportunities to effectively prompt individual
behaviour, with the message being displayed in close proximity to the place where the target
behaviour can be performed.
8.4.3. Information, feedback and energy bills
RQ3b
Energy bills might not be the most efficient strategy to provide people with information on how
much energy they have used.

Table 8-1 – Summary of findings relating to RQ3

8. Intervention strategies, behavioural change and energy efficiency

194
Here, a summary is provided on how the results reported in this chapter provide answers towards research
questions 3, (RQ3), “What is the potential role of intervention strategies on energy use at home” and the
sub-questions, “What are perceived requirements of intervention strategies”, (RQ3a) and “What are
individual perceptions on the effectiveness of intervention strategies”, (RQ3b).
With regards to the perceived requirements of intervention strategies, findings presented in section 8.1
highlight how important it is to send the appropriate message by the appropriate messenger, so that the
target audience identifies with the message and increases the likelihood of them acting as desired. As can
be seen across sections 8.1 to 8.4, persuading people to adopt more energy efficient behaviour appears to
be challenging and, in particular, for less ‘easy and simple’ behavioural changes, or those perceived as
impacting desired ‘normal’ levels of comfort, or wellbeing. As shown through the chapter the provision of
information and feedback, in its various forms, had been perceived as being efficient in providing
information and raising awareness towards more energy efficient behaviour. Yet, once it came to individual
experience and actions, it equally could be seen that FGs’ participants did often appear to lack of
motivation. In this regard it was not possible to understand how these perceived requirements, for
interventions to be successful, could address the observed lack of motivation for adopting more energy
efficient behaviour, and that they frequently appeared to be anchored on the motivation to provide their
family with socially agreed normal levels of comfort and wellbeing. With this, the overall efficacy of
interventions might be questioned. These findings, do however, support earlier findings that information
and feedback provision alone might not be sufficient to effectively encourage the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviour and thus might require information and feedback provisioning to be used, in
combination with other type of interventions, so to increase their chance of success, as suggested, for
example, by Abrahamse et al. (2005), or Southerton et al. (2011). During the empirical study, an example of
such a combination emerged and was related to the need for information and feedback to be used in
combination with promoting the adoption of a social understanding of normal energy use. As such
information provision might not be a panacea for the effective adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours. As could be seen through chapter eight, contextual intervention strategies that were perceived
as more efficient included, the adjustments within product design, house infrastructures and home
appliances and all, to a certain degree, removed the responsibility from the user to adopt more energy

8. Intervention strategies, behavioural change and energy efficiency

195
efficient behaviour,(Southerton et al., 2011). An additional focus, thus might be placed on providing
effective incentives and punishments, in combination with a community level type of intervention drawn on
comparative feedback, instead of the individual approach that appears to have dominated so far, as
suggested by Abrahamse et al. (2005), Darby (2006), EEA (2013), Heiskanen et al. (2009), or Middlemiss
(2008).

9. Conclusion

196
9 Conclusion
This study investigated domestic energy use behaviours in the Portuguese context and aimed to explore
how the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home could be encouraged. With this the research
has three objectives. First it attempts to provide an overview of what explains and influences energy use at
home (RQ1). Second it has the objective to advance on the theory of motivating, enabling and reinforcing
factors that could promote the adoption of more energy efficient habitual behaviours and practices at a
household level (RQ2). Thirdly, this research has the objective to explore the potential effectiveness of
change interventions within the field of energy use at home and the different types of interventions that
might be used (RQ3).
9.1 Specific answers to the research questions
9.1.1 RQ1: What explains energy use at home?
As has been shown throughout the research, energy use is not the result of a single determinant, but rather
the result from a number of internal and external determinants. The determinants and existing conditions
found through this research, appear to be in overall support of the literature presented in chapter 2 and,
notably, with the works of BPIE (2011), DGGE/IP-3E (2004), Goldblatt (2005) and Maréchal (2010). With
regards to home appliances, this research provides further evidence that the ever-increasing number of
home appliances does increase energy use, (6.2.1; 6.2.3). But, this simultaneously helps to trigger
participants’ awareness of the need to purchase more energy efficient appliances so to reduce energy use,
(6.2.4). As could be seen in both, the empirical work and the literature, participants not only substituted
old, obsolete home appliances, but also bought more appliances overall (2.2.).
Throughout this research, the availability of energy was never truly questioned by the participants, with
energy being perceived as something essential for people to live in the way we, in an industrialised nation’s
context, have become used to, (6.1.2). With this, it could also be seen that energy is an intermediary
between need and fulfilment of need, as part of a socio-economical-techno-cultural combination that frame
‘our’ needs, opportunities, belief systems and abilities, (7.1; 7.2.3). Findings from the empirical study did

9. Conclusion

197
show the relation between ‘energy prices & energy use’, as well as ‘disposable income & energy use’, with
both constituting determinants for energy use, (6.2.4). Though saving money seemed not to be a main
priority for the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, but rather to maintain existing behaviour as
long as deemed affordable, (7.1.1). Findings from the FGs and interviews reveal a tendency for higher
reported income levels to be associated with higher, reported, energy use, with participants agreeing that
perceived ‘needs’ increase with income level, (6.2.5; 6.2.6.), which appeared aspired to by those on lower
incomes, (6.2.5.). This assumption is supported by earlier research, (WWF, 2012; DECC, 2011; Gatersleben
et al., 2002; 2.2; 2.2.5.; 2.2.8). Findings from this research indicate that the majority of the participants will
maintain their behaviour, even if prices increased, as long as they could afford doing so, (6.2.4), thus
providing further evidence to the body of literature regarding energy use as price inelastic in the short term,
(DECC, 2011; Gatersleben et al., 2002, Sorell, 2007; 2.2.4; 2.2.5; 2.2.8.). However, considering that overall
energy consumption declined in Portugal as a result of the economic crisis (1.7) this also suggests that some
people stopped being able to afford their former energy level. More precisely it could be observed, (6.2.4;
7.1.1), that energy and fuel poverty seem to be a reality for a number of people within the empirical study,
with participants not being able to guarantee services such as heating their homes, or to afford to spend
more of their monthly income on energy. For the case of Portugal it also could be seen that poor building
envelopes and infrastructures (2.2.7) could further impact upon energy and fuel poverty. In any of such
cases people are forced to use less energy if prices rise, which has also been found in other studies,
(Boardman, 2010; Buzar, 2007a; Healy, 2003; SEI, 2003; SILC, 2007; WHO, 2012; 2.2; 2.2.5.).
This research further shows that existing habits are a driving force for energy use and represent a challenge
to the effective adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, since most energy related behaviour are of a
habitual nature and often acquired over time, (7.3.1), supporting existing studies, (IPPR, 2009; Green
Alliance, 2011, Jackson, 2005; 3.4.1).
9.1.2 RQ2: What influences energy use at home?
As could be seen, barriers appear to influence energy use more than motivations and outnumbered
motivations in each of the three phases of the research; even existing motivations ultimately did not appear
to result in any actual energy usage reduction, (7.1; 7.2; 7.3). Motivational variables appear to be in direct

9. Conclusion

198
competition with barriers and findings indicate that the reported barriers are, perhaps, not actual barriers,
but in part a convenient excuse, (7.3.4.). Therefore, energy use is perhaps less influenced by ‘being able’ to
adopt more energy efficient behaviour and more about ‘being willing’ of doing so. As such, findings do
support the literature that people tend to say that they cannot perform the behaviour, (low self-efficacy),
rather than they will not perform it and, in particular, once they anticipate an aversive outcome, such as
reduced level of comfort, they are no longer willing to adopt behaviour that may produce such an outcome,
(Allen and Ferrand 1999; Baker & Kirsch, 1991; Bandura, 1986; DECC, 2011; EEA, 2013; Jackson, 2005;
Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Leiserowitz et al., 2011a; Prendergrast et al., 2008; Shove, 2003; Vandenbergh
et al., 2008; 3.4.2; 3.4.4). This could help explain why energy use has not been decreasing more notably in
Portugal despite the growing number of governmental supported tangible and intangible interventions
(1.7).
This is also supported through the apparent observed importance and role, of norms, habits and beliefs
with regards to lack of efficacy, or the understanding of giving up something, that were frequently
highlighted as main barriers towards the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour by the participants of
this research, (7.2.3; 7.3.1; 7.3.3). Findings further reveal that attitudes and values might influence energy
use at home once it comes to family comfort and wellbeing, with values, attitudes and behaviours being
well aligned and resulting in a potentially higher energy use at home, (7.1.2; 7.3.2; 8.1). Furthermore, there
seemed to be an individual resistance towards specific behaviours that did compete with wellbeing,
convenience and comfort, (7.1.3; 7.3.2; 7.3.4), as has also been found in other studies, (DECC, 2011; EEA,
2013; Jackson, 2005; Prendergrast et al., 2008; Shove, 2003; 2.2.2; 2.2.5; 3.3.1; 3.3.3; 3.4.2; 3.4.4).
Participants appeared to be quite comfortable with a, certain, level of normal energy use and there
appeared to be a socially shared understanding of this normal that directly seemed to influence energy use,
(7.3.2), as is also known from the literature, (Goldblatt, 2005; Maréchal, 2010; Shove, 2004; 2.2.1; 2.2.3).
Further to this, existing energy use habits were reported as highly influencing energy use, due to the
difficulty of challenging and changing such habits and encouraging more energy efficient ones, (7.3.1).
In addition to this, findings from this research, (6.2.4; 7.1.1; 7.3.2), support the literature, (DECC, 2011;
Gatersleben et al., 2002; 2.2; 2.2.5; 2.2.8), that a higher income level might be associated to higher energy
use. Those who are more affluent appear willing to trade money for what they see as normal comfort and

9. Conclusion

199
convenience, giving priority to individual and family wellbeing, rather than for environmental protection.
Nevertheless, this might not be a conscious, “trade off”, between energy costs in relation to income, but
rather that energy seems to be cheap to some of the participants and thus there is no rationale to consider
reducing usage. A longer-term view, regarding environmental protection, might be required to build a
response to this sort of rational.
In contrast to this, those in energy and fuel poverty appear to not be able to reach the aspired normal
comfort level, suggesting that an increase in income could promote higher levels of energy use at home,
(6.2.5.). This research provided evidence that the amount of those in fuel poverty might be higher than
what is commonly perceived and much in-line with the existing statistics and assumptions from literature,
(Healy, 2003; SEI, 2003; SILC, 2007; WHO, 2012).
With regards to these factors that seem not to influence energy use at home, findings from this research,
(7.1.2; 8.1), suggest that pro-environmental values and attitudes are among the determinants that appear
to have less influence on the amount of energy being used at home. This supports the findings from earlier
studies, (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999; Poortinga et al., 2004; Schultz et al.,
1995; Thøgersen, 2004; 3.2).
9.1.3 RQ3: What is the potential role of intervention strategies on energy use at home?
Findings from this research suggest that any attempt to reduce energy use at home would face strong
competition from the, perceived, normal level of use, (9.2.1). To support the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviour at home, intervention strategies must change this understanding of normal to a clearly
defined new level that is considered sustainable and desired, (8.1). During this research it was, however,
not possible to understand how existing norms could be effectively integrated within future interventions,
(6.2.5; 7.2.3; 8.2.1). As such, little evidence was uncovered during the empirical study to suggest that norms
could be used to encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, (6.2.5), as suggested by the
literature, (section 2.2.3).
Other strategies to interventions that might be adopted include choice architecture, product design, or
penalty-incentive approaches, as they circumvent decision-making based on shared understandings of
comfort, wellbeing and individual preference, (8.2.1; 8.2.5). However, the literature suggests that such

9. Conclusion

200
strategies would, in addition, need to pay attention to, ‘intrinsic motivation’ and cultural and infrastructural
influences, (Dwyer et al., 1993; Lutzenhiser, 1993; Lowe, 1996; Wilhite and Shove, 1998; 2.2.). Since a focus
on ‘knowledge-penalty-incentive-behaviour’ might fail to recognise the complexity and dynamics in which
energy use is embedded in the flow of day-to-day life. Thus, the ultimate suitability of choice architecture,
product design, or penalty-incentive strategies, perhaps, would need to be further examined in light of the
existing literature.
Findings equally show that the evaluation of previous attempts might also impact the potential
effectiveness of interventions. Thus, in planning intervention strategies it might be required to consider the
outcome expectations people have, regarding the efficacy of individually adopting more energy efficient
behaviour, as well as to collectively engage in them, (7.3.3; 7.3.4). As has also been suggested in the
literature, (Bandura, 1977a; Cialdini et al., 1990; Martiskainen, 2007; van der Pligt, 1985; 3.3.3; 3.4.3).
All of these findings also show that frameworks that attempt to support intervention strategies must
provide the right interplay between the various existing factors and as further discussed in section 9.2.
9.2 Key findings
This section provides an overview of the key results of this research and the contribution it makes to the
field of knowledge in sustainable energy use. A particular focus is on how the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviours at home could be encouraged, in the context of understanding existing determinants,
motivating, enabling and reinforcing factors and the related implications towards intervention strategies.
The findings of this research generally show that if the rate of adoption of more energy efficient behaviour
is to increase, then interventions that are focusing on providing information or financial incentives are
unlikely to work for a large proportion of energy users. Instead, the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviour at home depends on the ability of intervention strategies to challenge existing norms, thus
creating new understandings, expectations and utilization of energy services that could manifest in the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviour. As such the work has shown that community-based initiatives
might be an adequate means to challenge social norms and to bring about change and as detailed in
following sections.

9. Conclusion

201
9.2.1 Importance to challenge the understanding of normal
Section 4.1 discussed a number of frameworks that could support intervention strategies and that attempt
to provide the right interplay between the various existing factors. And indeed the findings from this
research do support the impact that the various external, internal or social factors, such as norms or habits,
could have. With this findings do support earlier studies that (Prendergrast et al., 2008) informational and
financial levers alone might not be sufficient to promote individual behavioural change, but instead would
require frameworks that attempt to change existing perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, norms and values
(Abrahamse et al., 2005), or that go beyond the individual and also address the community level and the
social aspects of energy-related behaviour (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Darby, 2006; Heiskanen et al., 2009;
Middlemiss, 2008). With this the findings of this research do suggest that the frameworks and models
presented in sections 4.1 and 4.2 indeed could support intervention strategies to find the right interplay. A
common finding across all of the three empirical phases of the research had been the unwillingness to
adopt more energy efficient behaviour, mainly for the reason that they are perceived as impacting
established levels of comfort, convenience and wellbeing, (6.2.5; 7.3.2; 7.3.4). This unwillingness appeared
to relate to what is perceived, expected and socially accepted as normal energy use, normal comfort levels,
normal services that energy provides, that have entered peoples’ day-to-day lives, (7.1.3; 7.3.2).
Expectations of energy services and use are normalised in terms of levels of comfort and to challenge that,
in asking people to adopt different behaviour, challenges the core expectations that have become
established, (7.2.3; 8.1).
From such a perspective, the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour at home depends on the ability
of intervention strategies to challenge the existing norm, so to create a new understanding and expectation
of energy services that could become manifest in the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, (7.2.3;
8.1). As can further be seen, the ability of intervention strategies to provide opportunity to understand and
compare one’s energy use and to provide customized circles of information and feedback, (7.2.2; 8.3.1;
8.3.4; 8.4.1; 8.4.2), or, to question and promote debate, with regards to normal and taken-for-granted
practices, (7.3.2), appear to hold high potential to increase the likelihood of success of intervention
strategies.

9. Conclusion

202
9.2.2 Invisibility of energy and its implications
Previous research, (Burgess & Nye, 2008; Darby, 2006; Hargreaves, 2012; 2.2.), suggests that ‘invisibility’ is a
distinctive characteristic of energy use at home and this study supports this, with participants considering
energy as intangible and abstract when compared to other utilities, (6.1.1.). Participants compared the
energy that flows in pipes inside the home to the water they see flowing out of the tap and energy
invisibility, indeed, appeared to be a distinctive characteristic of energy, when compared to other utilities,
(6.1.1.). Despite being a distinct characteristic, the empirical study did however equally provide some
evidence, (6.1.1.), that increasing energy visibility perhaps does not result in the adoption of more energy
efficient behaviour. Findings from this research show that invisibility did constitute a barrier for the
adoption of energy efficient behaviour, (6.1.1.). What remained to some extent unclear through this work is
what impact, ultimately, would an increase in visibility have in terms of energy use. The findings obtained
are in support of the literature, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Geller, 2002; Martiskainen, 2007; Staats, Wit, &
Midden, 1996; 2.2.1; 2.2), that even if energy use becomes visible, the impact of this visibility on energy use
and on the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour might be limited, (6.1.1).
9.2.3 Financial motivations to save energy
During the empirical study saving money, or reducing cost, appeared to be the main motivation for
individuals’ to save energy, (7.1.1; 7.1.2). However, findings from this research equally indicate that this
motivation directly competes with motivations of not reducing energy use, such as to maintain existing
comfort levels, (7.3.2). Moreover, participants in this research appear to be aware of this competing
situation and preference for increased energy use, appearing to feel comfortable with this as long as they
could afford it, (6.2.4; 7.1.1.). Further evidence was found that energy use is mostly the result of a focus on
the services that energy provides, (6.1.1), such as cooking, lighting, or enjoying a movie, rather than
considering the energy being used, (Goldblatt, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007; 2.2). This might be in particular
problematic as the number of home appliances owned is constantly increasing, as are the related practices
to such appliances, such as heating or cooling homes, (6.2.1; 6.2.3). Within this work it was, however, not
possible to clearly understand the scope of association between ‘practice’, ‘services’ and ‘energy use’, nor
whether this could influence the purchase decision towards more energy efficient home appliances, (6.2.4).

9. Conclusion

203
Thus, despite being reported as the most important motivating factor for saving energy, the findings from
this work rather suggest that financial motivations appear to not be a main priority for adopting more
energy efficient behaviour, (7.1.1). An exception to this are those people on a low income that find
themselves in a situation of energy and fuel poverty, to whom reducing energy bills, thus saving money,
would be crucial, (6.2.4; 7.1.1.). This study provided further evidence the amount of people that live in a
situation of energy or fuel poverty might be higher and what is commonly perceived in a Southern country.
9.2.4 Knowledge, competence and self-efficacy
Findings from this research indicate that participants do hold a good level of information regarding energy
efficient behaviour; with this level of information decreasing once it impacts specific behaviours. This
suggests the need for improving the householders’ knowledge on the specific behaviours they could adopt
and customizes to their reality and needs, as opposed to general information, (7.2.2). In addition to this,
most of the more energy efficient behaviour appears to have been learned during childhood and through
life experience, rather than as a result of information received through any type of intervention, (7.3.1;
8.3.3). The findings also show that to encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour might
thus also require increasing knowledge, competence and self-efficacy and not simply provision of
information through, for example, the design of customized utility bills, (8.4.2), the provision of energy
labels, (8.2.3), the provision of energy meters, (8.4.1), or of tariff structure adoption, (8.2.1).
As can be seen from both this work, (7.2.2; 8.1; 8.2.3; 8.3.1; 8.3.2; 8.4) and the literature, (3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4;
4.2; 4.4; 4.5.), strategies of information-based interventions may not be enough to effectively challenge
expectations of energy needs and encourage people to adopt more energy efficient behaviour.
9.2.5 Energy efficient behaviour and outcome efficacy
Participants in this research declared an, apparent, overall preference for ‘easy to do’ energy efficient
behaviours, e.g. switching lights off when not in use, that frequently appeared to result in a belief of having
done their bit, or even everything they could, to save energy, which have also been an often-reported
reason for not adopting additional energy efficient behaviour, (6.2.1; 7.3.3; 8.1). This understanding of
doing ‘their bit’ appeared to be often associated with a lack of perceived collective efficacy, be it within the

9. Conclusion

204
family setting, among their family and friends, or even society, (7.3.4), and much in support of the work of
Cialdini et al. (1990) and van der Pligt (1985) and as discussed in 4.2. This is to say that participants from the
empirical study often reported they felt that they were alone in their efforts and not supported by family,
friends or society, to adopt more energy efficiency behaviour. This negatively impacted their perception of
the efficacy of their efforts and their outcome efficacy.
9.3 Limitations of the research
This research has a number of identified limitations. First of all, it cannot claim to be representative for the
Portuguese population. Even though the quantitative survey used representative sampling, the focus
groups were only conducted in two different locations in the North of Portugal and consequently, do not
necessarily provide a representative view of the Portuguese population. The fact that both the sample of
participants in FGs and CID interviews was limited to a range of consumers who shared a geographical
location, which might have limited the diversity of answers.
A second limitation is that the study measured self-reported intentions and willingness to act; but not
actual behaviour. Responses might, thus, not be as accurate as they could have been, due to, for example,
influence by social desirability, or other self-report distortions, (such as recalling difficulties), as is known
from the literature, (e.g. Darnton, 2008). While direct observation methodology could have been adopted,
it would have undermined the exploratory character of this research and the attempt to allow for a large
variety of narratives.
9.4 Suggested future research
A number of future research directions could be identified through this work as follows.
Despite the body of existing research and evidence presented through this work, there appears to be still
no clearly agreed best practice, within the literature, on how to ultimately support the adoption of more
energy efficient behaviour at home. Practitioners are equipped with a range of intervention strategies, but
the difficulty faced is to understand which one should be used in relation to the vast range of underlying
and impacting determinants, in order to encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour. While

9. Conclusion

205
some previous research has demonstrated that certain intervention strategies did, or did not, produce
changes in behaviour, they mostly could not sufficiently explain how change came about and led to the
desired adoption, whether short or long-term, of more energy efficient behaviour. The findings of this
research have challenged the potential impact of strategies, such as information provision, but also shown
the potential that community-based initiatives appear to have, as they tend to focus on the importance of
social networks for circulating information and expectations, regarding appropriate behaviour. These are
fields that, therefore, might be further explored, for example through the use of smart technologies.
This research has also shown that if the rate of adoption of more energy efficient behaviour is to increase,
that interventions, focusing on providing information or financial incentives, are unlikely to work for a large
proportion of energy users. Consideration might thus be given to exploring how self-efficacy could be
increased and, most importantly, how strategies of reduced energy use developed.
This study acknowledged the number of programmes and interventions that have been implemented in
Portugal (1.7.). Nevertheless little evidence could be found in terms of the impact of such interventions
within the scope of this research, and thus future studies might want to advance on this.

References

206
References
Abrahamse, W. (2003). The effect of tailored information goal setting and feedback on household energy
use. In L. Hendrickx, W. Jager & L. Steg (Eds.), Human decision making and environmental
perception. Understanding and assisting human decision making in real-life settings (pp. 183-201).
Groningen: Department of Psychology, University of Groningen.
Abrahamse, W. (2007). Energy conservation through behavioral change: Examining the effectiveness of a
tailor-made approach. University Library of Groningen. Retrieved from
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/gmw/2007/w.abrahamse/.
Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2009). How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to
households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5),
711-720.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at
household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, Ch., & Rotehengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored information, goal
setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviours, and
behavioural antecedents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 265-276.
ACEEE. (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved 18 of February, 2013, from http://aceee.org/glossary.
ADENE. (2013). Guia da eficiência energética. Lisbon: Agência para a Energia.
ADENE. (n.d.). Planos e programas. Retrieved 22 of June, 2015, from http://www.adene.pt/planos-e-
programas.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Halls.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived
behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.
Ackermann, M. E. Ackermann (2002). Cool Comfort: America's Romance With Air-Conditioning. Washington,
D.C. and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Allen, J. B., & Ferrand, J. L. (1999). Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and proenvironmental
behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31, 338–353.
Anderson, C.A. (2007). Belief perseverance Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (pp. 109-110). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote health, social
development, and the environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
APA [American Psychological Association Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global
Climate Change]. (2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted
phenomenon and set of challenges. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx.

References

207
Backhaus, J., Breukers, S., Mont, O., Paukovic, M., & Mourik, R. (2012). Sustainable Lifestyles: today's facts
and tomorrow's trends. SPREAD Sustainable Lifestyles 2050 consortium (pp. 160). The Netherlands:
Energy research Centre of the Netherlands.
Baird, J. C., & Brier, J. M. . (1981). Perceptual awareness of energy requirements of familiar object. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 66, 90-96.
Baker, S. L., & Kirsch, I. (1991). Cognitive mediators of pain perception and tolerance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61(3), 504.
Bamberg, M. (2003). Positioning with Davie Hogan – Stories, Tellings, and Identities. In C. Daiute & C.
Lightfoot (Eds.), Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 135-
157). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The
roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and applied social psychology, 25(3), 175-
187.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review,
94(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46,
27-46.
Bandura, A. (1992). Observational learning. In L. R. Squire (Ed.), Encyclopedia of learning and memory. New
York: Macmillan.
Barenergy (2011). Barriers to changes in energy behaviour among end consumers and households. Final
Report.
Barr, S., & Gilg, A.W. (2006). Sustainable Lifestyles: framing environmental action in and around the home.
Geoforum, 37(6), 906-920.
BBC News. (2010). Climate scepticism 'on the rise'. BBC poll shows. Retrieved 08 of July, 2012, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500443.stm.
BBC World Service Poll. (2007). All Countries Need to Take Major Steps on Climate Change: Global Poll PIPA,
Global Scan.
Becker, L. J. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential
energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 428-433.
Becker, L. J., Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Darley, J. M. (1981). Relating attitudes to residential energy use.
Environment and Behavior, 13, 590-609.
Bergman, M. M. (2010). On Concepts and Paradigms in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 4(3), 171-175.
Bergman, M. M. (2011). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Mixed Methods Research and Design. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 271-275.
Berkhout, P.H.G., Muskens, J.C., & Velthuijsen, J. W. (2000). Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy,
28(6-7), 425-432.

References

208
Binswanger, M. (2001). Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound
effect? Ecological economics, 36(1), 119-132.
Bittle, R. G., Valesano, R., & Thaler, G. (1979). The effects of daily cost feedback on residential electricity
consumption. Behavior Modification, 3(2), 187-202.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on household energy
adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 3-21.
Boardman, Brenda. (1991). Fuel poverty: from cold homes to affordable warmth. London, UK: Belhaven
Press.
Boardman, Brenda. (2010). Fixing Fuel Poverty: Challenges and Solutions. London, UK: Earthscan.
BPIE. (2011). Europe's buildings under the microscope: Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE).
Brandon, G., & Lewis, A. (1999). Reducing household energy consumption: a qualitative and quantitative
field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 75-85.
Brehm, J. W. (1972). Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of psychological reactance. New York: General
Learning.
Brehm, S., & Kassin, S. (1996). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Brook Lyndhurst. (2007). Defra Waste & Resources R&D Programme - Lifestyle Scenarios: the Futures for
Waste Composition. Summary Report. A project for Defra’s WREP: Brook Lyndhurst Ltd.
Brookes, L. (2000). Energy efficiency fallacies revisited. Energy Policy, 28(6), 355-366.
Brouwer, R., Brander, L. M., & van Beukering, P. (2008). “A convenient truth”: Air travel passengers
willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Climatic Change, 90(3), 299-313.
Burgess, J., & Nye, M. (2008). Rematerialising energy use through transparent monitoring systems. Energy
Policy, 36(12), 4454-4459.
Burns, D., (2006) ‘Evaluation in complex governance arenas: the potential of large system action research’,
in B. Williams and I. Imam, Using systems concepts in evaluation, Fairhaven, MA: American
Evaluation Association.
BusinessDictionary. (n.d.). Energy Conservation. Business Dictionary. Retrieved 12 of February, 2013, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/energy-conservation.html.
Buzar, S. (2007a). Energy Poverty in Eastern Europe: Hidden Geographies of Deprivation. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Buzar, S. (2007b). The ‘hidden’geographies of energy poverty in post-socialism: between institutions and
households. Geoforum, 38(2), 224-240.
Buzar, S. (2007c). When homes become prisons: the relational spaces of postsocialist energy poverty.
Environment and Planning A, 39(8), 1908-1925.
Campbell, C. (1995). The Sociology of Consumption Acknowledging Consumption (pp. 96-126). London and
New York: Routledge.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123-1130.
Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Scheffer, M., & Westley, F. (2009). Resilience: accounting for the noncomputable.
Ecology & society, 14(1), 13.
Cassiani, S., Zanetti, M., & Pelá, N. (1992). The telephone survey: a methodological strategy for obtaining
information. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 576-581.

References

209
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Publications.
Chappells, H. & Shove, E. (2005). Building Research & Information, 33(1), p. 32-40 p.
Chatterton, T. (2011). An Introduction to Thinking About ‘Energy Behaviour’: a multi-model approach (pp.
39). London, UK: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence (rev): The Psychology of Persuasion: HarperCollins.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical
refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in experimental
social psychology, 24(20), 1-243.
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. Journal of personality and social psychology,
58(6), 1015-1026.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. . (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T.
Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Clough, P., and Nutbrown, C. (2007) A student’s guide to methodology. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0
978-1-4129-2912-7.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (pp. 245). London: Routledge
Falmer.
Cole, S. A. (2006). Witnessing Creation. Social Studies of Science, 36(6), 855-860.
Cole. R. J. (2011). Motivating stakeholders to deliver environmental change. Building Research &
Information, 39(5), 431-435
CCC. (2012). How local authorities can reduce emissions and manage climate risk (pp. 96). London, UK:
Committee on Climate Change.
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthetizing research: a guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Corti, L. (1993). Using diaries in social research. Social research update, 3(2).
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London:
Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3),
124-131.
Crosbie, T., & Baker, K. (2010). Energy-efficiency interventions in housing: learning from the inhabitants.
Building Research & Information, 38(1), 70-79.
Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. (2005). Applying communications theory for professional life. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Darby, S. (2005). Social learning and public policy: Lessons from an energy-conscious village. Energy Policy,
(34), 2929-2940.
Darby, S. (2006). The Effectiveness of feedback on Energy Consumption: A review for DEFRA of the
literature on metering, billing and direct displays (pp. 24): Environmental Change Institute,
University of Oxford (available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/research/).

References

210
Darby, S. (2010). Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement?, Building Research &
Information, 38:5, 442-457.
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 8(4p1), 377.
Darnton, A. (2008). Reference Report: An overview of behaviour change models and their uses In S. S. i. G.
Government Social Research (Ed.), GSR Behaviour Change Knowledge Review: Centre for
Sustainable Development, University of Westminster.
Darnton, A., Verplanken, B., White, P., & Whitmarsh, L. E. (2011). Habits, Routines and Sustainable
Lifestyles: A summary report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London,
UK: A. D. Research and Analysis for Defra.
Dawson, C. (2002). Practical research methods: A user-friendly guide to mastering research. Oxford: How To
Books Ltd. ISBN 1-85703-829-0.
Dawson, T. L. (2002). New tools, new insights: Kohlberg's moral reasoning stages revisited. International
Journal of Behavior Development, 26(2), 154-166.
de Dear, R. J., & Brager, G. (2001). The adaptive model of thermal comfort and energy conservation in the
built environment. International Journal of Biometeorology, 45(2), 100-108.
de Groot, J. I., Steg, L., & Dicke, M. (2007). Morality and Reducing Car Use: Testing the Norm Activation
Model of Prosocial Behavior. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Transportation Research Trends: NOVA
Publishers.
DECC. (2011). Great Britain’s housing energy fact file In J. Palmer & I. Cooper (Eds.), (pp. 118): Department
of Energy & Climate Change (DECC).
DECC. (2012). Public attitudes tracking survey: wave 2 Public attitudes tracking survey: Department of
Energy & Climate Change (DECC).
DEFRA. (2007). Survey of Public Attitudes and Behaviours toward the Environment: 2007. London:
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
DEFRA. (2008). A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours Report. London: Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2002). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
DCLG. (2012). Definitions of general housing terms. Definitions for local authorities compiling data.
Retrieved 12 of January, 2013, from https://www.gov.uk/definitions-of-general-housing-terms.
Deutsch, M. (2010). Life Cycle Cost Disclosure, Consumer Behavior, and Business Implications. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 103-120.
DGEG. (2010). National Energy Characterization. Retrieved 11 of February, 2012, from
http://www.dgge.pt/.
DGGE/IP-3E. (2004). Eficiência energética em equipamentos e sistemas eléctricos no sector residencial.
Lisbon: Direcção Geral de Geologia e Energia (DGGE).
Dholakia, R. R., & Dholakia, N. (1983). From social psychology to political economy: A model of energy use
behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3, 231-247.
Diekmann, A., & Meyer, R. (2008). Schweizer Umweltsurvey 2007. Dokumentation und Codebuch (Swiss
Environmental Survey 2007. Documentation and code book). Zurich: Professorship for Sociology,
ETH.
Dobson, A. (2011). Sustainability Citizenship (G. House Ed.). United Kingdom: Green House.

References

211
Dolan, P.; Hallsworth, M.; Halpern, D.; King, D.; Vlaev, I. (2010). Mindspace - Influencing behaviour through
public policy.
Donn, J. (1999). Frustration sapping environmental concern, researcher says: Associated Press state and
local wire.
Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E., & Jackson, J. M. (1993). Critical review of
behavioral interventions to preserve the environment. Research since 1980. Environment and
Behavior, 25(5), 275-321.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management Research: An Introduction. London, UK:
Sage Publications.
EEA. (2004). EEA Signals 2004 - A European Environment Agency update on selected issues. Copenhagen:
European Environment Agency (EEA), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
(OPOCE).
EEA. (2008). Energy and environment report 2008. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency (EEA).
EEA. (2011). Final energy consumption by sector in the EU-27, 1990-2008. Retrieved 12 of February, 2012,
from http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/final-energy-consumption-by-sector-4.
EEA. (2013). Achieving Energy Efficiency through behaviour change: what does it take? Copenhagen:
European Environment Agency (EEA).
EIA. (2013). Glossary. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved 12 of February, 2013, from
http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.cfm.
ECI. (2005). 40% house. Oxford, UK.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New York:
Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Energaia (2008). Energyprofiler: Perfil energético do sector residencial. ENERGAIA, Agência de Energia do
Sul da Área Metropolitana do Porto.
Energy Saving Trust. (2011). The rise of the machines: a review of energy using products in the home from
the 1970s to today. London: Energy saving Trust.
Energy Saving Trust. (2012). Powering the nation: household electricity using habits revealed. London, UK:
Energy Saving Trust.
Energyprofiler. (2011). Transformar atitudes em ação: Perfil Energético do Setor Residencial: ENERGAIA,
Agência de Energia do Sul da Área Metropolitana do Porto.
Eurobarometer. (2011a). Special Eurobarometer 365. Attitudes of European citizens towards the
environment.
Eurobarometer. (2011b). Special Eurobarometer 372. Climate Change.
European Commission. (2010). EUR 24283 – Energy-efficient Buildings PPP Multi-annual Roadmap and
longer term strategy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission (n.d.). Energy efficiency directive. Retrieved 19 of June, 2015, from
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive.
Eurostat. (2007). Statistics on income, social inclusion and living conditions - Ad-hoc modules (2007 module:
Housing conditions). Your key to European statistics. Retrieved 10 of July, 2013, from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/d
ata/ad_hoc_modules

References

212
Eurostat. (2011). Energy Statistics Data. Retrieved 1 of October, 2011, from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/data/database
Eurostat. (2013). Inability to keep home adequately warm (source: SILC). Retrieved 8 of July, 2013, from
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_mdes01&lang=en
Eurostat. (2015). Consumption of energy. Retrieved 19 of June, 2015, from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Consumption_of_energy.
Eurostat. (n.d.). Statistics explained. Energy price statistics. Retrieved 14 of July, 2013, from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics#Natural_
gas_prices_for_industrial_consumers
Eurowinter Group. (1997). Cold exposure and winter mortality from ischaemic heart disease,
cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, and all causes in warm and cold regions of Europe.
The Lancet, 349(9062), 1341-1346.
ERSE. (2007). Plano de promoção da eficiência no consumo de energia elétrica para 2008. Lisbon: Entidade
Reguladora dos Serviços Energético.
ERSE. (2008). Medidas aprovadas PPEC 08: Plano de promoção da eficiência no consumo de energia
eléctrica para 2008. Lisbon: Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energético.
ERSE. (2009). Plano de promoção da eficiência no consumo de energia elétrica para 2009-2010. Lisbon:
Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energético.
ERSE. (2010). Plano de promoção da eficiência no consumo de energia elétrica para 2011-2012. Lisbon:
Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energético.
ERSE. (n.d.). Medidas em Implementação. Retrieved 22 of June, 2015, from
http://www.erse.pt/pt/planodepromocaodaeficiencianoconsumoppec/edicoesPPEC/siteppec1112
/medidasimplementacao/Paginas/default.aspx.
FAI (n.d.). Fundo de apoio à inovação. Retrieved 25 of June, 2015, from http://fai.pt/o-fai/.
Feather, N. T. (1990). The psychological impact of unemployment. New York: Springer.
FEE (n.d.). Fundo de eficiência energética. Retrieved 25 of June, 2015, from http://fee.adene.pt/o-que-
e/Paginas/default.aspx.
Feenstra, C.F.J., Backhaus, J., & Heiskanen, E. (2009). How to change consumers’ energy-related behaviour?
Improving demand side management programmes via an action research approach. Paper
presented at the First European Conference on Energy and Behaviour, Maastricht, The
Netherlands.
Feinberg, M., & Willer., R. (2010). The Good of Gossip? The Benefits of this Unlikely Prosocial Behavior.
Berkeley: Department of Psychology. University of California.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energy
efficiency, 1(1), 79-104.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses. Global
Environmental Change, 16, 253-267.
Future Foundation. (2006). Energy Efficiency - Public attitude, private action: Logica.
Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Wermer, P., Wackernagel, M., Niccolucci, V., & Tiezzi, E. (2007). An exploration of the
mathematics behind the ecological footprint. International Journal of Ecodynamics, 2(4), 250–257.

References

213
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental Problems and Human Behavior (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Custom Publishing.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions US households can take to
curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 12-25.
Gärling, T., Eek, D., Loukopoulos, P., Fujii, S., Johansson-Stenman, O., Kitamura, R., Vilhelmson, B. (2002). A
conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demand management on private car use. Transport
Policy, 9(1), 59-70.
Garvey, James. (2009). We broke it. So we own it. The Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/07/climate-change-10-10
Gascoigne, C., Morgan, K., Gross, H., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Reducing the health risks of severe winter
weather among older people in the United Kingdom: an evidence-based intervention. Ageing &
Society, 30, 275-297.
Gass, R. H., & Seiter., J. S. (2003). Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining. Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). The measurement and determinants of Environmentally
significant consumer behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 34(3), 335-362.
Gatersleben, B., & Vlek, C. (1998). Household Consumption, Quality of Life and Environmental Impacts: A
Psychological Perspective and Empirical Study. In T. S. Uiterkamp (Ed.), Green Households? (pp.
141-183). London: Earthscan.
Gatersleben, B.C.M. (2000). Sustainable household metabolism and quality of life: Examining the perceived
social sustainability of environmentally sustainable household consumption patterns. (PhD),
University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Geller, E. S. (1981). Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report enough? Journal of Consumer
Research, 8, 331–335.
Geller, E. S. (1992). It takes more than information to save energy. American Psychologist, 47(6), 814-815.
Geller, E. S. (2002). The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. In R. B. Betchel & A. Churchman
(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 525-540). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Geller, E. S., Berry, T. D., Ludwig, T. D., Evans, R. E., Gilmore, M. R., & Clarke, S. W. (1990). A conceptual
framework for developing and evaluating behavior change interventions for injury control. Health
Education Research, 5(2), 125-137.
Geller, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Everett, P. B. (1982). Preserving the environment: New strategies for behavior
change. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Geller, H., Harrington, P., Rosenfeld, A. H., Tanishima, S., & Unander, F. (2006). Polices for increasing energy
efficiency: Thirty years of experience in OECD countries. Energy Policy, 34(5), 556-573.
Gerdes, J. (2009). Energy Efficiency Policies and Measures in The Netherlands. Petten: ECN, ODYSSEE-
MURE, Intelligent Energy Europe.
Gibbs, Anita. (1997). Focus groups. Social research update, 19(8).
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society – outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Gifford, R., Iglesias, F., & Casler, J. (2008). Psychological barriers to pro-environmental behavior: The
development of a scale. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological
Association, Montreal, QC.

References

214
Giorgi, S., Fell, D., Austin, A., & Wilkins, C. (2009). EV0402: public understanding of links between climate
change and (i) food and (ii) energy use: final report. A report to the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs. London: Brook Lyndhurst & Defra.
Glasersfeld, E. von (1989). “Cognition, Construction of Knowledge and Teaching.” Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.
Glasersfeld, E. von (1990). “Environment and Education.” In L.P. Steffe & T. Wood (eds.), Transforming
Children’s Mathematics Education: International Perspectives, (pp. 200-215). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report,
8(4), 597-607.
Goldblatt, David L. (2005). Sustainable Energy Consumption and Society - Personal, Technological, or Social
Change? Washington DC, USA: Springer.
Gottron, F. (2001). Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect: Does Increasing Efficiency Decrease Demand
CRS Report for Congress (pp. 1-4).
Green Alliance. (2011). Green Alliance policy insight.
Grier, S., & Bryant, C. (2005). Social marketing in public health. Public Health, 26, 319-339.
Grist, M. (2010). Changing the Subject, How new ways of thinking about human behaviour might change
politics, policy and practice. London: RSA.
Grubb, M. J. (1990). Communication energy efficiency and economic fallacies. Energy Policy, 18(8), 783-785.
Guagnano, G. A. (2001). Altruism and market-like behavior: An analysis of willingness to pay for recycled
paper products. Population and Environment, 22, 425-438.
Guertin, C., Kumbhakar, S., & Duraiappah, A. (2003). Determining Demand for Energy Services: Investigating
income - driven behaviours: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, New Series, 162(3859), 1243-1249.
Hargreaves, T. (2012). Opening the black box of the household: Understanding how householders interact
with feedback from smart energy monitors 3S Working Paper. Norwich.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2010). Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how
householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6111-
6119.
Harrington, B. E., Heyman, B., Merleu-Ponty, N., Stockton, H., Ritchie, N., & Heyman, A. (2005). Keeping
warm and staying well: findings from the qualitative arm of the Warm Homes Project. Health &
social care in the community, 13(3), 256-267.
Hastings, G., & Saren, M. (2003). The Critical Contribution of Social Marketing: Theory and Application.
Marketing Theory, 3(3), 305-322.
Hastings, G.B., & Haywood, A.J. (1991). Social marketing and communication in health promotion. Health
Promotion International, 6, 135-145.
Healy, J. D. (2003). Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57(10), 784-789.
Healy, J. D. (2004). Housing, Fuel Poverty And Health: A Pan-European Analysis. London: Ashgate.
Heberlein, T. A., & Warriner, G. K. . (1983). The influence of price and attitude on shifting residential
electricity consumption from on-to off-peak periods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 4(1), 107-
130.

References

215
Heiskanen, E., Johnson, M., & Vadovics, E. (2009). Creating Lasting Change in Energy Use Patterns through
Improved User Involvement. Paper presented at the Joint Actions on Climate Change Conference,
Aalborg, Denmark.
Heiskanen, E., Mourik, R., Feenstra, Y., & Pariag, J. (2009). BEYOND INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE –
WHY AND HOW? European council for an energy efficient economy (ECEEEE), Energy Efficiency and
Behaviour.
http://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/EE_and_Behaviour/2009/Panel_7/7.702
Helmig, B., & Thaler, J. (2010). On the effectiveness of social marketing – what do we really know? Journal
of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 264-287.
Herring, H. (2006). Energy efficiency - a critical view. Energy, 31(1), 10-20.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological review, 94(3), 319-340.
Hitchings, R. (2009). Studying thermal comfort in context. Building Research and Information, 37(1), 89-94.
Homans, J. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-606.
Huebner, Gesche M., Cooper, Justine, & Jones, K. (2011). Energy saving practices, barriers against and
reasons for change among social housing tenants. Paper presented at the Research student's
conference on "Buildings don't use energy, people do?" - domestic energy use and CO2 emissions
in existing dwellings, Bath, UK.
Hussey, J., & Hussey, R. (1997). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate
Students. London: Macmillan.
INE. (2011). Anuário Estatístico de Portugal 2010. Lisbon: Instituto Nacional de Estatística, I.P. (INE).
INE (2012). Orçamentos Familiares - Inquérito às despesas das famílias - 2010 / 2011. Retrieved
28/10/2013, from Instituto Nacional de Estatística
http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=1415
77698&PUBLICACOESmodo=2&xlang=pt.
INE I.P./DGEG. (2011). Inquérito ao Consumo de Energia no Sector Doméstico 2010 Estatísticas Oficiais.
Lisbon, Portugal.
IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007 - Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II contribution to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der
Linden & C. E. Hanson Eds. 1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPPR. (2009). Addressing Climate Change through Sustainable Development. U.S. Department of State e-
journal USA - Climate Change Perspectives. www.ippr.org
IUCN, UNEP, & WWF. (1991). Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. London: World
Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF).
Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and
behavioural change: University of Surrey.
Jager, W., Janssen, M., Vries, H. D., Greef, J. D., & Vlek, C. (2000). Behaviour in commons dilemmas: Homo
economicus and Homo psychologicus in an ecological-economic model. Ecological Economics,
35(3), 357-379.
Janda, K. B. (2011). Buildings don't use energy: people do, Architectural Science Review, 54(1), 15-22
Jeannerod, M. (2003). The mechanism of self-recognition in humans. Behavioural brain research, 142(1), 1-
15.

References

216
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica:
Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263-291.
Kaplan, S. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Human nature and environmentally
responsible behavior. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 491-508.
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., Svedin, U. (2001). Sustainability
science. Science, New Series, 292(5517), 641-642.
Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., & Hartley, J. A. (1995). Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Kempton. W., & Montgomery, L. (1982). Folk quantification of energy. Energy 7(10), 917-927.
Kempton, W., Reynolds, C., Fels, M., & Hull, D. (1992). Utility control of residential cooling: resident-
perceived effects and potential program improvements. Energy and buildings, 18(3), 201-219.
Kennedy, L. (2011). Sustainable Development. louiskennedy - Just another WordPress.com site. Retrieved 5
of February, 2012, from http://louiskennedy.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/back-again/
Khazzoom, J. Daniel. (1980). Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency Standards for Household
Appliances. The Energy Journal, 1(4), 21-40.
Kitzes, J., Galli, A., Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., Dige, G., Ede, S., Wiedmann, T. (2009). A research agenda for
improving national Ecological Footprint accounts. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 1991-2007.
Knott, David, Muers, Stephen, & Aldridge, Stephen. (2008). Achieving Culture Change: A Policy Framework,
A discussion paper by the Strategy Unit (pp. 138). London: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
Kollock, P. (1998). Social Dilemmas: The Anatomy of Cooperation. American Review of Sociology, 24, 183-
214.
Kotler, P., Roberto, E. L. , & Roberto, N. . (1989). Social marketing: strategies for changing public behavior:
Free Press.
Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: an approach to planned social change. The Journal of
Marketing, 35(3), 3-12.
KPMG. (2012). Expect the unexpected: Building business value in a changing world.
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/building-business-
value.aspx
Kurz, T. (2002). The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: Fitting together pieces of the
puzzle. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 257-278.
Leal Filho, W. (2011). About the Role of Universities and Their Contribution to Sustainable Development.
Higher Education Policy, 24(4), 427-438.
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lehman, P. K., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection: accomplishments and
potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13(1), 13-32.
Leiserowitz, A. (2007). Public Perception, Opinion and Understanding of Climate Change – Current Patterns,
Trends and Limitations Human Development Report 2007/2008 - Fighting climate change: Human
solidarity in a divided world.

References

217
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2009). Saving Energy at Home and on the Road: A Survey of
Americans’ Energy Saving Behaviors, Intentions, Motivations, and Behaviors. Yale Project on
Climate Change.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011a). Climate change in the American Mind:
Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in May 2011. In Y. P. o. C. C. Yale Project on
Climate Change Communication (Ed.). New Haven, CT: University and George Mason University.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2011b). Climate change in the
American Mind: Public support for climate & energy policies in November 2011. New Haven, CT:
Yale University and George Mason University.
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior.
Journal of Social issues, 63(1), 117-137.
Linville, P.W., & Fischer, G.W. (1991). Preferences for separating and combining events: a social application
of prospect theory and the mental accounting model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60, 5-23.
Litoselliti, L. (2003). Using Focus Group in Research: Continuum.
Lomas, K. J. (2010). Editorial: Carbon reduction in existing buildings: A transdisciplinary approach. Building
Research and Information, 38(1), 1-11.
Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives.
Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 73-95.
Lovins, A. B. (1998). Further comments on red herrings. Letter to the New Scientist(2152), 18.
Lovins, A. B., Henly, J., Ruderman, H., & Levine, M. D. (1988). Energy saving resulting from the adoption of
more efficient appliances: another view; a follow-up. Energy Journal, 9(2), 155.
Lutzenhiser, L. (1993). Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annual Review of Energy and the
Environment, 18(1), 247-289.
Lutzenhiser, L. (2002). Marketing Household Energy Conservation: The Message and the Reality. In T. Dietz
& P. C. Stern (Eds.), New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary
Measures. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-Efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-Efficacy, Adaptation,
and Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Application (pp. 3-33). New York: Plenum Press.
Magalhães, S., & Leal, V. (2012). EPBD assessment as a tool for fuel poverty estimation. Paper presented at
the IAIA12, Porto, Portugal.
Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2009). Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An audience
segmentation. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change, George Mason University Center
for Climate Change Communication.
Maréchal, K. (2010). Not irrational but habitual: The importance of "behavioural lock-in" in energy
consumption. Ecological Economics, 69(5), 1104-1114.
Marshall, G., & Lynas, M. (2003). Why we don't give a damn from
http://www.newstatesman.com/node/146820
Martiskainen, M. (2007). Affecting consumer behaviour on energy demand. Brighton, East Sussex: University
of Sussex.

References

218
Marx, S. M., Weber, E. U., Orlove, B. S., Leiserowitz, A., Krantz, D. H., Roncoli, C., & Phillips, J. (2007).
Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate
information. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 47-58.
Matthies, E., Klöckner, C. A., & Preißner, C. L. (2006). Applying a modified moral decision making model to
change habitual car use: how can commitment be effective? Applied Psychology, 55(1), 91-106.
McCalley, L. T., & Midden, C. J. H. (2002). Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback: The
roles of goal-setting and social orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 589–603.
McCarty, John A., & Shrum, L. J. (1993). A Structural Equation Analysis of the Relationships of Personal
Values, Attitudes and Beliefs about Recycling, and the Recycling of Solid Waste Products. In L.
McAlister & M. Rothschild (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 20, pp. 641-646). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable
behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),
543-554.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-
based social marketing (2nd ed.). Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.
McMahon, T. (2007) ‘Is reflective practice synonymous with action research?’, Educational Action Research,
Vol.7(1), pp.163 - 169.
McMakin, A. H., Malone, E. L., & Lundgren, R. E. (2002). Motivating residents to conserve energy without
financial incentives. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 848-863.
McMichael, A., Woodruff, R., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human health: present and future
risks. The Lancet, 367(9513), 859-869.
Merton, R., & Kendall, P. (1987). The Focused Interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51, 541-557.
Middlemiss, L. (2008). Influencing individual sustainability: a review of the evidence on the role of
community-based organisations. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable
Development, 7(1), 78-93.
Mill, J. S. (1836). On the Definition of Political Economy, and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It.
London and Westminster Review.
Miller, G. R. (2002). On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The
Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 3-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mischler, E. G. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative: Harvard University Press.
Morgan, D. (1998). The Focus Group Guidebook. London: Sage Publications.
Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained : Methodological Implications of Combining
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76.
Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). Analyzing and Reporting Focus Group Results. London, UK:
Sage Publications.
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk Communication: A Mental Models
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod reseacrh method. In A. Tashakkori & C.
Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 189-208). London:
Sage Publications.

References

219
Moser, S. C. (2007). More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change
information. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating
climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 64-80). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moser, S.C., & Dilling, L. (2004). Making Climate Hot: Communicating the Urgency and Challenge of Global
Climate Change. Environment, 46(10), 32-46.
Nakajima, T., & Hamori, S. (2010). Change in consumer sensitivity to electricity prices in response to retail
deregulation: a panel empirical analysis of the residential demand for electricity in the United
States. Energy policy, 38(5), 2470-2476.
Nolan, J. M. (2010). “An Inconvenient Truth” increases knowledge, concern, and willingness to reduce
greenhouse gases. Environment and Behavior, 42(5), 643-658.
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 34(6), 740-756.
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on
willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(4), 339-347.
Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. (1994). Symposium on Sustainable Consumption. Oslo Roundtable
on Sustainable Production and Consumption. http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo004.html
Nye, M. , Whitmarsh, L. , & Foxon, T. (2010). Sociopsychological perspectives on the active roles of domestic
actors in transition to a lower carbon electricity economy. Environment and Planning, 42(3), 697 –
714.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: theory and research. Michigan: Sage Publications.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion
handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 329-344). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Odyssee, & MURE. (2011). Energy Efficiency Policies in the European Union - Lessons from the Odyssee-
Mure Project: Intelligent Energy Europe, APEMS.
OECD. (2012). Taxing Energy Use: A graphical analysis. http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-
policy/taxingenergyuse.htm
Ølander, C. F., & Thøgersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for
environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18(4), 345-385.
OnePlanetLiving. (n.d.). Retrieved 08 of July, 2013, from http://www.oneplanetliving.org/index.html.
OSF. (2013). Energy consumption [e-publication]. ISSN=1798-6869. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred:
29.10.2013]. Access method: http://www.stat.fi/til/ekul/kas_en.html
Osterhus, T. L. (1997). Pro-Social Consumer Influence Strategies: When and How Do They Work? Journal of
Marketing, 61(4), 16-29.
Oxford University Press. (2013). Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Retrieved 12 of February, 2013, from
www.oed.com
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peattie, S., & Peattie, K. (2003). Ready to Fly Solo? Reducing Social Marketing's Dependence on Commercial
Theory. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 365-385.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.

References

220
Piaget, J. (1969). Mechanisms of perception. (Translation by G.N.Seagrim) New York: Basic Books.
Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. F., & Lorenzoni, I. (2006). Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change
and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and
November 2005 Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02). Norwich: Centre for
Environmental Risk.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, Environmental Concern, and Environmental Behavior A
Study into Household Energy Use. Environment and behavior, 36(1), 70-93.
Portuguese Government (2013). Council of Ministers Resolution No 20/2013. The Portuguese Official
Gazette Series 1, 70.
Poumanyvong, P., & Kaneko, S. (2010). Does urbanization lead to less energy use and lower CO2 emissions?
A cross-country analysis. Ecological Economics, 70, 434–444.
Powell, R. R. (1997). Basic Research Methods for Librarians: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Powell, R., & Single, H. (1996). Focus Groups. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 8(5), 499-504.
Prendergrast, J., Foley, B., Menne, V., & Isaac, A. K. (2008). Creatures of Habit: The Art of Behavioural
Change. London, UK: The Social Marketing Foundation.
Quercus. (2008). Projecto EcoFamílias – Relatório Final.
Quitzau, M-B., & Røpke, I. (2008). The Construction of Normal Expectations. Consumption Drivers for the
Danish Bathroom Boom. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(2), 186 – 206.
Randles, S. (2009). Practice(s) and ratchet(s). a sociological examination of frequent flying. In P. U. Gössling
(Ed.), Climate Change and Aviation: Issues, Challenges, and Solutions (pp. 245-272). London:
Earthscan Ltd.
Reynolds, T. W., Bostrom, A., Read, D., & Morgan, M. G. (2010). Now what do people know about global
climate change? Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Analysis, 30(10), 1520-1538.
Roberts, S., & Baker, W. (2003). Towards effective energy information. Improving consumer feedback on
energy consumption. A report to OFGEM. http://www.cse.org.uk/pdf/pub1014.pdf
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and social psychology review,
4(3), 255-277.
Rossini, Giuliana, 2009. “Hydro One: In Home Real Time Display: Customer Feedback from a 30,000 Unit
Deployment”. Home Energy Displays Conference, Orlando, 2 April 2009
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Royal Society of London, & U.S. National Academy of Sciences. (1997). Towards Sustainable Consumption.
Population and Development Review, 23(3), 683-686.
Rudestam, Kjell Erik & Newton, Rae R. (2001). Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to
Content and Process, London: SAGE Publications.
Schiffman, Leon, & Kanuk, Leslie. (1999). Consumer Behavior: Prentice Hall.
Schipper, L., & Grubb, M. (2000). On the rebound? Feedback between energy intensities and energy uses in
IEA countries. Energy Policy, 28(6-7), 367–388.
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, Information, and Household Recycling: Examining the Knowledge-Deficit
Model of Behavior Change. In T. Dietz & P. C. Stern (Eds.), New tools for environmental protection:
education, information, and voluntary measures (1st ed., pp. 67-82). Washington DC: National
Academies Press.

References

221
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk, M. (2005). Values and their
relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of cross-cultural
psychology, 36(4), 457-475.
Schultz, P. W., Nola, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The Constructive,
Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434.
Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and
situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(2), 105-121.
Schwartz, B. (in Hastings, G. (2008). Social Marketing: Why should the devil have all the best tunes?
Butterworth Heinemann.
Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Elicitation of moral obligation and self-sacrificing behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 15, 283-293.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221-279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20
countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New
York: Academic Press.
Schwitzgebel, E. (2010). Acting Contrary to Our Professed Beliefs, or The Gulf Between Occurrent Judgment
and Dispositional Belief. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 91, 531-553.
Scottish Government. (2010). Summary of differences in UK Fuel Poverty methodologies.
Sedgwick, Peter, & Edgar, Andrew. (1999). Key Concepts in Cultural Theory. London, UK: Routledge.
SEI. (2003). A Review of Fuel Poverty and Low Income Housing (pp. 72). Ireland: Sustainable Energy Ireland
(SEI).
Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitudes and attitude change: The social judgment-
involvement approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and
attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shome, D., & Marx, S. (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: a guide for scientists,
journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public (A. Cimino & Leapfrog
Communications Eds.). New York: The Trustees of Columbia University, Centre for Research on
Environmental Decisions.
Shove, E. (2003). Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 26(4), 395-418.
Shove, E. (2004). Efficiency and Consumption: Technology and Practice. Energy & Environment, 15(6), 1053-
1065.
Shove, E. (2005). Consumption - Perspectives from ecological economics. In Ropke, I. & Reisch, L. (Ed.).
Cheltenham: Elgar, p. 111-132 22 p.
Shove, E. (2006). Efficiency and consumption: technology and practice. In T. Jackson (Ed.), The Earthscan
Reader in Sustainable Consumption. London, Sterling VA: Earthscan.
Shove, E. (2009). Habits and their creatures (pp. 3): Department of Sociology, Lancaster University.
Shove, E., & Southerton, D. (2000). Defrosting the Freezer: From Novelty to Convenience A Narrative of
Normalization. Journal of Material Culture, 5(3), 301-319.

References

222
Shove, E.; Chappells, H.; Lutzenhiser, L., & Hackett, B. (2008). Comfort in a lower carbon society. Building
Research & Information, 36(4), 307-311.
SILC. (2007). Module: Housing conditions.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/d
ata/ad_hoc_modules
Simons, H. W. (1976). Persuasion: Understanding, Practice, and Analysis. London, UK: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some
thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk analysis, 24(2), 311-322.
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (E. Cannan Ed.): University
Of Chicago Press.
Sorrell, S. (2007). The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings
from improved energy efficiency. UK: The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC).
Southerton, D., McMeekin, A., & Evans, D. (2011). International Review of Behaviour Change Initiatives
Retrieved from www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch
Spaargaren, G., & van Vliet, B. (2000). Lifestyle, Consumption and the Environment: the ecological
modernisation of domestic consumption. Society and Natural Resources, 9, 50-76.
Staats, H., Harland, P., & Wilke, H. A. (2004). Effecting durable change a team approach to improve
environmental behavior in the household. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 341-367.
Staats, H. J., Wit, A. P., & Midden, C. Y. H. (1996). Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public:
Evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. Journal of Environmental
Management, 45, 189–203.
Staats, H., Leeuwen, E., & Wit, A. (2000). A longitudinal study of informational interventions to save energy
in an office building. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(1), 101-104.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Steg, L. (2003). Can public transport compete with the private car. IATSS Research, 27(2), 27–35.
Steg, L., Dreĳerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. . (2006). Acceptability of Energy Policies. Environment and
Behavior, 38, 92-111.
Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, P. C. (1992). What psychology knows about energy conservation. American Psychologist, 47(10),
1224-1232.
Stern, P. C. (1997). Toward a working definition of consumption for environmental research and policy. In P.
C. Stern, T. Dietz, V. R. Ruttan, R. H. Socolow, & J. L. Sweeney (Eds.), Environmentally significant
consumption: Research directions (pp. 12–35). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 22, 461–478.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social
Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

References

223
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and pro-environmental action:
attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,
1611-1636.
Stevensen, F, & Rijal, H. B. (2010). Developing occupancy feedback from a prototype to improve housing
production. Building Research & Information, 35 (5), 549-563.
Streimikiene, D. (2012). The impact of intervention measures on household energy conservation and the
GHG emission reduction in Lithuania. Intellectual Economics, 6(1 (13)), 713-729.
Streimikiene, D., & Ciegis, R. (2010). The Changes of Life Style: Significant Contribution to GHG emission
Reduction Efforts. In W. L. Filho (Ed.), Universities for Climate Change (pp. 280-299). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Strengers, Y. (2008). Comfort expectations: the impact of demand-management strategies in Australia,
Building Research & Information, 36 (4), 381-391.
Tabara, D., Darier, E., Gerger, A., Kasemir, B., Schule, R., 1999. Knowledge for sustainability: reflexive
learning and mass communication on Global Environmental Change. Paper based on research
carried out under the ULYSSES Project, financed by DG XII of the European Commission.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 189-
208). London: Sage Publications.
Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8(3), 201-207.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness: Yale
University Press.
The Royal Society. (2012). People and the planet, summary and recommendations. London, UK: The Royal
Society Science Policy Centre, Excellence in Science.
The University of York. (n.d.). EU Fuel Poverty Network. http://fuelpoverty.eu/
Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles. Journal of
Consumer Policy, 18, 143-178.
Thøgersen, J., & Møller, B. (2008). Breaking car use habits: The effectiveness of a free one-month
travelcard. Transportation, 35(3), 329-345.
Thøgersen, John. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in
environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 93-103.
Thøgersen, John, & Ølander, Carl Folke. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable
consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 605-630.
Thomas, C., & Sharp, V. (2013). Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications
for other pro-environmental behaviours: a review of social norms and recycling. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 79, 11–20.
Throne-Holst, H., Strandbakken, P., & Stø, E. (2008). Identification of households' barriers to energy saving
solutions. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 19(1), 54 - 66.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. . (2012). Addressing climate change: Determinants of consumers'
willingness to act and to support policy measures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 197-
207.
Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. London, UK: Allen Lane and Penguin Books.
Triandis, H. (1977). Interpersonal Behaviour. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

References

224
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model.
Quarterly journal of economics, 106, 1039-1061.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). International Data Base. In U. S. D. o. C. United States Census Bureau (Ed.).
UK Government. (2013). Fuel Poverty Statistics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-
change/series/fuel-poverty-statistics
UN. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 - Development and
International Co-operation: Environment. http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm
UN. (1992). Agenda 21 Rio declaration Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/agenda21.htm
UN. (2007). World Population Prospects, The 2006 Revision, Highlights. New York: Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Population Division.
UN. (2011). File 1: Total population (both sexes combined) by major area, region and country, annually for
1950-2100 (thousands): United Nations (UN), Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division.
Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C., & Devine-Wright, P.
(2009). Public Attitudes to Environmental Change: a selective review of theory and practice.
Manchester, UK: ESRC/LWEC.
Uusitalo, L. (1990). Are Environment Attitude and Behaviour Inconsistent? Finding from a Finnish Study.
Scandinavian Political Studies, 13(2), 211-226.
van der Pligt, J. (1985). Energy conservation: two easy ways out. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Bulletin, 15(1), 3-15.
Vandenbergh, M., Barkenbus, J., & Gilligan, J. (2008). Individual carbon emissions: The low-hanging fruit.
UCLA Law Review, 55, 8-36.
Verplanken, B., & Faes, S. (1999). Good intentions, bad habits, and effects of forming implementation
intentions on healthy eating. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(5-6), 591-604.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of
values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434-447.
Vygotsky, L S (1978) “Mind and Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes”, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge. MA.
Wackernagel, M., Schulz, B., Deumling, D., Callejas Linares, A., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Randers, J. (2002).
Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 99(14), 9266-9271.
Weaver, K., & Olson, J. K. (2006). Understanding paradigms used for nursing research. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 53(4), 459-469
Weber, E. U. (1997). Perception and expectation of climate change: Precondition for economic and
technological adaptation. In M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel & K. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.),
Psychological and Ethical Perspectives to Environmental and Ethical Issues in Management (pp.
314-341). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weber, E. U. (2006). Evidence-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global
warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77, 103-120.
Weinreich, N. K. (1999). Hands on social marketing: A step by step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

References

225
Whitmarsh, L. E. (2009). Social and psychological drivers of energy consumption behaviour and energy
transitions. In S. Dietz, J. Michie & C. Oughton (Eds.), Political Economy of the Environment: An
Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 213-228): Taylor & Francis.
Whitmarsh, L. E., Turnpenny, J., & Nykvist, B. (2009). Beyond the regime: can Integrated Sustainability
Assessment address the barriers to effective sustainable passenger mobility policy? Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 52(8), 973-991.
Wilhite, H., & Lutzenhiser, L. (1999). Social Loading and Sustainable Consumption. In E. J. Arnould & L. M.
Scott (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 26, pp. 281-287). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Wilhite, H. & Richard, L. (1992). "The Person Behind the Meter: An Ethnographic Analysis of Residential
Energy Consumption in Oslo, Norway." Proceedings from the ACEEE 1992 Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings 10:177-186. Washington, D. C.: ACEEE Press.
Wilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using Research Instruments: a guide for researchers. London, UK:
Routledge.
Williamson, T.; Soebarto, V. & Radford, A. (2010). Comfort and energy use in five Australian award-winning
houses: regulated, measured and perceived, Building Research & Information, 38(5), 509-529.
Winett, R. A., & Kagel, J. H. (1984). Effects of information presentation format on resource use in field
studies. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 655–667.
Winett, R. A., Leckliter, I. N., Chinn, D. E., Stahl, B., & Love, S. Q. (1985). Effects of television modeling on
residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 33–44.
Winter, D. D. N. , & Koger, S. M. (2004). The Psychology of Environmental Problems: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wright, A. (2008). What is the relationship between built form and energy use in dwellings? Energy Policy,
36(12), 4544-4547.
WHO. (2012). Environmental health inequalities in Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health
Organization (WHO).
WWF. (2008). Living Planet report 2008: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
WWF. (2012). Living Planet report 2012 - Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices: World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF).

Appendices

226
Appendices
Appendix I: Energyprofiler survey questionnaire

Appendices

234
Appendix II: Reduced version - FG questionnaire before discussion

Appendices

235
Appendix III: Consumer interview roadmap
1. How easy or difficult do you find to reduce the amount of energy you use at home on a day to day
base?
a. Follow up question: what are the reasons for easiness or difficultness?
b. Follow up question: if you would need to chose one reason from all the above for easiness
or difficultness which one would it be?
c. Back up information: list of barriers from FG:
i. Comfort
ii. Habits
iii. Willingness/Laziness/resistance to change
iv. Self-indulgence
v. Environment/future
vi. Initial investment/RoI
vii. Information
viii. Actions already taken
ix. Economical conditions
x. Social norms, social dilemma and hypocrisy

2. What does comfort mean to you at home? How does it affect your day to day use of energy? Can
you provide some examples?
a. Prompt for thermal comfort
b. Prompt for showering habits
c. Prompt for lighting practices
d. Prompt for having the TV on even if not watching
e. Prompt for leaving stand-by on
f. Prompt for using appliances such as washing machines at any point of the day
g. Prompt for leaving fridge open

3. Can you describe your expectations of a minimum level of comfort at home?

4. If you had to chose between spending less on energy and maintaining your comfort level, what
would you chose?
a. At which point would your priorities change?
b. What could trigger change?
c. Have you ever been at a situation were you needed to reduce your comfort level? Can you
describe the circumstances?

Appendices

236
5. Some people have been referring to the fact that changing some of their behaviours might be
quite inconvenient/you have mentioned the fact that changing some of those behaviours would be
quite inconvenient to you. Is comfort and convenience the same to you? What are the
similarities/differences between the two of them?
a. Prompt for standby
b. Prompt for off peak tariffs
c. Prompt for leaving the door of the fridge opne/open frequently
d. Prompt for cooking with lids on

6. Which actions could you take in order to reduce your energy bill without reducing your comfort
level? (Write in a paper)
a. Follow up: can you please order the actions you just mentioned, starting with the one you
would do first to the one you would do the last (use the paper from above)
b. Follow up question: Can you develop on the reasoning of the ordering?

7. How do you consider your energy use level at home? High, normal, average, low or conditioned?
a. Can you explain the reasons for locating yourself as XXX?
b. What is for you a ‘normal’ energy use level?
c. How would you describe it?
d. What about your family and friends? How do you perceive their energy use to be?
e. Where do you locate yourself within this graph?

Appendices

237
f. How do you see yourself in 10 years within the graph? Why do you think that is?
Imagine you need to reduce your energy consumption by half? Which of your basic needs you would want
to maintain? What could be considered a luxury under those circumstances?

Appendices

238
Appendix IV: Practitioner interview roadmap
1. How easy or difficult do you think it is for people to reduce their energy use at home ?
a. How do you understand the easiness to change one time investment decisions?
b. How do you understand the easiness to change daily habitual behaviours?
2. Which barriers to change do people face in reducing their energy use with regards to changing
their daily habitual behaviours?
a. Backup information:
i. Lack of information
ii. Lack of financial resources
iii. Resistance to change
iv. Ingrained habits
v. Lack of motivation
vi. Lack of environmental concerns
vii. Lack of connection between their individual energy use to the global
consumption
viii. Locked to building infrastructure
ix. Limited by other family members
x. Unwillingness to reduce comfort level
xi. Convenience of current behaviours
3. From the barriers you mentioned, which do you identify as important once designing interventions
and why?
a. Can you recall an example when that was done?
b. Have those interventions been effective?
c. How do you know that?
d. Has your organization focused their interventions on any of those barriers you just
mentioned as important? If not, what could be the reason for such? If yes, how successful
have they been?
e. How do you perceive that people receive and enrol on initiatives to promote less energy
intensive lifestyles
4. You have been mentioning/people have been mentioning that maintaining comfort level is quite
important for them. What do you think people mean by comfort?
a. What is your understanding of the role of comfort as a barrier to change individual energy
use?
b. Has your organization ever tried to tackle the existing expectation for comfort within their
interventions?
c. How do you think comfort should be included within future interventions?
d. Do you think it would be feasible to promote an adaptation of the level of individual
comfort?

Appendices

239
e. How would you communicate the need to reduce comfort in a world that might run out of
energy, how would you disrupt the flow of current messages and set a different agenda?
5. You have been mentioning/people have been mentioning that changing their daily behaviours is
inconvenient. What do you think people mean by convenience?
a. What is your understanding of the role of convenience as a barrier to change individual
energy use?
b. Has your organization ever tried to tackle the existing expectation for convenience within
their interventions?
c. How do you think convenience should be included within future interventions?
d. Do you think it would be feasible to promote an adaptation of the level of convenience of
current behaviours?
6. In your opinion, what does ‘normal’ energy consumption means to individual users or households?
KWh, cost or services?
a. How do you consider individual users are influenced by what they see as normal?
b. How could one influence this idea of ‘normal’ consumption?
c. Has your organization ever tried to tackle the existing norms within their interventions?
d. How do you think norms should be included within future interventions?
e. How would you communicate the need to change norms?
f. Do you believe norms could be changed through a carrot and stick approach?
g. Do you think it would be feasible to promote an adaptation of norms?

Appendices

240
Appendix V: List of answers for Question 6 of EP survey questionnaire
regarding energy saving reported behaviours

Appendices

241
Appendix VI: – List of answers for Question 15 of EP survey questionnaire
regarding energy saving reported behaviours

Appendices

242
Appendix VII: Variables defined during energyprofiler study

Appendices

243
Appendix VIII: – List of answers for question Q16 of EP survey questionnaire
(reported barriers and constraints)

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0%
Already do what I can
I save enough already/I save too much already
I would like to do more, but don’t know how
It would reduce my comfort
I don’t have time to do more/I’m too busy
I don’t want to know/it doesn’t concern me
It’s not useful/it’s not necessary
It would be very expensive
The greatest polluter is the industry
It wouldn’t make any difference
I don’t see any reduction in the bill
Alone it wouldn’t make any difference/I do it …
The future will come up with solutions
Electricity/gas is cheap / I pay very little
50,3%
22,1%
16,9%
10,6%
8,2%
3,9%
2,3%
1,7%
1,4%
1,4%
0,9%
0,9%
0,8%
0,2%
Reported barriers to save energy (in %)

Appendices

244
Appendix IX: – List of identified barriers during the FG

Appendices

245
Appendix X: – Sample distribution with regard to region, gender, age groups
and rural/urban area

Male Female
16-25
years
25-45
years
>45
years
16-25
years
25-45
years
>45
years Total
North
URBAN 14 15 14 14 14 14 85 170
(16.7%) RURAL 14 14 14 14 15 14 85
Centre
URBAN 14 14 14 14 15 15 86 172
(16.9%) RURAL 14 14 14 15 14 15 86
Lisboa
URBAN 12 16 12 14 16 9 79 164
(16.1%) RURAL 14 14 14 14 15 14 85
Alentejo
URBAN 14 14 14 14 14 14 84 170
(16.7%) RURAL 14 14 14 15 14 15 86
Algarve
URBAN 14 14 14 14 14 14 84 170
(16.7%) RURAL 15 15 14 14 14 14 86
Islands
URBAN 14 14 14 14 14 15 85 173
(17%) RURAL 14 15 14 15 15 15 88

167 173 166 171 174 168 1.019

The role of behaviour in the transition to more energy efficient use at home – Lessons from Portugal

More Related Content

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured (20)

The role of behaviour in the transition to more energy efficient use at home – Lessons from Portugal