barenergy_finalreport_screen by SEALAB

BarEnergy

Energy research in the 7th framework programme

Barriers to changes in energy behaviour among end consumers and households

Final report Integration of Three Empirical Studies

Edited by Sophie Emmert, Martin van de Lindt and Helma Luiten

Colophon Projectteam BarEnergy National Institute for Consumer Research – Sifo Eivind Stø (Project manager) Tommy Ose Pål Strandbakken Lisbeth Berg Harald Throne-Holst

University of Surrey – RESOLVE Shane Fudge Birgitta Gatersleben Tim Jackson

The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research – TNO Sophie Emmert Martin van de Lindt Helma Luiten Arnold Tukker

Electricité de France – EDF R&D Isabelle Moussaoui Caroline Escoffier Isabelle Francfort Magali Pierre Sylvie Douzou Saadi Lahlou

The University of St. Gallen Stefanie Heinzle Sonja Lüthi Mozhon Sadeghi Rolf Wüstenhagen

Central European University – CEU Alan Watt Andrea Farsang

University of Groningen Linda Steg Judith de Groot Martijn Keizer

Centre for Sustainable Energy – CSE Simon Roberts Ian Preston Joshua Thumim Vicki White

Graphic Design

Marieke de Roo Delft, The Netherlands.

BarEnergy Barriers to changes in energy behaviour among end consumers and households

Final report Integration of Three Empirical Studies

Edited by Sophie Emmert, Martin van de Lindt and Helma Luiten

Contents Hoofdstuk

Contents

Introduction

Sophie Emmert and Helma Luiten (TNO) 1.1 Relevance of the study 1.2 Concept of the project 1.3 Empirical design 1.4 Working method 1.5 Book outline

Context descriptions of the countries involved

Helma Luiten (TNO)

Three Empirical Studies

Energy saving

Tommy Ose (SIFO) 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Barriers to energy saving in the domain of domestic energy use 3.3 Household appliances 3.4 Fuel consumption of cars 3.5 Summary of barriers on energy saving 3.6 Policy strategies and instruments to overcome barriers 3.7 Political recommendations

Energy efficient purchase

Stefanie Heinzle (UniSG) 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Barriers to energy efficiency refurbishment 4.3 Barriers towards investment in energy efficient household appliances 4.4 Barriers towards purchase of energy efficient cars 4.5 Summary of barriers to purchasing energy efficient products 4.6 Policy strategies and instruments to overcome barriers 4.7 Policy recommendations

11 12 13 16 18 19

29 29 30 38 46 65 66 68

73 73 73 79 88 90 91 93

Report BarEnergy

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Andrea Farsang and Alan Watt (CEU) 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Barriers to shifting to sustainable energy technologies for domestic energy use 5.3 Barriers to shifting to sustainable fuel cars 5.4 Summary of barriers to changing to sustainable energy sources 5.5 Policy strategies and instruments to overcome barriers 5.6 Policy recommendations

95 96 104 108 109 110

Conclusions and recommendations

113

Martin van de Lindt, Sophie Emmert and Helma Luiten (TNO) 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Main policy directions regarding the strategies of saving, efficiency and change 6.3 Reflection on the methodology

113 114 124

Summary Hoofdstuk

Summary

The main objective of the BarEnergy project was to develop methods to identify the relevance and strength of various barriers to changes in energy behavior among end consumers and households, and to discuss how activities from political authorities, energy producers and NGOs can overcome these barriers. The following project partners were involved in the project: — National Institute for Consumer Research (Norway) — University of Surrey, RESOLVE (Great Britain) — The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, TNO (The Netherlands) — Electricité de France (France) — University of St. Gallen (Switzerland) — Central European University (Hungary) — University of Groningen (The Netherlands) — Centre for Sustainable Energy (Great Britain) Barriers to changes in consumer behaviour are considered along three dimensions. — The first dimension relates to energy saving behaviour in practice (turn down / switch off of appliances and heating systems; take the bike instead of the car on short distances, etc.) — The second considers improvements in energy efficiency. This includes consumers buying energy efficient appliances and therefore relates to changes in purchase behaviour. — The third dimension is about moving towards more sustainable and renewable energy technologies. The results from the empirical research on the strength and relevance of the various barriers in the three dimensions (saving, efficiency and change) suggest there is little difference between the strategies. The same sets of barriers were repeatedly identified in all three areas, as shown in figure below. However, conditions surrounding the barriers do differ substantially, as is discussed in the following sections.

Report BarEnergy

Energy saving

Individual-psychological

(Domestic energy, household appliances,

Knowledge based

fuels (cars))

Physical-structural

Energy efficiency

Economic

(Domestic energy, household appliances,

Knowledge based

fuels (cars))

Physical-structural Economic

Change towards sustainable energy (Domestic energy and fuels (cars))

Knowledge based Physical-structural Political

Energy saving behaviour

We studied three consumption areas identified under the heading of energy saving; Domestic Energy Use, Household Appliances and Car Use, and subsequent subtopics that fall under these three headings: heating behaviour, cooking and baking, use of appliances, drive more efficiently, less short distance driving, car use versus public transport, car pooling. In the context of energy saving, knowledge-based barriers are critical. Reducing energy consumption without compromising comfort and personal status is a key challenge for consumers. As such, these barriers are closely related to individual/psychological factors, which are in turn influenced by our daily practices, social networks, and even by physical-structural barriers. The potential for energy policy to change behavior could be enhanced if combined with other consumer interest campaigns. For example, reducing car use for short journeys can be framed within a health and fitness agenda. Effective targeting and tailoring of initiatives to address the needs of specific consumer groups is also fundamental for policy success.

Energy efficiency

We studied three consumption areas identified under the heading of energy efficiency: Domestic Energy Use, Household Appliances and Fuel consumption of Cars, and subsequent subtopics that fall under these three headings: energy efficient refurbishment, purchase of energy efficient appliances and purchase of fuel efficient cars. The results from the BarEnergy project show that in the field of domestic energy efficiency, knowledge-based barriers again play a very important role. Clear and reliable product information is central to ensuring informed consumer purchase choices. From the consumers perspective, awareness of the availability of products and, where relevant, subsidies is also important. Furthermore, the quantitative survey showed that consumers often perceive ‘green’ products and services to cost more than ‘traditional’ ones. That these high upfront costs can be recovered through energy savings over the lifetime of the product is of little consequence to consumer purchase decisions.

Summary Summary

Policy directions to address barriers surrounding energy efficiency in the home should therefore focus on the market, such that products have to meet specifications and retailers act as sources of information. At the same time, consumer demand for energy efficient products has to be stimulated. Policy measures must also therefore take account of social networks and practices, and focus on maximizing potential ‘windows of opportunity’ (moving home, refurbishing etc).

Change towards sustainable energy

We studied two areas under the heading of change toward sustainable energy; Domestic Energy Use and Fuel consumption of Cars, and subsequent subtopics that fall under these two headings: photovoltaic panels, buying green energy, constructing low energy houses, hybrid cars and green fuel cars. The change towards sustainable energy represents a personal transition of meeting our energy needs in a more sustainable way. This personal transition is hampered by a number of barriers. The knowledge barrier is highly relevant. Consumers need to have a greater level of understanding of the different products available and their applicability, if they are to fully embrace and invest in new concepts, such as passive housing and electric vehicles. Policy measures must combine a top down (state), and bottom-up approach. Focus should be on state governance ensuring opportunity for new initiatives, with a clear and consistent energy policy framework, and rewarding frontrunners at the consumer, business and research level. This should be supported by using social networks to reach and engage consumers and targeting specific groups within a specific context, to maximize windows of opportunities. The “market” also has a role in ensuring retailers are equipped to act as trained consultants in advising consumers.

Introduction

Introduction Sophie Emmert en Helma Luiten (TNO)

The BarEnergy project - an acronym for ‘Barriers to changes in energy behaviour among end consumers and households’- is an EU-funded collaborative research project, undertaken between 2008 and 2010. The project team comprises eight different organisations from six European countries.

The main objectives of the research are to: — develop methods to identify the relevance and strength of various barriers to changes in energy behaviour among end consumers and households; — discuss how the activities of political authorities, energy producers and NGOs can help to overcome these barriers. The BarEnergy project philosophy assumes that consumers and households can play an important role in reducing energy use through behavioural change. The project explores the perceived barriers to change across three dimensions: 1. Energy saving within the household (turn down and switch off); 2. Purchase of energy efficient appliances; 3. Shift to more sustainable and renewable energy technologies. The relationship between these three strategies for reducing energy consumption is also considered. To answer the research objectives a methodology was developed encompassing three main empirical approaches: — Qualitative interviews with strategic stakeholders; — Representative quantitative consumer surveys; — Qualitative strategic focus groups among targeted consumer groups. All research was conducted within the countries involved in the project. The main theoretical and empirical innovation of this project is in combining the institutional and individual perspectives on consumer energy behaviour. An important aspect of the research is to consider the interaction between individual and institutional factors, in order to gauge their relationship in influencing behaviour. For example, people may be less inclined to reduce energy consumption when they use renewable energy sources, or environmental concern may have a stronger influence over behaviour in specific contexts (within specific institutions).

Report BarEnergy

1.1

Relevance of the study

Energy is an expensive and increasingly scarce resource. Despite widespread recognition of diminishing oil reserves, a significant proportion of energy consumption is through wasteful and inefficient practices. Public authorities, particularly the EU, have a key role to play in raising awareness of the issue and increasing energy efficiency- for the sake of the environment, the economy and our health (Annex 1, ‘Doing more with less’, Green Paper on energy efficiency, European Commission, 2005). The BarEnergy project focuses on the energy behaviour of end consumers and households. Domestic energy consumption and car use together comprise a considerable proportion of total energy requirements: averages range from 20% to 30% in OECD countries (OECD, 2001). Furthermore, growing consumer demand for electronic products and travel continues to drive consumption upwards, despite numerous efforts and initiatives to the contrary: — Top down initiatives are sometimes successful (e.g. labeling) > but implementation is often difficult (acceptation of production – consumption chain, lack of knowledge, lack of trust) — Small scale initiatives are novel (e.g. cooperatives for Passive Homes, community owned energy companies, exchange systems for products / services in neighborhoods) > but only very few prevail — The scale of the challenge is known (e.g. insulating houses, efficient cars / appliances, green energy etc) > but we are a long way from realizing our energy- related objectives e.g. Kyoto protocol — We know that barriers to changing energy behavior are no longer only technical > but result from a complex interplay between various levels (societal, structural, political, individual) The last point above has particular relevance to this study. Barriers faced by consumers in changing their energy behaviour go beyond the technological (such as the availability of energy efficient alternatives); they can also be institutional (e.g. low prices for unsustainable energy sources) and social (e.g. a negative image that is related to a specific energy efficient alternative). In the context of UK energy policy, Jackson (2006) states that: “One of the biggest risks for government in relation to its energy policy targets is that of failing to understand the relationship between technological change, institutional change and social change. Energy systems cannot be thought of purely as technological systems. Energy technologies are embedded in institutional and social systems. Change in one implies change in the others. At the highest level, therefore, the role of the social sciences in energy research can be understood in terms of understanding and managing systemic change.” The BarEnergy research project therefore explores the barriers to consumers in changing their energy behaviour and the interplay between the institutional and individual level. Households can reduce their energy consumption by saving energy, buying efficient appliances and shifting to more sustainable energy carriers. These distinct dimensions of behaviour face distinct barriers. In order for policy makers to be able to ‘reach’ the consumer more effectively we need to know more about the distinction between these barriers for change.

Introduction

1.2 1.2.1

Concept of the project

In order to meet the aims and objectives of the project, a method was developed that incorporates and combines four so-called starting points.

Starting point 1: three dimensions of energy behaviour

Barriers to changes in consumer behaviour are considered along three dimensions. The first dimension relates to energy saving behaviour in practice (turn down / switch off of appliances and heating systems; take the bike instead of the car on short distances, etc.) The second considers improvements in energy efficiency. This includes consumers buying energy efficient appliances and therefore relates to changes in purchase behaviour. The third dimension is about moving towards more sustainable and renewable energy technologies.

Energy saving

Energy efficiency

Change towards sustainable energy

Change of use - turn down switch off Day to day behavior

Change in purchase - energy efficient appliances Occassionally: windows of opportunity (when possible / necessary) Radical change in fulfilling our needs change to sustainable energy Long term investment in new concepts (for example Passive House)

Figure 1: dimensions of energy behaviour changes

1.2.2

Starting point 2: three consumption areas for policy measures

The EU Green Paper on energy efficiency provides the political springboard for this research. In â&#x20AC;&#x153;Doing more with lessâ&#x20AC;? (COM (2005) 265 final of 22 June 2005), the Commission identifies three specific domains for energy policy measures, which we have focused on in this research: buildings; domestic appliances; and limiting the fuel consumption of vehicles. Within all of these areas, contradictory trends and developments are evident (see figure 2): â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Domestic energy use. The built environment accounts for more than 40% of total energy use in the EU (based on 2002 figures). Whilst passive houses are gaining popularity in the North, the South is experiencing the reverse, with a move away from its traditional passive architecture. This contributes to one of the most disturbing trends regarding domestic energy use in the EU: that is the significant increase in room air conditioning in the South of Europe.

Report BarEnergy

— Household appliances. In 1992 the EU made energy labeling mandatory for most household appliances. This has generally been regarded as an efficient way of increasing awareness of the environmental impact of consumption and the need to reduce resource use; and to promote the purchase of energy efficient appliances. However, for energy labeling to be effective in all European markets, consumers must have an understanding of, and confidence in, the labeling scheme. It needs to be considered relevant and impartial, with a transparent approach from producers in meeting the labeling criteria. A further dimension in relation to household appliances and energy reduction is the potential to limit use (e.g. turn of lighting, shower less). — Limit fuel consumption. Road transport accounts for the second largest proportion of all energy consumption in the EU (based on 2002 figures). CO2 emissions from this sector grew by 20% between 1990 and 2000. Various fiscal and regulatory measures have attempted to curb this growth, e.g. road pricing and reduced speed limits. Technological improvements in vehicle efficiency have also received much attention. Whilst significant improvements have been achieved, counteracting trends have to some extent reduced the expected results. These include: a demand for bigger cars; increases in engine capacity; growing car ownership, and more passenger miles.

Domestic energy use (40% of built environment)

Household appliances

Fuel consumption cars (20% growth of CO2 emissions)

Positive trend: Popularity of Passive Houses Negative trend: Popularity of aircon

Positive trend: Raise of product labelling Negative trend: Lack of information, knowledge, trust

Positive trend: Popularity of hybrid cars, fuel efficient cars, bike and public transport campaigns Negative trend: Growing (need for) mobility

Figure 2: three consumption areas BarEnergy focuses on

1.2.3

Starting point 3: Types of barriers to changing energy behaviour

The barriers identified in “Doing more with less” include informational, technical, institutional and regulatory. We reorganized these barriers from macro- to microoriented perspectives, corresponding to the institutional and individual level; renamed some of them; and included the political level as one significant barrier to change, to give the following: 1. P hysical and structural barriers: Households are a part of, and their behaviour is dependent on, the general structure of society. The overwhelming majority are connected to electrical, telecom, water and wastewater networks. The degree of freedom and opportunities for individual households to act hinges largely on the physical environment. The availability of infrastructure and supply of products can

Introduction

promote particular behaviour and inhibit others. Political authorities and energy producers therefore have a responsibility in addressing these structural barriers to behaviour change. 2. Political barriers: Politicians create frameworks that underpin consumer behaviour. They issue laws, directives and develop regulations on a national and European level. These laws and regulations are then implemented by political authorities. Thus, political authorities determine the potential for change, and freedom for individuals to act. 3. Cultural-normative or social barriers: Energy saving behaviour may not always comply with local customs and way of life. For example, Norway has the world’s highest per capita energy use for lighting; a major contributing factor to this is the cultural aesthetics, which associates interior lighting and pools of light and shadow with a cosy atmosphere. Willingness to accept new technology may also differ across cultures, and energy-efficient appliances may not be perceived to increase one’s social position. 4. E conomic barriers: Some measures to reduce household energy use necessitate economic investment, and the willingness to pay represents a real barrier for some consumer groups. Investment in energy-efficient appliances may payback over time, but this assumes an availability of funds and willingness to sacrifice these for a long-term gain. Furthermore, the ‘green’ option can sometimes be the more costly one – for example, in some countries energy from renewable sources has a higher unit price. 5. K nowledge based barriers. To overcome barriers, individuals need relevant information, or an understanding of how to obtain such information. The level knowledge required to ensure uptake of measures and change in behaviour will vary: in some cases this may necessitate a clear grasp of the relevance of different actions and potential benefits. 6. I ndividual/psychological barriers: We all have our own limits as to what we would do to achieve a goal like saving energy. Such limitations stem from individual taboos, rooted in personal experiences or upbringing. Furthermore, energy saving behaviour and actions may have negative connotations, being associated with discomfort or a restricted lifestyle. As such, the way information is portrayed - and subsequently understood or misinterpreted - has a fundamental link with this barrier.

1.2.4

Starting point 4: Individual and institutional approach

As outlined above, the overall objective of the project is to identify the strength and relevance of various institutional and individual barriers to change in energy consumption among end consumers, and how these barriers can be overcome by activities from political authorities, businesses and NGOs. The research therefore combines an individual and institutional approach as follows: The institutional approach is portrayed by the triangular model in figure 3 below. Here, society’s institutional order is understood to be rooted in three major spheres: the state, the market and civil society. The triangle is a common analytical tool in sociology and related academic disciplines, and is applied in a variety of theoretical and empirical studies. For the purpose of this research, we consider domestic energy consumption to sit at the heart of the triangle, being influenced by all three spheres.

Report BarEnergy

State

Physical - structural barriers

Market

Economic barriers

Energy Behaviour Knowledge barriers

Political barriers

Individual - psychological barriers

Civil Society Cultural - normative barriers

Figure 3: complex interplay between behavior, barriers, institutions and regimes

The six barriers to behavior change (see section 1.2.3) can be placed within figure 3. The physical and structural barriers incorporate elements of both the market and the state, while the political, cultural and economic barriers are associated with State, Civil Society and Market respectively. The two remaining barriers - knowledge and psychological – relate to the individual, rather than institutional, level. Combining the institutional and individual approaches is fundamental to this research. The European ToolSust project (2001-2003) adopted a similar approach, whereby individual behaviour was discussed within the context of political and commercial frameworks, (although the two approaches were not explicitly considered, as we aim to do in this project). The different energy regimes of the countries participating in the study, and the varying emphasis upon nuclear power, oil/gas/coal, hydropower and the emerging demand for other renewables, constitute one of the frameworks for individual behaviour. Other frameworks relate to the degree of technological influence; level of market competition or monopolisation; the price of energy; and the influence of consumer culture.

1.3 1.3.1

Empirical design Three empirical stages

The empirical design of the project follows three stages: — In the first stage we construct a common understanding of the ‘state of the art’ within our selected research areas and establish a common theoretical platform for our studies. — The second stage is the empirical triangulation, incorporating qualitative stakeholder interviews, representative consumer survey and focus groups among targeted consumers. — The final stage is the integration of these empirical studies, to provide an enhanced understanding of the barriers to change and setting out recommendations of how these barriers may be overcome.

Introduction

1.3.2

Empirical triangulation

Qualitative stakeholder interviews 162 qualitative interviews were held with strategic stakeholders in the six participating countries: Norway (NO), UK, the Netherlands (NL), Switzerland (CH), Hungary (HU) and France (FR). Interviewees were drawn from: 1. The scientific and technical community 2. Energy suppliers and the construction industry 3. Political authorities or semi-public institutions; planning departments 4. NGOs (consumer and environmental organisations) The main objective of the qualitative interviews was to explore stakeholders’ opinions about the relevance and strengths of barriers, and potential strategies to overcome these. The interviews provided opportunity to identify and verify the proposed barriers, and explore any conflicts of interest between different stakeholders. Quantitative consumer survey The representative quantitative surveys were conducted with a total of 15,414 consumers across the six participating countries, and also Greece. The aim of the questionnaire was to assess the strength and relevance of the barriers to change for consumers in each country. It also explored the extent of opportunity for change in the three core areas of study: reducing consumption (turn down and switch off), increasing energy efficiency, and moving towards renewable energy. Focus groups Twenty-four focus groups were held with targeted consumer groups in the six countries. The groups were structured to include individuals with different ‘windows of opportunity’ and different social backgrounds: — Windows of opportunity were defined according to whether the household is considered ‘stable’ or ‘transitional’, whereby the latter includes those in the process of undertaking building or refurbishment work, or moving home, therefore offering a potential increased opportunity for changing behaviour. — Social background was based on: 1) social patterns and lifestyles, and 2) gender and age.

Qualitative stakeholder interviews

Barriers for change Representative Consumer survey

Focus groups among customers

Figure 4: Empirical triangulation

1.3.3

Integration of empirical studies

This final project report focuses mainly on the findings of qualitative stakeholder interviews, but also draws on other aspects of the research, incorporating evidence from the literature review, consumer survey and focus groups where appropriate.

Report BarEnergy

1.4

Working method

1.4.1

Consortium

The project consortium consists mainly of research institutions and universities, with the exception of ElectricitĂ¨ de France and the Centre for Sustainable Energy (Bristol, UK), as the industrial and NGO project partners respectively. A Scientific Advisory Board was also set up. The consortium therefore consists of the following partners: Name

Country

National Institute for Consumer Research

Norway

University of Surrey, RESOLVE

United Kingdom

The Netherlands Organisations for Applied Scientific

The Netherlands

ElectricitĂŠ de France

France

University of St. Gallen

Switzerland

Central European University

Hungary

University of Groningen

The Netherlands

Centre for Sustainable Energy

United Kingdom

Research

1.4.2

The empirical design

As described in section 1.3, the empirical design of the project followed three stages. In the first stage we constructed a common understanding of the state of art within our selected research areas, establishing a common theoretical platform for our research. A theoretical framework was developed, in which institutional and individual factors were integrated. As the research is transnational in design, it was important to also explore the different energy regimes of each participating country. For example: whether the country is a net exporter or importer of energy in general and the energy mix (proportion of fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydro power and other renewables). This provides important contextual background for framing the research findings. The second stage was the empirical triangulation, incorporating the qualitative stakeholder interviews, representative consumer survey and consumer focus groups. The final stage of the project was the integration of the empirical studies, to provide further understanding of the barriers to change in consumer energy behaviour and recommendations of how these may be overcome. The figure below illustrates the research process in detail, showing the link between the three empirical approaches, the three distinct energy behaviour types and the three domains in which the research was carried out.

Introduction

3 empirical studies

Based on a combination of institutional and individual perspectives on consumer behavior

Stakeholder interviews

Consumer surveys

Focus groups

Address changes in consumer behavior along three dimensions

Identify and rank relevance of six major types of barriers to

in the areas of:

Energy saving behavior

Domestic Energy use

Household appliances

Mobility (cars)

Energy efficient purchase or investment

Domestic Energy use

Household appliances

Mobility (cars)

Shift to sustainable energy carriers or technologies

Domestic Energy use

Mobility (cars)

Analyze and integrate findings on the strenghts and relevance of barriers on energy behavior change

Tools and policy recommendations Figure 5: empirical design

1.5

Book outline

Chapter 2 provides a short summary of the energy regimes and cultural characteristics of each of the six participating countries. This provides the important contextual background to the empirical data and research findings described in the proceeding chapters. Chapter 3 focuses on ‘energy saving within households’. It describes the barriers experienced by consumers on domestic energy use, use of appliances and personal transport. Different strategies to overcome these barriers, and the requirements for implementing these strategies, are also discussed. Chapter 4 concentrates on ‘energy efficient purchases within households’. In the first part of the chapter, barriers to energy efficient refurbishment, investment in energy efficient household appliances and purchase of energy efficient cars are discussed. Recommendations are then made for policy to encourage and promote sustainable consumption and energy efficiency within households, based on findings from the empirical data. Chapter 5 focuses on barriers to ‘changes towards more sustainable and renewable energy technologies’. Firstly, we consider a change to innovative concepts and technologies within the field of domestic energy use. We then go on to discuss personal transportation, focusing on hybrid and fuel-efficient cars. Possible tools and policies to overcome these barriers, based primarily on suggestions by the relevant stakeholders, are also described. Chapter 6 provides a final concluding chapter with policy recommendations relating to the three behaviour types explored.

Context descriptions of the countries involved

Context descriptions of the countries involved Helma Luiten (TNO)

The ‘energy regime’ of a country is a key institutional framework for contextualizing the barriers to, and opportunities for, sustainable energy behaviour. For the purpose of this research, we describe ‘energy regime’ in terms of: — whether the country is a net exporter or importer of energy in general (and electricity more specifically) — the energy mix (the proportion of the country’s overall energy consumption coming from fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydro power and other renewable sources) — the degree of political control over the energy market (whether the market is regulated or deregulated; the extent of competition or monopolisation). The energy regimes of the six countries involved in the research are summarised below. These summaries are based on information contained in the detailed National Reports on Energy Regimes and Focus Groups (available on the BarEnergy website).

2.1.1

Norway

Norway is a large hydropower producer and a significant exporter of oil and gas. 99% of its electricity use stems from renewable hydropower. This may explain why saving or conserving energy was not particularly high on people’s priorities when discussing domestic energy use. Participants in the focus groups maintained that electricity was a ‘clean’ energy source and not worth considering as an environmental hazard. At the same time, there appears a trend in Norwegian households for high consuming practices, such as ‘having the lights on in most rooms’ and ‘having the heating on in all rooms’. Electricity, heating oil and wood are used for heating in Norway. The total energy consumption for domestic heating is decreasing. This is probably due to more efficient appliances and improvements in insulation. In recent years Norway’s active environmental policy has extended to transportation. Diesel with up to 5% biodiesel is now available from some 200 gasoline stations in Norway. Whilst conventional fuels are heavily taxed, the biodiesel component, which is considered to be CO2-neutral, is exempt (NP, 2008). Norway is also developing a ‘Hydrogen Highway’ between Stavanger and Oslo and there is strong political will to incentivise environmental friendly cars with reduced vehicle tax.

Report BarEnergy

The subject of ‘regulation’ prompted conflicting responses amongst focus group participants. Whilst on the whole this issue was perceived in a negative light, participants conceded that it was perhaps the only way to ensure a more sustainable society in Norway. For many participants, there seemed to be a sense of cynicism that societal change would come about purely as a result of individual consumer action.

2.1.2

The UK is the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the EU. Domestic heating is mainly based on gas. Electricity comes from gas, oil and nuclear power plants. The domestic sector accounts for 30 per cent of the UK’s total electricity consumption. Rising CO2 emissions and increased energy demand in households have been particularly problematic for policy makers in relation to both environmental goals and meeting demand. Electricity consumption grew by 12 per cent between 1990 and 2006. The total percentage of energy sourced from renewables still accounts for only 2 per cent of the UK’s total energy use (Goodall, 2007). Renewable energy currently remains an expensive option and market driven conditions mean that it remains heavily subsidized by the UK Government, in order to avoid it going off the radar altogether. The main issue to emerge from the focus group discussions on ‘domestic energy use’ in the UK concerned the issue of ‘comfort’. Comfort was considered to be hugely important to almost all individuals in the context of energy use in the home. Some participants maintained that comfort was so important to them that it would ultimately ‘override’ energy costs. This suggests that there is a huge cultural barrier in the UK around what individuals would and would not be willing to do in regard to making lifestyle changes. Many of the focus group participants argued that domestic practices and routines in relation to household temperature and electricity use came about as a result of ‘negotiations’ between household inhabitants.

Context descriptions of the countries involved

This trend could also be observed in relation to transport. Focus group participants all owned a car and most of them thought that this private car was the most convenient and reliable way to travel. However, congestion on UK roads and a lack of parking spaces caused some participants to be more ambivalent about the centrality of the car to their everyday lives. Oil still constitutes the largest share of transport fuel in the UK, at 35% of overall consumption. Whilst acknowledging that ‘the amount of car travel per person appears to be gently declining’, this is offset by a continuation in the number of people in the UK who own cars. The use of biofuels in addressing environmental and energy efficiency objectives in the road transport sector remains limited. Biofuels constituted just 1% of all road transport fuel consumption in the UK in 2007 and low carbon cars represented less than 0.1% of UK car sales in the same year.

2.1.3

The Netherlands

The Dutch energy system is mainly based on gas (for domestic heating), coal power plants (with 1 nuclear plant) and oil for transportation. Renewables play a limited role at present. The Netherlands have by far the highest level of gas-heated homes in Europe and the operational reliability of the electricity network is extremely high. Over the past 10 years, average household gas consumption has decreased, due to a decrease in the amount of gas required for space heating. The introduction of the high efficiency boiler and improvements in home insulation play a major role in this. Conversely, average electricity use has increased since 1988 due to an increasing demand for comfort. CO2 emissions related to transport are also rising: a trend that is expected to continue for the future decennia, as the number of cars per household and passenger miles increase. Ever since the first energy crisis during the mid-1970s, energy reduction and sustainability has been a priority for the Dutch government, who have also ratified the Kyoto-protocol. This priority, which has fluctuated a little over time, has resulted in a wide range of policy measures, arrangements and programs. Current policy is concentrated on a so-called ‘energy transition’. However, the focus group participants remained critical about the role of the Dutch government in influencing energy behaviour: subsidies were considered too small and the process too bureaucratic. There was also a sense that participants first required information on how changes, or potential changes, in energy behaviour would be of personal benefit to them before committing to change.

2.1.4

France

During the 1970’s France committed to generating energy from nuclear power plants to provide for changing energy needs and conditions. Nuclear energy is now the major source of electricity production (85%) in the country. It will continue to grow despite problems of waste and risk. The population is, on the whole, fairly consistently accepting of nuclear power: in 2008 51% were in favour, 31% were not in favour and 10% were unsure.

Report BarEnergy

14% of France’s electricity production is from renewables and 98% of this is from hydropower and biomass. With the exception of its electricity production, France has very limited energy reserves (gas and oil) and consequently has high energy dependence. The principle reasons cited by focus group participants to engage in energy efficient behaviours and practices were: comfort, cost savings and environmental considerations. Three key behavioural profiles could be defined from the results of the group discussions. The ‘frugal’ behavioural profile incorporated those individuals who had a desire to consume less but without the urge to, or the possibility of, investing in major (infrastructural) work. The ‘manager’ behavioural profile describes those who were often reluctant to spend money to save energy and were more concerned with the financial implications of energy use than the environmental consequences of their behaviour. A third behavioural profile identified amongst the participants was the ‘delegated to objects’ category. This group of individuals places the burden of energy saving on the appliance, rather than themselves, relying on efficiencies in technology to address the issue. As such, they invariably (and admittedly) pay little attention to their domestic energy use. Energy consumption of transportation in France has increased. The rise in fuel prices in recent years may help to reverse this trend, and alternative fuels (biodiesel mixed with standard diesel) are also becoming more widely available.

2.1.5

Switzerland

The focus group discussions revealed a general opinion amongst participants that measures to address global environmental issues should be taken within an international coalition. This opinion stems from recognition that Switzerland is a small country and environmental problems are not constrained by national borders. 60% of Switzerland’s total fuel consumption is of fossil fuels. Whilst the consumption of heating oil and coal is decreasing, demand for natural gas and transportation fuels is still on the increase. The topography and high annual rainfall in Switzerland offers significant opportunity for hydropower, which now accounts for 60% of the country’s electricity generation. Only about one third (34%) of this is actually used, with the remainder being exported. Overall renewables account for 17% of Switzerland’s total energy production. Focus group participants demonstrated a high level of awareness about environmental issues, energy and sustainability. Whilst cost savings appeared as the main motivating factor for reducing energy consumption for many of the participants, for others energy costs were seen as an insignificant part of their monthly outgoings and comfort and convenience took priority over reducing expenditure. A key barrier to reducing household energy consumption in Switzerland, which is distinctly related to residency, was identified in the focus group. Over 70% of Switzerland’s population is in rented accommodation. The notion of ‘split incentives’ is

Context descriptions of the countries involved

therefore a very real problem for the country: landlords have little incentive to invest in energy efficiency measures as they themselves will not reap the financial rewards of doing so. By the same token, tenants have the financial incentive to reduce their consumption but lack the ability and means to improve the efficiency of the dwelling. In some apartment blocks, energy bills are not assigned on an individual basis but instead split equally amongst the occupants. In this situation the financial incentive to reduce consumption is removed altogether. A further barrier to change for Swiss households relates to the nature of the building stock. Many towns are dominated by old, historical buildings. Obtaining the necessary permits to carry out building work on such properties can present a major obstacle to energy efficiency improvements. Participants expressed frustration at the lack of transparency in the way permits are allocated from one municipality to the next. Transport accounts for around 35% of Switzerlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy consumption and since 1970 passenger miles have been on the increase, particularly for private road travel. The public transport system is well developed in Switzerland, which has the most densely developed railway network in the world. Villages not connected to the railway are usually served by public service vehicles or post office vans.

2.1.6

Hungary

Energy prices have risen significantly in Hungary in recent years and the relative electricity price is by far the highest of the countries involved in this project. The majority of focus group respondents agreed that financial considerations were the most important in relation to heating and electricity use. Whilst cost is the primary decision-making factor, comfort also featured high on the list of priorities. Some participants noted that efforts to increase the energy efficiency of their home had not been reflected in their bills. This could be linked to a coinciding growth in demand for electrical appliances, counteracting any potential savings from energy efficiency measures. District heating is the main heating source in Hungary. Nuclear energy is the major source of electricity production, accounting for almost 40% of the total. Only 20% of oil and gas is produced in the country, hence energy dependence is very strong and Russian energy imports play a significant role. The Hungarian national target for electricity production from renewable sources was 3.6% by 2010. This had been achieved by 2005, and the figure is expected to reach 5.8% by 2010. Biomass and hydropower plants are the main sources of renewable energy. The new Energy Policy Concept in Hungary is based on three strategic pillars: security of energy supply; competitiveness of the energy sector; and sustainability. While energy demand in the industrial and agricultural sectors has decreased substantially, demand has grown significantly in the domestic and tertiary sectors. In the transport sector, CO2 emissions are growing 1.3% on average annually, due to the shift from rail to road transport. Further increases can be expected since road transport is the fastest growing transport segment. Many focus group participants felt modestly responsible for the level of environmental pollution due to their domestic use of energy and their transportation habits. However, many saw their contribution to the issue as insignificant in the global context. Instead, participants lay the burden of responsibility and resolution for the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic

Report BarEnergy

and environmental problems on businesses, political bodies and NGOs. Accepting responsibility on an individual level seemed unrealistic to many participants.

2.1.7

Overview of regimes

The table 1 below summarises the energy regime for each of the six countries.

Table 1: characteristics energy regimes

Net import

or export of electricity

Norway

Netherlands

France

Switzerland

Hungary

Export

Import

Export

Import

Export

Electricity

Gas

Electricity

Heating oil

District heating

Electricity

Coal

(2005)

(2004)

(2002)

(2000)

(2005)

Energy carrier for heating

Energy mix

(for electricity)

Heating oil Wood

Renewable (99%)

Regulated or deregulated

Renewables

Nuclear

(14%)

Nuclear

Gas Renewables

Coal

Waste and

renewables

Renewables Oil and gas

Biomass

Hydropower

Wind

Solar

Geothermal

Deregulated

(61%)

Coal

(1.4%)

Biomass Hydro Solar

Deregulated

Heating oil

Nuclear

Oil sources

Gas

Coal

(3.1%) Hydro

Wood

Gas

Renewables

Renewable

District heating

Wind

Deregulated

Biomass

Deregulated

Hydro

Solid biomass Solar

Thermal

Regulated

Partly regulated

These represent the regimes within which households and end consumers operate and make short- and long-term decisions relating to their energy consumption practices. As the table shows, there are significant differences between the countries involved in the study. This means that certain barriers to change will be more easily overcome in some countries than in others, and different technical, political and economic instruments will have varying levels of success.

Context descriptions of the countries involved

Energy saving

3.1

3.1.1

Energy saving Tommy Ose (SIFO)

Introduction

The BarEnergy project addresses behaviour change along three dimensions: energy saving within households, energy efficient purchases within households, and a move towards more sustainable and renewable energy technologies. This chapter summarises the results regarding ‘energy saving’, identifying the strength and relevance of different barriers to energy saving behaviour and making policy recommendations to identify what various stakeholders (e.g. political authorities, energy producers, and NGOs) can do to overcome these barriers.

What is energy saving?

In the context of this research, ‘energy saving’ refers to the day-to-day practices of domestic energy consumers, including their behaviour and attitudes in using different products and systems and reducing household energy consumption. The box below provides some examples of energy saving actions that may be undertaken in the home.

We have listed some examples for the 3 main areas of study: domestic energy use, household appliances, fuel consumption of cars. Domestic energy use: Heating/cooling behaviour: — Decrease the temperature in the dwelling/turn down — Switch off the light/heat in rooms that aren’t used — Putting on an extra garment instead of turning up the heat — Efficient airing — Conserve hot water Household appliances: Use of appliances: — Not leaving appliances on stand-by — Switching off lights — Not using appliances unnecessarily/in a wasteful manner — Doing laundry at low temperatures

Report BarEnergy

— Using a lid when cooking — Not using the microwave to defrost — Using the oven’s heat to heat the kitchen after cooking — To defrost one’s fridge and one’s freezer Fuel consumption of cars: — Making efforts to drive more efficiently and in a less fuel consuming manner — Cutting down on short distance driving, using alternative means of transport instead — Opting for public transport instead of using private cars. — Choosing car-pooling or car-sharing options

3.1.2

Relevance of study

Why save energy in the first place? The arguments for saving energy are both rational in nature and of a more normative and moralistic quality [Moussaoui, 2007/EDF-12]. Such responses can be rudimentarily classified in to four main categories: — Economic and financial arguments – saving money — Environmental argument – saving the environment — Anti-waste argument – waste of resources is not rational — The argument of over consumption – it is morally wrong to consume more than is needed. Energy saving behaviour is something every consumer could practise, at any time and with little effort, by making small adjustments to daily habits. It is the collective impact of these small, individual changes that offers significant potential in the effort to reduce energy consumption. This chapter identifies the main barriers that prevent individuals from contributing to energy saving. Using the results from the stakeholder interviews, the barriers are ranked according to their relevance and potential to contribute to the wider energy saving agenda. Findings are presented for the three core areas identified under the heading of ‘energy saving’ - domestic energy use, household appliances and fuel consumption of cars - and the subsequent sub-topics that fall under these three headings.

3.2 Barriers to energy saving in the domain of domestic energy use 3.2.1

Heating behaviour

The 87 stakeholder interviews1 included representatives from: political authorities; semi-public institutions; appliance and car industry interest groups; appliance and car manufacturers; educational institutions; and NGO’s. As such, the results capture a wide range of viewpoints and therefore provide a good indication as to what may be considered the main barriers to changing domestic heating practices. The figure below summarises the results for all six countries, with the barriers in order of importance as ranked by the stakeholders.

Energy saving

Heating behavior

Lack of willingness of inhabitants to reduce temperature Lack of knowledge of inhabitants about airing out rooms Lack of thermostat (temperature regulation is not possible) Lack of willingness of inhabitants to air out room energy Lack of thermometer Lack of knowledge of inhabitants about healthy temperature 1

Figure 6: Barriers on Heating behaviour

The table below draws on results from both the stakeholder interviews and consumer focus groups. The barriers are categorised within the established framework and ranked according to the stakeholder specifications as above. Each of these is then discussed in detail below. Barrier categories

Examples

Individual/

• Comfort is a priority

barriers

• Habits of switching off and turning down are not well established

psychological

Cultural normative and social barriers

Knowledge based barriers

• Habits are hard to change – energy saving demands effort • Lack of belief in individual effort making a difference

• The responsibility for environment is considered secondary to personal gain/spending

• Habit of high indoor temperatures • Lack of knowledge regarding heating technology

• Lack of knowledge regarding efficient airing and healthy indoor temperatures

• Lack of specific information - information is too generic Economic barriers

• Energy is too cheap for many to change behaviour

• Construction plans for cheapest solutions –energy saving responsibility rests with the consumers

Physical and

structural barriers

Political barriers

• Lack of direct feedback on levels of energy consumption or saving – meters/bills

• No possibility to regulate heating levels locally • Coordination of multiple initiatives

1) For detailed information about the stakeholder interviews, content and methodology, see www.Barenergy.eu – Stakeholder Report – Integrated European Report – D20

Report BarEnergy

Cultural-Normative barrier / Individual – psychological barrier The findings from this research provide further evidence of the dialectic link between individual/psychological barriers and cultural norms. — The custom and comfort of high indoor temperatures A key barrier identified through the consumer focus groups (in all participating countries) in the context of heating relates to the primacy of cultural norms for ‘warmth’, ‘comfort’ and ‘wellbeing’. There was a general sense of comfort being the top priority and governing domestic heating practises:

“Well, we don’t sit at home feeling cold! I set the switch high, so it is really nice and warm, but we do make sure that it is turned down when we leave, so that it is not on unnecessarily.” (HU) Whilst in other areas of domestic energy consumption participants maintained a ‘costbenefit’ approach, the same did not apply for heating. Here comfort and warmth took precedence over financial considerations. There appeared to be an undefined ‘threshold’ by which many individuals would be prepared to pay higher energy prices in order to maintain existing habits and practices:

“Nowadays everyone wants to have a warm temperature at home and nobody is ready to cut back because of convenience when it comes to the topic of heating.” (CH) The extent to which comfort is prioritised over cost may be linked to the unit price of energy. In Hungary for example, where energy is very expensive, focus group participants demonstrated greater willingness to engage in energy saving practices or invest in energy efficiency measures. Conversely, in the UK and Norway where the relative unit price of energy is much lower, attitudes amongst participants tended towards maintaining a level of warmth and comfort ‘at any cost’, with less inclination to engage in energy saving practices. The research findings also suggest that the greater the burden of fuel bills, the greater the motivation for households to reduce their energy consumption, as a means of reducing expenditure. Focus group participants in CH on the whole agreed with this observation, although they also suggested a ‘cut off’ point exists, where priorities for comfort and financial considerations begin to conflict, prompting changes to energy consuming practices. Such a threshold would be higher in higher income countries where maintaining the desired level of comfort and warmth is less of a financial burden. Some participants argued that they would be more likely to turn the heating up than to put on an extra layer of clothing and others maintained that they preferred a ‘t-shirt’ temperature indoors. In CH and NO, it is very common to have a very warm house during cold months, to the extent that people can wear a t-shirt indoors during the winter. This could be construed as a cultural/psychological barrier against energy saving practices and routines – a difficult proposition for policy-makers but, nonetheless, an issue which must be acknowledged. In NO the focus group discussions gave indications that people crave a higher indoor temperature and more lighting, creating a “cosy” atmosphere to compensate for the colder and darker climate:

“Well, I do not know. I admit I leave the heating on high temperature all day, even when I am not at home. But it is so nice to arrive to a flat that is already hot.” HU

Energy saving

Heating behavior

“It should be quite expensive before I consider putting more clothes on, or turning down the heat a lot.” NO “I would say that comfort comes before the bill.” UK Based on the findings from all the empirical research we can deduce that personal comfort often takes higher priority than saving energy, or environmental concerns. In CH a high comfort level was seen as particularly important, and stakeholders claimed that it is not uncommon for the thermostat to be set at a ‘comfortable’ 24 degrees. This suggests that the level of energy consumption required to maintain such a temperature is a luxury that people are prepared to pay for and consider affordable. Another individual barrier that was identified is the personal effort that is required to save energy and ensuring these are a part of daily life and habits, for example remembering to switch off lights and appliances, turning the heating down/off in rooms that are not in use. Focus group participants also noted a lack of evidence of energy saving behaviour on a larger scale and wider, structural issues, for example, large public office buildings with the lights on 24/7 as having an impact on personal behaviour. Seeing energy being wasted on a large scale in their surroundings prompted some of focus group participants to question the value and meaning of their own personal efforts to reduce their consumption. Many argued that their efforts will make little difference and have little value in the scheme of things. This issue is related to another barrier against acting on information on the need to save energy. Individual consumers are often demotivated to act as they feel that their contribution to, or impact on, the environment is not visible or measurable.

Knowledge barrier — Lack of knowledge regarding heating technology, airing and related energy saving actions The focus groups discussions revealed that some consumers do not adjust their heating levels at home, due to a lack of technical know-how about their heating system (NO, UK). A lack of confidence in their ability to operate the system was enough to prevent some households altering settings or timers to suit their personal heating needs. This lack of understanding eliminates any opportunity for energy savings which could be achieved through very simple, no-cost measures. It suggests there is potential for product improvements by manufacturers of heating technology to develop more user friendly solutions:

“Yes, I got one grant when I invested in electronic temperature adjusters for my heaters. But I didn’t use it…like I said earlier.(She could not figure out how to adjust them). Also, I said yes to one of these shower heads, and got something for installing that.”(NO) Lack of knowledge amongst consumers about energy efficient airing and ventilation was also identified as a barrier. Residents often lack knowledge about their dwelling and how to heat and ventilate it efficiently, resulting in wasteful heating practices. This topic, and others closely linked to it, was flagged as highly relevant, being mentioned both in the stakeholder interviews and consumer focus groups in the majority of the participating countries (CH, NL, NO, HU, UK).

Report BarEnergy

Related to this, the focus group discussions also uncovered a lack of understanding about what constitutes a healthy indoor temperature, (HU, NL, NO, UK). There was much variation in internal temperatures between households, even within the same country, which could not therefore be related to climatic or geographic differences. Room thermostats and thermometers were not common place for some, leading to a general disregard for the issue (NO):

“I think this is a general problem as many people have no idea how much energy they are using in general, e.g. how much it takes to heat a house. At my workplace and also when with friends I see that most people know far too little about energy issues and are not aware of the topic at all.”(CH) — Lack of specific information – information is too generic There was a widespread and strong desire amongst participants in the focus groups discussions for knowledge about what improvements could be made to their own home, and the potential benefits. Here, participants tended to focus on physical and technological improvements that could be done to their homes, rather than on changing behaviour and habits. There seemed to be a distinct lack of knowledge about personal consumption patterns, and a technical solution seemed preferable to a change in behaviour. For example, in the UK almost all of the stakeholders interviewed felt that the government needed to fund/encourage a higher and more enhanced level (face-to-face) of energy advice provision. This viewpoint was also mirrored in the findings from the focus groups across several other countries, in particular in NL and NO.

“If someone could come home to you, looks at your house, and then suggest improvements. That would be great. Because then it would be customised to your specific needs. Instead of looking at an internet site, reading about changing your windows..yeah, but do I need that? Better with an expert saying, these windows are so old, that you could save a lot by changing them.”(NO) “There is a need for concrete information to make educated decisions. Consumers will make decisions and statements like “I don’t think that energy saving light bulbs saves energy….and thus they don’t act on it.”(NO) “It is really not that difficult to save energy when you know how to do it. Often we simply do not know how to proceed. For example, if you know how to fill the dishwasher correctly you only have to run your machine every other day.”(CH) A common perception in both the stakeholder interviews and the focus group discussions was that the information to encourage energy-saving behaviour was too generic and there is a distinct lack of advice tailored to consumers’ own specific situations. This is a contributing factor to the lack of “know-how” amongst household, particularly pertinent in NO and FR. Several of the focus group participants expressed a strong desire for information and acknowledged their own lack of knowledge about energy saving. Individuals may be more motivated to change their behaviour if they could be confident that their actions were based on accurate and relevant, tailored information. Stakeholders from NL, CH, HU and NO mentioned previous information campaigns, but felt that these usually had limited impact. Similarly, some of the stakeholders interviewed also claimed that simply engaging consumers through information

Energy saving

Heating behavior

campaigns was not enough to stimulate behavioural change and/or the uptake of measures. In the UK and NL stakeholders considered it the role of the government to address this issue, making individuals more aware of their responsibility as a consumer. This is one example of where there needs to be greater synergy between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ policy measures.

Economic barriers — Cost, savings and heating behaviour Costs and savings appear to be major influencing factors over consumer heating behaviour in all of the countries studied here. There is little evidence of any financial incentive for reducing electricity consumption in CH, NL, NO and UK. This suggests that a relatively low energy price is a prevalent barrier to energy saving. Having said that, however, consumers in all of the participating countries appeared to be much more likely to switch off and turn down their heating because of concerns about high costs rather than concerns about the environment. Within this context, the energy discourse amongst consumers – particularly in the focus groups – seemed to be dominated by a cost/benefit perspective. Any environmental impacts of energy saving were primarily perceived as positive side effects at best, rather than aims in themselves:

“I am not particularly interested in the environment… I want to know whether I can save money by changing my energy behaviour, not whether it is good for the environment or not”(NL) “I have already changed my routines – close the doors, turn the thermostat down, use less water. I found out about it on the Internet, it said I could save €700 a year by doing this. I tried it, and it’s true. The savings, that is how I got interested” (NL) “When I decided to improve the energy efficiency of my house, I really wanted to save money by doing that. So at the end of the day one can see that it is simply about money. We can speak very nobly about all kinds of sustainable energy sources, but actually we really only act in a sustainable way when it is also economically worth it!” (CH) “Well, I tend to switch things off properly but the last thing on my mind is the effect it may or may not have on the planet…it’s a cost thing” (UK) In the focus groups, the discussions around energy saving invariably quickly shifted towards costs and saving money, these being the dominant factors for consumers in deciding whether to switch off or turn down. Whilst we maintain that price levels are an important driver, the notion of ‘comfort versus cost’ dominates the debate. The consumer and stakeholder discussions around heating behaviour lead to the hypothesis that householders are very skilled in acting like rational economic consumers, relying on economic arguments to justify and rationalise their energy consumption behaviour. However, for some it is not simply a case of economics, as the quote below illustrates:

“I think about the environment, and the future of my children, a lot… I want them to grow up in a pleasant environment. So I try to do what I can within certain limits… (pauses)… saving energy should not be too costly, and I still want to be comfortable…” (NL)

Report BarEnergy

In general the findings from the empirical studies allude to personal comfort being the dominant factor preventing households from switching off or turning down when it comes to heating the home, even if much of their own reasoning is centred on potential financial savings. The relatively low prices of energy for heating pitted against individual desire for comfort should therefore be seen as a very dominant and influential barrier; a barrier which represents a significant political challenge in most of the countries of study, possibly with the exception of HU where energy costs are relatively higher:

“I try to save energy wherever I can: lowering the thermostat, shorter shower time… but I do take care that my home remains comfortable as well; it is important to have a comfortable home.” (NL) “In our home, I do not allow the thermostat to be set above 20 Celsius. Those in my family who are cold should put on a pullover, if it is not hot enough for them.”(HU) “I’m forever going round turning things off…you know? I’ll walk upstairs and my daughter’s on her computer and the TV’s on, but she’s not watching the TV. It’s cost.” (UK) To summarise, in most of the participating countries, the price of energy is not considered sufficiently high for consumers to consider changing their behaviour. Comfort seems to take priority over personal finances when it comes to heating behaviour, even though the cost-benefit perspective tends to dominate the debate for individual consumers. It could be argued however that this trend to prioritize comfort should not deter policy initiatives that aim to capitalise on the economically rational discourse of “saving money”, which consumers willingly embrace. Such initiatives could also allude to potential positive environmental impacts. In short, it might be possible to take advantage of consumers’ focus on monetary factors in motivating behaviour change, by focusing campaigns on the potential cost savings from different actions.

“I think they have to squeeze me on price. Also tell me: what does it cost to drive? How much does one shower cost? How much does a bath in the evening cost? How much to use the washing machine once etc.”(NO) — New development prioritises low cost solutions over energy efficiency When discussing costs and heating in the context of design and construction, stakeholders suggested that there was often too great an emphasis on developing the cheapest solution, rather than the most energy efficient. In NO for example, some stakeholders claimed that the construction industry lacked innovative drive, with the main motivation for construction companies being to build as cheaply as possible. As such, there is little consideration of the long-term running costs of a development, which then falls to the consumer. This represents a real missed opportunity in terms of incorporating energy efficiency measures at the design and building stage.

Physical – structural barrier — Lack of direct feedback on levels of energy consumption or saving When discussing domestic energy costs, participants in CH, NL, NO and UK explicitly expressed a desire for information on the potential savings that could be achieved by adopting different energy efficiency measures.

Energy saving

Heating behavior

Participants from these countries talked about a lack of information regarding both their current energy consumption patterns, and potential ways to reduce their consumption. They felt that energy consumption, and potential savings particularly, were not visible to them. This problem stems from the infrequency and inadequacy of billing practices: consumers often only receive (at best) a monthly bill; with no cost breakdown (CH); and/or are unable to understand the material presented to them (UK). As such, consumers have little information on which to act:

“The big problem is the following: in a car, I can measure exactly how much fuel my car consumes in a month and I am able to restrict my fuel consumption accordingly. On the other hand, with power, I have absolutely no control. The electricity meter is somewhere in the basement. Once a year someone will read it and at the end of the year, I receive the bill and am shocked by it. There is lot of room for improvement here. For example, systems could be developed which visually or acoustically show how much power I am currently consuming. That would certainly provide an incentive.” (CH) “I have heard of devices which can be attached to each radiator. These are expensive, but these devices measure energy consumption allowing me to regulate my energy consumption so that consumers would not only receive a total billing of energy costs. This would definitely be an incentive for me to think about my energy consumption more.” (CH) The lack of consumer information on energy used for heating is partially down to current supply systems, which lack both the necessary tools and incentives to provide data to householders in a more accessible format. When energy consumption, and especially energy savings, are not visible (e.g. on the monthly bill), it is very difficult for the consumer to make the connection between a certain act or pattern of behaviour and the cost savings. As a result, motivation to act may be diminished:

“I didn’t see my electricity bill decrease since I have been using these things. But who knows, I may be using more electricity by some other means.”(HU) Consumers thus have no way of knowing their “energy footprint”, and many felt that this acted as a barrier to energy saving at home. Some of the data in the stakeholder interviews and the focus group discussions also suggested that, in some cases, for example in apartment buildings or when there is collective ownership of some kind, individuals cannot act on their own. Whether it comes to changing their windows, their source of heating, or in some extreme cases, to adjusting their heating levels, consumers may have limited power to act i.e. where the local management structure for a building requires a joint central decision. Instead, decisions have to be taken at the collective group level. This was a key topic of discussion in CH, HU and NO:

“I live in a rented apartment and cannot do anything about my heating system. Our flat is heated by a central heating system. Therefore I cannot do much about my energy consumption as our heating system is practically impossible to regulate individually.” (CH)

Report BarEnergy

Political barrier Political barriers were not raised as important factors in the focus group discussions, with the exception of HU, where several stakeholders articulated a desire for more funding from central government bodies and the EU. This suggests on a consumer level, the burden of responsibility for energy saving is perceived to rest with the individual, and the role of the government is more auxiliary, supporting actions through incentives and regulations.

3.2.2

Summary on energy saving in the domain of domestic energy use

The results from the empirical research suggest that knowledge barriers dominate and are the major factor deterring consumers from adopting energy saving practices. Consumers in the focus groups also highlighted a lack of direct and timely feedback on energy consumption levels and potential savings related to different actions. This becomes particularly pertinent when considering the importance of the economic rationale driving consumer energy behaviour in the home. Our findings also suggest that there are similarities across all six participating countries with the potential for cost to act as both a barrier and a window of opportunity to more sustainable domestic energy use. Appealing to the wallet of the individual consumer in striving to achieve environmental goals might not be a too far fetched proposition, but this might take on a more nuanced approached than simply implementing top-down economic instruments. The research suggests that consumers would consider rationing their use once the cost of energy became prohibitive, as personal comfort generally takes priority. However, current energy prices appear to be too low for the majority to make an effort to either change their habits or compromise their lifestyles. Drawing on the findings from all the empirical studies therefore suggests that the interlinked individual/psychological and cultural-social barriers are the most pertinent in the context of domestic energy use. As such, these should be a key driver in the debate for policy-makers. Comfort appears to be the top priority for many – ahead of both economic and environmental concerns. Here both daily habits and the personal effort required in adopting energy saving behaviour are important factors. In addition, whilst much relevant information on the salience of energy conservation and environmental issues appears to be available in most countries, this is generally only accessed by consumers who are motivated to look for it. That the information is not readily available and easily accessible to all should therefore still be considered as a barrier under this topic.

3.3

Household appliances This section explores the issues and research findings relating to energy saving in the area of ‘cooking and baking’ and ‘use of appliances’.

3.3.1

Cooking and Baking

The subject of cooking behaviour was chosen as an area of study based on a survey by Bush et al. (2007)2. The survey explored the potential energy savings related to consumer behaviour in using appliances and performing a range of household tasks. It showed that the greatest potential for savings (50%) were in lighting and cooking/ baking. The stakeholder interviews conducted in CH, FR, HU, NO and UK discussed the issue

Energy saving

Cooking and Baking

of cooking behaviour. This topic was not discussed in the focus groups and the quantitative survey as other issues were considered of higher priority for these work packages. The stakeholder interviews showed that consumers do not follow energy efficient practices in cooking and baking for the following reasons:

Lack of willingness of consumers Lack of knowledge of consumers Difficulty to identify the right information Too low power price 1

Figure 7: Average of respondents’ ratings to barriers to more energy efficient cooking and baking

The table below lists the full range of barriers to energy efficient cooking habits under the relevant framework headings. Barriers are ranked in order of relevance ascertained through the stakeholder interviews. A detailed discussion of each one follows below.

Barrier categories

Examples

Individual/psychological

• Lack of consumer will to save energy

barriers

Knowledge based barriers

• Energy saving is behind taste, preparation time and health when cooking

• Lack of knowledge of the potential to influence energy consumption as individuals

• Lack of feedback on alternative cooking and baking practices in terms of energy saving

Physical and

• Lack of feedback on energy consumption from appliances used

Economic barriers

• Energy prices are too low for many consumers to consider

Cultural normative

• Cooking and baking has strong cultural ties and is deeply habitual

structural barriers

and social barriers

for cooking and baking

changing their behaviour

Individual psychological barriers The main barrier to saving energy in cooking and baking behaviour appeared to be the lack of will (CH, HU). Energy saving is not high on the agenda for many consumers when preparing food: taste, preparation time and nutrition appear to take priority.

2) Bush, E., Josephy, B., & Nipkow, J. (2007). Energetisches Einsparpotenzial von Fördermassnahmen für energieeffiziente Haushaltgeräte: Bush Energie GmbH & ARENA.

Report BarEnergy

Knowledge barriers Interviewees suggested that consumers often lack a clear and informed idea of how they can influence energy consumption as individuals, as discussed in the previous section on domestic energy use. This also applies to cooking and baking. However, as before, representatives from NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and semi-public organisations maintained that information is available, if the consumer actively seeks it. Again, it therefore seems that both a communication and a motivational challenge exists. Whilst consumers usually have some level of understanding of what it means to be energy efficient, they lack detailed and concrete information about their energy consumption. This issue extends to cooking and baking. Without timely feedback on how much energy different cooking practices consume (e.g. the differences between frying, microwaving, etc) it is very difficult for consumers to make informed decisions to reduce their energy consumption. This barrier was ranked of medium to high relevance in the stakeholder interviews.

Physical and structural barriers The physical barriers identified in relation to energy saving in cooking and baking include the perceived knowledge barriers, and the lack of appropriate metering systems to provide the required information (CH, HU).

Economic barriers The low price of energy, resulting in limited financial incentive to change behaviour and practices, was discussed in the previous section. This was considered highly relevant in the context of cooking and baking by all stakeholders, except in CH and NO. It is not clear from the research why financial considerations were not considered important to cooking and baking practices in these two countries. However, the implication is that economics are considered to bear such strong relevance in other areas of household energy consumption (such as heating), therefore diminishing their perceived relevance to this specific household task.

Cultural normative and social barriers The lack of will to save energy is linked to the perception that it is generally difficult or unrealistic to change habits and patterns of behaviour in the area of cooking and baking. For example, in FR results showed that cooking was closely tied to long term habits and cultural practices. Stakeholders suggested that consumers may be unwilling to make the effort to change their habits, e.g. putting a lid on the pan when cooking, due to a lack of awareness of the impact of such changes on both preparation time and energy consumption.

Political barriers No political barriers were considered to be pertinent under this topic.

Energy saving

Use of appliances

The quantitative consumer survey focused on the specific act of turning off lights when vacating an unoccupied room. This was identified as something that every individual could do, and is relevant to every household. Participants were asked to indicate how often they turn off the light when leaving unoccupied rooms on a scale of 1 (never) to 7 (always). The results are shown in Figure 8.

50,0%

Percentage of participants

3.3.2

Use of appliances

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

Ligth use

Figure 8: Light use: how often lights are turned off

Figure 8 shows that the majority of survey respondents turn off the lights most of the time: approximately 70% reported that they always or nearly always turn off the lights when they vacate an unoccupied room. Almost no participants report that they never turn off the lights when vacating an unoccupied room. In contrast to some of the focus groups discussions, younger people appeared to be less inclined to switch off lights. However, there were no significant differences in either the stakeholder interviews or the focus group discussions in relation to demographic factors (age, gender, income, education, urbanization level, political orientation or household composition.) Differences between countries were not pronounced, except in the case of Norway where there was a lower tendency to switch off lights. This could be related to Norwayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relatively cheap electricity prices and the high proportion of renewable energy, coupled with the findings from the survey that habitual practices are a key driving factor. The stakeholder interviews and focus groups explored the use of a wide range of household appliances. The barriers listed below are therefore not limited to switching off lights.

Report BarEnergy

Barriers Barrier categories

Examples

Individual/psychological

• Personal effort required to switch appliances off properly, or just

Knowledge based barriers

• Lack of knowledge about energy consumption levels of appliances –

Physical and

• Some appliances require re-programming after being switched off

Economic barriers

• Low energy prices.

barriers

structural barriers

remembering to do it.

poor basis for making energy saving decisions.

completely.

Individual/psychological barriers There are a number of different strategies that consumers adopt when switching off appliances. This was evident in the findings of the ‘state of the art’ research and from the empirical data. One of the most common strategies is to turn off stand-by modes, by pressing the actual button on the appliance rather than, for example, using a remote control. In the focus group discussions, some consumers expressed frustration that so many new electronic devices came with stand-by modes (FR). Another approach is to unplug the appliance altogether, or to connect several power outlets to one switch that enables them all to be turned off simultaneously. These strategies were mentioned in several of the countries of study, and applied most frequently, but not exclusively to TV’s. All of these switching off strategies require at least some effort from the individual, although technical solutions can help:

“I usually don’t turn off all my appliances, mainly due to laziness. However, I have considered remodelling my house to install a device which would allow me to turn off appliances with a single switch through one central control function.” (CH) “I just think we cannot be bothered. We are too lazy (to switch off). We used to have to get up and go over to the TV to switch it off. Then people started using some sort of stick to push the button in, and now we have the remote. Cause you cannot be bothered to get up and go over there and switch off the radio or TV.” (NO) “I have to admit I am too lazy. I only turn my appliances completely off if I am going to be gone for more than 2-3 days. At home, usually my appliances, including computers, run permanently. However, I do not have a television. Also my coffee machine turns off automatically after a certain time. I bought the machine partly because of this function. I only turn off my computer when I am definitely not going to be home for a few days.” (CH) Some of the focus group participants who said they unplug appliances at home, admitted that their motivation to do this was primarily for safety, above energy savings (NL, NO). Their rationale was to avoid fire hazards.

Energy saving

Use appliances

“I unplug appliances after using them because of safety reasons. Kettles are known to cause fire easily – I am careful to unplug my electrical devices.” (NL) “Very smart to turn it off, especially thinking about the fire hazard. I think about the fire hazard and nothing else really.”(NL) The principal barrier preventing consumers from switching off appliances appears to be the effort required to do so, and indeed remembering to do so. The consumer survey explored the concept of habitual practices as a barrier to energy saving behaviour. The results suggest that turning off lights is a highly routine behaviour, and one that is (reportedly) followed by the majority of respondents in all countries (except Norway).

”Being 64 years old, I will not change my habits. I will simply not do it… I live with my wife, we had worked throughout all our lives. I do not want to keep checking if I switched off the lights in the hall all the time, just do not want it.”(HU) “I cannot change my habits. I am used to doing things the same ways as I have always been doing them. If I have not changed in the last 29 years, I will not change in the future. I’d much rather invest in energy saving devices than change my old habits.”(HU) The survey results also suggest that individuals feel a relatively strong moral obligation to turn lights off (personal norm) and that it is expected of them (subjective norm). The subjective and personal norms to turn off lights were relatively strong compared to other kinds of behaviours. This subjective norm was also evident in the upbringing of children:

“I’m teaching my children to turn everything off…so the laptops, the Xbox, the TV…everything off.” (UK) “They’re not switching off because they are not paying the bill are they?I’m pretty sure they won’t make the link until its coming out of their own pocket” (UK) Analysis of the survey results shows that psychological factors explain 49% of all the variance in lighting behaviour3. This suggests that the psychological barriers are very pertinent when it comes to switching off lights, with ‘habit’ being the single most influential factor. The findings from the stakeholder interviews support this result, with individual/psychological barriers being ranked most important in the context of switching off appliances more generally.

Knowledge barriers The focus groups revealed a real lack of awareness amongst consumers about the energy consumption of different household appliances. This was implicit in the group discussions around which appliances consume the most, where there was little evidence of sound knowledge. This lack of understanding represents a significant barrier to more energy efficient behaviour in the use of appliances.

3) This was done by a regression analysis. For the complete tables see www.Barenergy.eu – European report of the survey – D24

Report BarEnergy

“The problem is that I cannot tell in my own flat how much energy my different appliances use. I am not given a meter that I could plug in somewhere to measure the energy consumption. I have no opportunity to see the difference. Similarly, I have no opportunity to compare the annual or monthly gas consumption of my household before and after.” (HU) Despite a clear lack of knowledge, consumers did not explicitly express a desire for more information. This suggests a lack of motivation to change behaviour in relation to the use of appliances. This could be linked to issues previously discussed: 1) the relatively low price of energy, and 2) comfort and lifestyle being top priority. There was also evidence in the focus group discussions to suggest that consumers may undertake energy saving actions based on misconceptions, rather than sound and accurate knowledge about the relevance and applicability of their actions. Whilst to some extent energy labels were considered useful, some focus group participants found them confusing and others expressed a desire for more specific information, particularly in relation to the consumption of an appliance during usage and over its lifetime.

“I changed my mind about dishwashers. The program showed that it’s better to wash your dishes in the machine than by hand, because it consumes a lot less water and energy” (FR) “If I know that the energy use of an appliance costs me €200 a year, and it’s only €50 more expensive than an appliance that costs €100 a year in energy, I would buy the appliance that has a higher initial price”(NL) “If they’d clearly state how much money an appliance costs each year in energy costs, I’d take it into account, but I cannot understand these labels…”(NL)

Physical and structural barriers In FR and NO focus group participants noted the physical barrier that exists with certain appliances having a default stand-by mode. To switch such appliances off completely (i.e. at the socket) entails extra effort and introduces a potential hasslefactor if the appliance subsequently requires re-programming. This was a notable physical barrier for some:

“[Sarcastic tone] My TV has a ‘pretty’ little red light, and when I turn it on, it turns blue, it’s great…But it doesn’t turn off” (FR) “If you unplug them then everything gets reset and you get everything…all the clocks are wrong and everything and that really annoys me and yet it annoys me that the technology’s there to shut it down”. (UK)

Economic barriers As in the discussion of domestic heating, cost was the primary driver for consumers making a conscious decision to switch off appliances. This suggests that the relatively low energy price observed in most of the countries in the study would constitute a barrier to switching off appliances (FR, NO, UK).

Energy saving

Use appliances

The action of unplugging or switching off appliances can be the source of negotiations and conflict within a households (HU, NO, UK). During the focus group discussions, it was apparent that many parents – driven by the economic rationale of not wasting/ saving money - frequently told their children to unplug or switch off appliances that were not in use. This could lead to frustration on both sides:

“I am obsessed with switching the lights off… I always go and switch the lights off after my children.” (HU) ”I refuse to let my daughter use the washer and dryer for only one pair of jeans. Also, showering 3 times a day is not on…changing towels every time. She was also using the hair-dryer all the time, even in the summer .Also; she used to wash one pair of pants, and then the dryer for the same pair after-wards. That has stopped now. I told her.” (NO) Some consumers mentioned that they had disposed of appliances (UK), and others that they had not replaced broken appliances (NO), primarily for financial reasons. However, this only really applied to devices that were not considered a necessity and/ or perceived as being high energy consumption, and there is a strong conflicting trend showing a growing demand for household appliances, as discussed below:

“The computer is highly needed. I use it for work and the kid also uses it. The TV is on quite a lot of the time, too, but well the missus needs that. My children also have their own TV sets. But we do try to use less energy by switching lights off, and we do not leave the TV on stand by.”(HU) “When I bought a computer I thought, I need an external disk drive, a DVD player, a matching TV, etc. And similarly, with the TV, I needed a matching sound system, a video camera... - And a camera too” (FR)

Cultural normative and social barriers The consumer survey revealed strong cultural norms when it came to switching off lights. This was reaffirmed by results from the focus group discussions: consumers perceived switching off as a habitual issue established in childhood, and as such parents try to teach their children to adopt the same practice. The expectation of other household members (i.e. the moral obligation) was seen as a pertinent factor.

Political barriers There were no political barriers of relevance to the use of appliances. The responsibility for switching off appliances lies with the individual consumer.

3.3.3 Summary on energy saving behaviour within the domain of household appliances

With regard to cooking and baking, the lack of consumer will to change behaviour is highly relevant. The individual and psychological barriers are almost certainly linked to additional underlying barriers related to lack of knowledge and feedback on actions, and low energy prices, which limit motivation to act. As with cooking and baking, the habitual factor is perceived to be strong when it comes to the use of appliances. Switching off lights is a highly routine behaviour and both personal and collective norms are important influencing factors. Habit was the single

Report BarEnergy

most important factor determining whether participants switched appliances off. The “use of appliances” displays similarities to “domestic energy use” in that knowledge barriers are again considered important and relevant. However, for appliance use, the knowledge barrier is far more specific, with information being required about the consumption of individual appliances. This was a notable knowledge gap for consumers. Structural barriers were also relevant to appliance use, in that today many appliances lack the option to switch them off completely (without pulling the plug out), but instead have a default stand-by mode. The requirement for reprogramming if an appliance is switched off completely adds a further layer to this structural barrier. This suggests there is considerable scope for technological innovation to complement behaviour change in this area. There was evidence, particularly from the focus group discussions, of a cultural shift in what is perceived to be a necessity and luxury appliance in today’s modern lifestyle. Furthermore, there appears a growing demand and expectation for appliances in the home. Addressing these shifting perceptions and expectations poses a real challenge for governing bodies and policy makers.

3.4

Fuel consumption of cars A range of behaviours were explored in the context of transportation, including: — Making efforts to drive more efficiently and in a less fuel consuming manner — Cutting down on short distance driving, using alternative means of transport instead — Opting for private cars instead of using public transport — Car pooling or sharing Each of these encompass different motives, face different barriers and pose different challenges for policy makers.

3.4.1

Making efforts to drive more efficiently and in a less fuel consuming manner

Driving efficiently can save energy and costs. This can be achieved by gentle acceleration and deceleration; shifting up the gears at lower speeds; ensuring tyres are inflated to the correct pressure, etc4. Reducing energy consumption in the car relies entirely on the behaviour of the individual driver. This topic was only discussed in one of the stakeholder interviews (NO), thus only one clear barrier was identified. Barrier categories

Examples

Knowledge based barriers

• Many drivers already think that they drive well and do not realise the potential for improvement.

4) Energy saving trust. (2010). Smarter driving. Available: http://www.energysavingtrust. org.uk/Travel/Drivers/Smarter-driving. Last accessed 1 July 2010.

Energy saving

Short distance driving

Knowledge barriers Identifying relevant information about driving more efficiently was considered relatively difficult. At the same time, there is a clear lack of knowledge amongst professional and private car drivers about efficient driving practices and the potential fuel savings that could be achieved. The stakeholders interviewed noted that drivers may not even be aware, or willing to accept, that this knowledge gap exists. This suggests therefore that even if more information was readily available, there would be little demand for it at present.

3.4.2 Cutting down on short distance driving, using alternative means of transport instead

Car use is one of the main contributors to environmental problems. Short-distance car journeys represent a key opportunity for energy savings as there are often a number of alternatives already available (walking, cycling, taking the bus/tram/tube etc). In the quantitative survey participants were asked to indicate how often they use a car to travel short distances (defined as less than 5km), on a scale of 1 (always) to 7 (never). The results show a fairly even spread for short distance journeys (Figure 9), with 43% using the car always, mostly or never for short distance journeys, compared to 56% overall who reported to use a car.

Percentage of participants

20,0%

15,0%

10,0%

5,0%

0,0%

Short-distance car use

Figure 9: Short distance car use

Demographics The extent to which people use a car to travel short distances differs considerably between countries and different demographic groups. Participants in Hungary, The Netherlands and Switzerland tend to use alternatives to cars for short distances more frequently than participants in the United Kingdom, France, and Norway.

Report BarEnergy

Rurality was also an important defining factor – not surprisingly people living in rural areas relied more heavily on the car for short distance journeys than those in urban areas. This difference was particularly pronounced in France and Norway (two large countries with an extensive, sparsely populated countryside). The survey results also show that participants living in an urban environment feel a greater social obligation to reduce their car use compared to those in rural settings. Urban dwellers also perceive an enhanced level of control over their travel behaviour, although the urban/ rural difference in respondent’s perceptions is not as stark as the reality here5. There is also evidence of a higher level of awareness amongst urban dwellers of the problems related to car use, compared to rural inhabitants. This was particularly apparent in Switzerland, whilst in Hungary the reverse effect was observed. The heightened awareness amongst urban dwellers is perhaps indicative of environmental problems from car use being more visible in these areas. People with lower income levels tend to use alternatives to cars more often than those with higher incomes. Political orientation appears to also affect transport mode choice, with left-wing oriented people more likely to seek alternatives for short-distance car travel. These differences were observed for participants in all countries except Hungary, and in Norway income level appears to be unrelated to short-distance car use. Barriers The barriers to walking and cycling (and therefore reducing car use) for short distance journeys identified in the stakeholder interviews (conducted in CH, HU, and NL) are shown below.

Planning is motor vehicle focused Inconvenience (longer travel time, waiting for the bus, etc…) Perceived lack of safety Lack of cars as a status symbol Change in lifestyle (pre-planning) required Little governmental support Lack of awareness of environmental, health, space and financial benefits of walking or biking short distances (planners and community) Justification for use of car (I have it, I should use it..) Lack of alternatives with heavy items (furniture, etc…) Insufficient public demand for more non-motorized paths 1

Figure 10: Averages of respondents’ ratings to barriers to decreased use of cars for short distance trips (under 5 km)

5) For the complete results, see www.Barenergy.eu – European report of the survey – D24

Energy saving

Short distance driving

The table below shows all the barriers identified under the relevant framework headings and ranked in order of importance (based on data from the three primary data sources). Barrier categories

Examples

Individual/psychological

• Private cars are convenient to use

barriers

• Planning trips is mostly focused on motor vehicles

• There is a personal attachment to the car and the freedom it provides

• Longer travel times without the car

• Lack of perceived safety by using alternative means Physical and Structural

• Lack of sufficient infrastructure supporting alternative means

Knowledge based barriers

• Low awareness of benefits of alternative means of transport

Political barriers

• Politicians are reluctant to make unpopular decisions, i.e. regulate

barriers

of transport

private car use

• Governmental support for reduction of short distance driving is seen as insufficient

Economic barriers

• Higher income indicates a higher level of short distance driving – high income/low costs is a barrier

Individual psychological barriers In the focus group discussions consumers were explicit about their preference and psychological attachment to the private car (CH, FR, HU, NL, NO), the implication being that the car is considered the most convenient form of transport, for a wide range of journeys (including the school run, the daily commute, or for going shopping). The inconvenience of longer travel times for alternative means of transport was a barrier mentioned by consumers in HU, NL, NO and UK. The car – and everyday practices associated with it - has become ingrained in modern lifestyles and culture. This is reflected in behaviour at an individual level:

“I’ll often drive the kids to school because I haven’t got enough time to walk them to school so I drive them to school. So my life has become dependent on sort of timing… so it’s a cultural issue.”(UK) “Logistics, both in terms of shopping a lot and also when delivering kids and so on.. much easier with a car. Saves time and hassle.”(NO) Using a private car is generally seen as the easiest option in most people’s daily lives, and urban planning is often centred on the car, making it the most convenient choice. Safety issues associated with other forms of transport were also raised, particularly in relation to cycling:

Report BarEnergy

“There are not enough bicycle routes. I cycle for a while, then the bicycle route ends, and I just stand there trying to figure out how to go on from there, because among the cars it is really perilous.”(HU) “Well I have got a cycle and I do like to cycle, but I wouldn’t where I live. We’ve got nice, quiet lanes so I do cycle on the lanes, but that’s just for pleasure…I wouldn’t cycle to work or anywhere because it’s too dangerous.” (UK) However, whilst the focus groups and stakeholder interviews suggest individual/ psychological barriers are the most import in transport behaviour, the survey presented some conflicting results. Here individual/psychological factors explained only 21% of the variance in car usage for short distance journeys. Of these, ‘attitudes towards reducing car use’ and ‘problem awareness’ were notably influential of modal choice. A personal desire to decrease car use and an awareness of the environmental issues resulting from car use correlated with a higher likelihood to choose alternative means of transport. Other psychological factors, including social pressure or moral obligation, were not found to be very important. The use of the car thus seems deeply ingrained and accepted in cultural norms. This finding is consistent across all countries studied. These results suggest that raising awareness about the environmental impacts of short distance driving could be an effective way of overcoming the psychological barrier. However, research suggests that information campaigns to raise awareness may not be enough and consumers will only respond if they experience the problems personally (see below – ‘knowledge barriers’ - for further discussion).

Physical and structural barriers The lack of sufficient infrastructure to support a change from short distance driving to alternative means of transport is a clear barrier. Consumers expressed frustration at initiatives being introduced to reduce car use (for example, car-free zones, congestion charges etc) without corresponding improvements in the alternatives. The latter is pivotal for such initiatives to be effective:

“I don’t understand why they cannot build proper bicycle lanes when they build new roads here in Norway. Just do it and be done with it. It is absolutely ridiculous. If you want people to use a bike or to travel by public transportation, it has to be there! You shouldn’t have to walk 500 meters to get to the bus, or to change 4 times to get to work. Sorry, that won’t work for me.” (NO) In Dijon (FR), for example, the city centre is almost exclusively reserved for buses. A tramway is also being built and park-and-ride schemes in place. Participants of the focus group in Dijon described how these measures had heavily influenced their behaviour:

“My behaviour has changed over the past year. I used to drive in the city centre and now I take the bus all the time”; “I was forced to change my behaviour” (FR). Similarly, in Marseille, one participant explained:

“I totally stopped driving [in the city centre], because some parts of Marseille can’t be accessed by car during the day, and in others, there are no parking spaces, even if you’re willing to pay” (FR).

Energy saving

Short distance driving

Knowledge barriers In HU there was evidence of a distinct lack of awareness of the potential to reduce short distance driving. This manifested itself as a lack of awareness of environmental, health, and financial benefits of walking or cycling short distances instead of driving. The survey results show that urban dwellers have a greater awareness of the problems associated with short distance car use (in all countries). This could suggest that the level of awareness of a problem is related to an individual’s personal experience of it.

Political barriers In HU individual consumers appear to place greater emphasis on the role of central government in encouraging environmentally sound, compared to in other countries studied. The existing level of support for reducing car use on short journeys was considered insufficient. Consumers appealed for better public transport services and more bicycle lanes in particular. Consumers in both NO and UK also perceived a reluctance from policy makers to enforce regulations to limit the use of private cars - regulations that may have connotations for the consumer rights debate. As such policy decisions in this area may be unpopular with the voting public, hence the unwillingness of politicians to engage in the issue. However, if infrastructure is first improved, providing reliable, safe and accessible alternatives, regulatory measures restricting private car use may be better received:

“Would we give up the car? The whole thing is always done the reverse way to how it should be. If you provide public transport that’s good, or alternatives, people will give up their car. They won’t give up the car unless there’s a viable alternative. Get the viable alternative first and it works and then people will give up the cars, but it’s always a case of ‘you’ve got to give up the car’. There is no alternative very often; get that alternative in place.” (UK) Both the stakeholder interviews and the focus group discussions highlighted the issue that city planning and infrastructure is too heavily focused on accommodating motor vehicles. This presents further barriers for those wishing to use alternative means of transport. Furthermore, where there is evidence of planning for cars – for example, the provision parking spaces – consumers perceive this to be encouraging the use of the car for short distance journeys (CH, UK).

Economic barriers The consumer survey shows a clear difference in the average number of short distance car journeys and income levels (figure 11). Not surprisingly, lower income levels are associated with a greater tendency to use alternatives modes of transport. The same tendency was observed in the survey results on general car use.

Report BarEnergy

Mean short-distance car use

4,5

3,5

2,5

Low income

Middle income

High income

Income level

Figure 11: Relationship between income and short-distance car use

These results suggest that lower personal income restricts short distance car use. By the same vein, it could be argued that high income, coupled with low costs, may act as a barrier to achieving energy saving when it comes to short distance driving.

3.4.3

Changing from using private cars to using public transport

The consumer survey asked participants to indicate how frequently they use different modes of transport, on a scale of 1 (‘always use the car’) to 7 (‘only use alternative modes’), as shown in Figure 12. This shows that the majority of participants across the six countries use a car for more than half their journeys (56%), while 31% indicated that they use other transport modes more often than the car. Fewer than 5% do not use a car at all. Any initiatives to reduce short distance driving would therefore affect the daily life practices of the vast majority of consumers. The extent of car use compared to other modes of transport also suggests a high potential for energy saving.

30,0%

20,0%

Percent

10,0%

0,0%

Always use car

Use car and other

modes of transport equality often

Relative use of car vs use of other transport modalities

Figure 12: Relative use of car vs use of other transport modalities

Always use other transport modalities

Energy saving

Using public transport

Geography - whether the individual lives in an urban or rural area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; shows the greatest differential in results. People in rural areas, not surprisingly, use the car for a much higher proportion of their journeys compared to urban dwellers. The focus group discussions suggest this is often related to a lack of available and suitable alternatives and distances are typically being longer for rural residents. Income and political orientation again showed a correlation with modal choice, with lower income and left-wing oriented individuals using the car for a lower percentage of their journeys (with the exception of HU where no such link was observed). Small differences were found in terms of age and gender: older and male participants tend to drive slightly more. Being in a multi-person household also increased the levels of car use overall. The extent to which individuals engaged in energy saving behaviour was clearly influenced by both demographic and psychological factors. Six psychological factors were subsequently included in the quantitative survey, to gauge the extent to which participants were motivated to reduce their car use. These are shown in the table below.

Table 2: Psychological antecedents (background factors) of relative car use included in the questionnaire Concept

Meaning

Attitude towards reducing car use

Evaluation of reducing car use as positive or negative

Subjective norm towards reducing

Perceived social costs and benefits of reducing car use

Perceived behaviour control regarding

Perceived ability to reduce car use

Problem awareness regarding car use

Extent to which individuals believed that their car use

Outcome efficacy regarding car use

Extent to which individuals believed they could

car use

reducing car use

leads to negative environmental consequences

contribute to preventing negative environmental consequences by reducing their own car use.

Personal norm to reduce car use

Extent to which individuals felt morally obliged to reduce their car use

On average, participants in all countries reported a moderately positive attitude towards reducing their car use. There are however considerable differences between the countries. The French and Swiss participants displayed more positive attitudes, especially compared to the Hungarian and Norwegian participants. Participants in all countries perceived a weak subjective norm to reduce their car use. This was particularly evident in Norway.

Report BarEnergy

Participants also perceived a low level of behaviour control, indicating that they felt that reducing their car use would be quite difficult. These participants did, however, believe that car use caused serious environmental problems (although Dutch and Norwegian participants reported lower awareness than participants in other countries), and they appeared to be confident that they could contribute to solving these problems by limiting their own car use. Again, Dutch and Norwegian participants appeared to be less convinced of their potential contribution than participants from other countries. On average, participants did not feel a strong moral obligation to reduce their car use, with Greek, French, Swiss, and Hungarian participants perceiving a stronger moral obligation than participants from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Norway. Overall, participants in the Netherlands and Norway tended to score relatively low on the psychological background factors of car use. The differences in psychological background factors for car use between political orientations seemed to be relatively large â&#x20AC;&#x201C; certainly compared to the differences between income groups and urbanization levels. The largest difference was for problem awareness, which was higher for left-wing oriented participants than for others. Similar effects were also observed for attitudes towards reducing car use, outcome efficacy, and personal norms. This suggests that left-wing oriented participants tend to be more motivated to reduce their car use than others.

Barriers Figure 13 below shows barriers to increased use of public transport as identified in the stakeholder interviews and ranked in order of relevance. Longer travel time Overleaded / insufficient capacity during rush hours Change in lifestyle required (more pre-planning / less flexibility) Perceived higher costs compared to driving (lack of consideration of health, space, and infrastructure costs) Comfort of travel conditions Lack of car as a status symbol / no ownership Lack of privacy / personal safety Insufficient awareness of health impacts, space, and energy use benefits of public transport No ownership Too little governmental financial support / unsupportive regulations or law 1

Figure 13: Averages of respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ratings of factors hindering increased use of public transport

The table on the next page shows all the barriers identified in both the stakeholder interviews and consumer focus groups under the relevant headings in the framework.

Energy saving

Using public transport

Barrier categories

Examples

Individual/

• Time – using the private car often saves time compared to public transport

barriers

• L ack of flexibility, freedom, frequency and comfort of public transport

psychological

Physical and

structural barriers

• The convenience of the private car

• L ack of safety, and privacy on private transport

• Geography – rural areas will always have fewer options for public transport • Low frequency of departures, longer travel times, poor public transport services

• The lack of P+R facilities to encourage use of public transport Cultural normative and social barriers

• The perception of the car: autonomy, speed, comfort, freedom are important traits of modern lifestyles

•U se of public transport is considered low status compared to the use of private cars

• Public transport is not considered a natural and realistic alternative to the car

Economic barriers

• A car is a necessity – The fixed costs of car use are not considered when compared with public transport

• Relatively low fuel prices Political barriers

• City planning is often focused around the use of the private car • The lack of investments in public transportation often means a sub-standard service

• Lack of government support for a change towards public transport Knowledge based barriers

• Low knowledge of the total costs of car use, compared to use of public transport

Individual psychological barriers A key issue to emerge from the data on car use relates to what many people felt to be the convenience of the private car – particularly compared to alternative modes of transportation. The quantitative survey results show that the majority of respondents use a car for the majority of their journeys, with 56% reporting that they mainly or almost always travelled by car. It appears that driving is seen as both comfortable and habitual. There is also a matter of convenience i.e. for many people it is convenient to use the car when it is already there. Convenience was also a key factor in the focus group discussions in all countries and relates to the feelings of freedom and independence that consumers associated with private car use. Strong barriers to the more widespread use of alternative modes of transport emerge from these themes:

“I like my own car…the freedom; I love it.” (UK) “To be honest with you, if a bus picked me up outside my house and dropped me to work and then dropped me off home again, I still wouldn’t use it. I wouldn’t want it…I like driving” (UK)

Report BarEnergy

“It is a clearly a choice between comfort and discomfort. It’s too crammed on the bus and those things. Like, where I lived before, it took me a whole 45 minutes to get downtown on the tram. 45 minutes! Now I live near the train, so I use that a lot, even if I do have a car, which I use when going to visit my mother in Trondheim and the like, with the whole family. Cause with public transport that would cost very much. Ok, a better earth you say? Well, I like for us to do something about those emissions in Russia, which are life threatening, and many times the total car park in Norway. What’s up there is really nasty. Then I feel very little, my train ticket feels very small in a way. So shall I stand there, sweating, in a crammed tube being uncomfortable thinking I am making a massive contribution? I am not some kind of perverse masochist, that the more I am torturing myself, the more I contribute. There is some kind of considerations taken here, concerning my everyday life, my comfort, as long as you can choose. Of course, I could force myself to walk to work if I had to. I could walk 20 km each day…if I had to.” (NO) In the focus group discussions in NO, UK and CH consumers maintained that car use has a strong appeal in modern society, providing a highly practical solution to daily travel needs. Convenience was noted in the context of families with children, transporting luggage and shopping. Such routine tasks were considered to require excessive effort to undertake by public transport. The survey results support these findings to an extent, in that multipurpose households corresponded with a higher level of car use for journeys in general: 47% of single household individuals mainly used a car for their journeys, compared to 59% for households with four or more members. Time, in particular, has been shown to be the greatest barrier to modal shift, with door to door travel timings being central to consumer decisions to use public transport (FR, NL, NO, UK). This was also identified as the most important barrier in the stakeholder interviews, together with insufficient capacity during peak travel times:

“It has something to do with prolonging your day, with 45 minutes in both ends (the morning and the afternoon to and from work)” (NO) “[To go to work] I’m not very far – 4 km – but it’s uphill and I have a heavy bag. There’s no metro and to take the bus I’d have to leave an hour beforehand” (FR) However, in major cities with extensive public transport networks, the reverse could be true:

“But it is a question of attitude. I often go to London and always use public transport. It wouldn’t enter my mind to use other means of transports from Heathrow. It takes about 90 minutes, even with changes. But I know that if I had taken a car, or even the bus, it would have taken 3 hours! So the time spent is also a factor.” (NO) Another major barrier associated with using public transportation relates to the impracticalities and inflexibility, in terms of the time spent and the pre-planning required. This was evident in the focus groups and was ranked as the third most important barrier by the stakeholders interviewed. These drawbacks were perceived to interfere with the modern and independent lifestyle. Public transport was also perceived as unreliable (CH, NO). Other examples of barriers identified include: the comfort of travel conditions; and crowded vehicles, especially during rush hours. (CH, FR, HU, NL, NO, UK):

Energy saving

Using public transport

“First we need to get more money, so that we get the buses every 5th minute. I completely agree by the way, it is absolutely horrible to be on crammed in on the tube, or the bus, it is frankly not pleasant at all.” (NO) There was also some reluctance to using public transport in general, due to issues associated with lack of privacy (personal space can be breached (NO)) and safety concerns (FR, UK):

“I quite like getting on trains actually and I would like to do it more often if I thought I would be safe but I would feel completely vulnerable because it’s a horrible world out there really and it isn’t safe for any woman in the dark you know.” (UK) “The other week I had to go up into town; Sunday morning at half-past six at the bus stop and I was dressed in a suit. It wasn’t so bad on the bus but when I got to the tube station I actually felt quite vulnerable because at half-past six in the morning in a suit and there’s other guys looking at me ‘oh has he got money on him?” (UK) For consumers to be persuaded to shift from driving a private car to using public transport, the transition needs to be made (and perceived to be) very easy and seamless. The survey results again showed key differences in political orientation and car use, as shown below.

Mean car use

3,5

2,5

Left

Centre

Right

Political orientation

Figure 14: Mean car use for participants with different political orientations (Higher score on “mean car use” indicates larger mean use of alternatives to private cars).

Survey data suggests that participants with left-wing political orientations used cars relatively less than participants with right-wing political orientations. This effect may be caused by differences in perceived desirability of driving a car and perceived severity of environmental problems associated with car use. Based on these results, problem awareness is the most important psychological factor in relative car use. This means that individuals who believe that car use causes severe environmental problems are more likely to use alternatives modes of transport. It also means that of all six psychological background factors, an increase of problem awareness is most likely to lead to an increase in the use of alternative modes of transport. However, experiencing things first hand has an important influence over awareness levels:

Report BarEnergy

“We have enough electricity for a long time, cheap and more importantly, clean. We don’t have the experiences of smog and coal power plants like in Europe. We haven’t been bothered with that. I remember when I was in the old Soviet Union, it smelled coal everywhere, you couldn’t see where to go even! And during the 60’s down in the Ruhr, if you sat on a bench for a while, you would get stripes across your back! When you experience this all the time, living in a in Southern European cities with narrow, pre-car cities with streets where you cannot get anywhere, you see the problem much, much clearer, and you need to take the tube to get anywhere at all. It’s a bit luxurious here in Norway regarding this. We need to think in another way.”(NO) However, whilst these individual/psychological barriers identified in the focus groups make an important contribution to the debate, the results from the regression analysis on the survey data indicate that these factors (problem awareness, social pressure, moral obligations etc) explain only 10% of all variance in relative car use6. This suggests that psychological factors have limited predictive power when it comes to transport modal choice; according to the survey results, most of the variance in car use behaviour is dependent on other, non-psychological factors.

Physical and structural barriers The consumer survey results show that 67% of respondents in rural areas use the car always or mostly, compared to 46% in large towns/cities, as shown below.

3,5

Mean car use

2,5

Large town

Small town

Rural area

Urbanization level

Figure 15: Mean car use per urbanization level. (Higher score on “mean car use” indicates larger mean use of private cars)

Public transport is limited in rural areas, and may even be non-existent, as such consumers perceive, and indeed have, little opportunity for alternatives to car use (NO, NL). In some of countries, including HU, NL and NO, consumers noted a lack of quality P+R services. In particular, a lack of cheap and safe parking facilities within close proximity of train/underground stations prevented commuters from taking advantage of these services, representing key a missed opportunity for the use of alternative

6) For detailed information about the regression analysis and tables, see www.Barenergy. eu – European report of the survey – D24

Energy saving

Using public transport

transport solutions. The frequency and schedules of public transport emerged as another structural barrier. Few departures or long times between subsequent buses/trams/tubes necessitates more careful journey planning on the individuals behalf. This constraint and inflexibility deterred consumers from using these transport modes (FR, NL, and NO). Survey results also showed that participants perceived their levels of behaviour control to be weak, which indicates that they felt it would be difficult for them to reduce their car use in the wider, cultural environment. It was also clear that participants from rural areas perceived their ability to reduce their car use as lower than those in urban areas, although the differences were not as large as would be expected. The above data indicates that structural constraints, like availability of alternatives, distance to stations/stops, frequency and schedules of public transport could be major factors contributing to consumer attitudes regarding an unwillingness to reduce car use. Participants also indicated overwhelmingly that they expected public transport improvements to make a difference to their daily practices as well as and in order to reduce car use. The results of the consumer survey indicate that participants expected that the environmental damage caused by private car use could be reduced by improving the quality of alternatives to cars as a mean of private transportation.

Cultural normative and social barriers From the data in this study, it was clear that the private car resonates more easily with modern lifestyles than public transport. In the focus groups it was suggested that the private car is simply the most logical way for many people to travel, given the responsibilities and duties within daily life (UK). This is in line with the views expressed in focus groups in NO and UK as well, where cars were viewed as a natural part of everyday, modern lifestyles, and requirements for space, freedom and comfort represent a real barrier for change among large consumer groups. In the UK it was suggested that the car continues to accommodate the lifestyle needs of most individuals, presenting a clear set of cultural and social barriers that would now be very challenging to shift at a political level. Some consumers made the point that these cultural and social barriers were also encouraging a continued focus on ‘individuality’, subsuming a ‘collective concern’ for the environment or for energy conservation – which might potentially be encouraged by greater use of public transport. From the focus group discussions in all countries it was also found that there was a very strong positive perception of the car relating to issues such as autonomy, speed, comfort and flexibility. This could also be seen as an individual/psychological barrier, but these values and ideals are nonetheless ingrained in the local socio-cultural environments within which the research was carried out. However, we also found that individuals generally had positive attitudes towards reducing their car use in favour of public transport, although the survey results indicated that these attitudes (psychological factors) are weak predictors of actual car use. The regression analysis suggested other barriers – namely, physical-structural, economical and cultural ones – better explain consumer choice for different transport modes.

Report BarEnergy

In particular demographic segments, it also seems that cars are still viewed as a key status symbol and public transport is not “aspirational” enough for many consumers to consider using it (FR, HU, NL). The consumer survey shows that higher income individuals use cars for a larger percentage of their journeys, and have less favourable attitudes towards reducing their car use, than lower-income individuals. Furthermore, some participants did not perceive public transport as a realistic alternative to using cars at all. It was seen as a different means of transport and not directly comparable (NL). There was a general consensus across all participating countries that the private car would remain central to people’s lives in the West, and that a future without it seemed farfetched. It was argued by many participants that, whilst people were generally aware of the environmental consequences of car use, this knowledge would not be sufficient to change most peoples’ attachments to convenience, flexibility, comfort and individual freedom. This was a finding reflected in both the consumer survey and the focus groups, where the general feeling was that public transport simply cannot compete with these personal preferences at present.

Economic barriers Results from the quantitative survey indicated that income was an influential factor when it comes to relative car use. Higher income participants tended to use their car more than lower income participants, with 49% of the latter using their cars always, almost always or mainly, compared to 63% of the former. One reason for this difference is likely to be that car use is relatively expensive compared to other modes of transport, meaning that individuals from higher income groups can more easily afford to use cars than participants from lower income groups. Interestingly, results from the survey on psychological background factors of car use showed that the differences between income groups were minimal. This lack of clear differences show that the level of motivation to reduce car use is similar for all income groups, indicating that non-psychological factors are likely to be the reason for the differences in relative car use between the income levels. The main costs attached to car use are linked to the purchase of the vehicle, maintenance, insurance, annual taxation and parking permits. Thus, when someone owns a car they see it as being sensible and practical to use it frequently, to maximize the value for money they have invested in it. The low cost of fuel (petrol/diesel) in relation to public transport, when they already have a car, further encourages use. The cost of using public transport, when an individual owns a car, is perceived as an “extra”, and perhaps unnecessary cost. Another issue that emerged in the focus groups is that some consumers only included the fuel costs of driving when estimating the cost of a journey and comparing with public transport costs, making their comparison inaccurate:

“If I compare the ticket price of using the train with my fuel costs, it’s just not reasonable. You cannot expect people to take the train!” (NL) “If you have to choose between buying a train ticket to go to Amsterdam for €14, or paying for fuel that costs €15, it’s an easy choice isn’t it? You’ll always go by car!” (NL) “To go into the city, a train ticket would cost me CHF 8 -. Because I already have a car and with its fixed costs, it does not matter whether I use it for only 1 or 20 kilometres per day. I also think trains in Switzerland are very expensive. I would have to buy a

Energy saving

Using public transport

“half-tax subscription” and I would not be that flexible anymore.” (CH) Another economic barrier of a more visible nature was the relative cost of driving being perceived as too low compared to the benefits and comforts of car use. Oil and fuel prices are not high enough to force people to make the switch from driving to using public transportation (CH, NO):

“A colleague of mine and his wife moved a mile from my house and last summer when the petrol prices were like one-thirty, we said ‘well, why don’t we just car share you know?” (UK) The costs of public transport were thus mostly mentioned in relation to the alternative, which is usually the private car. Often it seems it is not a case of public transport costs being abhorrent, but the alternative is being perceived as cheaper, amongst other things. When asked about the acceptability of a 30% increase taxation on car use, most consumers indicated that such a measure is neither acceptable nor likely to be effective. However, individuals were likely to downplay the potential effectiveness of policy measures that restricted their freedom or which they did not approve of on a personal level. The tendency of individuals to compare the cost of using a car with the cost of using public transport suggested that this measure may prove more effective than respondents indicated in the survey.

Political barriers Traditionally, urban planning has focused on private cars as the main means of transport. This is mirrored in what consumers see as a lack of investment in public transport infrastructure over the last several decades. In CH, one common impression was that the infrastructure had been historically neglected. It was suggested that whilst there has been greater investment in public transport infrastructure in recent years, and significant improvements during the 50s, 60s and 70s, investment in road transport has still been at the detriment of public transport:

“Urban planning needs to be re-examined. If I have a metro at my doorstep, I’ll use it instead of a car.” (FR) “The government is always talking about solving congestion problems, adding additional roads… And the price of train tickets increases every year… We are not stimulated to try to reduce our car use at all.”(NL) It was argued that this lack of investment has led to overloaded/insufficient capacity during rush hours (NL, UK) or a poor quality of service in terms of comfort, frequency, and reliability. Naturally, the provision of a sub-standard service could be perceived as a ‘lack of government support’ by service users. Both local and national government are often enthusiastic towards more widespread use of public transport, but there was a sense amongst consumers that they should ‘put the money where the mouth is’ (NL).

Report BarEnergy

Knowledge barriers There are “hidden costs” related to car use. Consumers in the focus group discussions tended to miscalculate the costs of public transport in comparison to their private car use. In debates, there was a tendency to disregard the overall costs of running a car (e.g. insurance, maintenance, repairs) in favour of comparing the fuel used in a journey to the price of a train or bus ticket. As a result, driving appears the cheaper alternative. This also seemed to be the assumption regarding health or environmental “costs”. It could be argued that people often lack information or a comprehensive overview of the complete costs of driving their private cars, so it is not an economic barrier so to speak (CH, NO):

“When people directly compare prices of public transportation with car ownership costs, they often miscalculate. For a mid-size car in Switzerland you have to calculate with at least CHF 1 per kilometre to account for all charges.” (CH) “Yes, as a single person this subscription is attractive, but as a family of five, then the total price is too expensive compared to a car.” (CH) Compared to domestic energy use, there was a noticeably higher level of awareness of the environmental consequences of car use in several countries, and no real suggestion that there were any real knowledge barriers in this respect. Consumers in NO speculated amongst themselves that the higher awareness could be down to the difference of perceived pollution levels from fossil fuels compared to the hydro power which make up most of their domestic energy source.

3.4.4

Car pooling or sharing

Car pooling is the shared use of a car, in particular for commuting to work, often by people who each have a car but travel together to reduce costs. There are sometimes special facilities for car-poolers, including high-occupancy vehicle lanes specifically for cars with multiple riders. As most cars are designed for a maximum of 4-5 persons but often only occupied by one person, car pooling has great potential to reduce congestion on busy traffic corridors in cities, with minimal investment in infrastructure. Higher car occupancy rates can also reduce consumption of oil thereby reducing the associated political and economic risks; emissions of greenhouse gases; common pollution; and save considerable expenses from gasoline, oil, tyres, auto depreciation, tolls, parking, and in some cases insurance. Carpools may also provide social connections in an increasingly disconnected society. The stakeholder interviews discussed the barriers to car-pooling and car-sharing. The figure below shows the ratings of the factors that emerged from the data, with the most important barriers at the top:

Energy saving

Car pooling

Lack of flexibility / independence, pre-planning inconvenience Change in lifestyle required Lack of information / familiarity Insufficient governmental financial support Lack of trust in concept Longer travel time Lack of market penetration to make it more convenient Lack of car as a status symbol 1

Figure 16: Averages of respondents’ ratings to barriers to car-pooling or car-sharing.

The table below shows the results from both stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions, combined within the barrier framework, and ranked order. Barrier categories

Examples

Individual/

• Pre-planning and flexibility is needed

psychological barriers

• Sharing mitigates some of the positives of the private car – individual freedom, privacy

• Convenience and habit of personal car use

• There is a strong culture of individualism – sharing opposes some of these values

•S afety concerns regarding unknown car-poolers Knowledge based barriers

• Lack of information guiding consumers towards car sharing programs and networks

• The complete car sharing costs are compared only to the fuel price of the private car

Physical and

structural barriers

• The poor quality and quantity of the car sharing networks

Individual psychological barriers During focus group debates about car sharing, it was argued that car sharing militates against some of the psychological attractions of private car use, such as individual freedom and a peaceful, quiet journey. It was also pointed out by some that they were against having strangers in the car for safety reasons. Flexibility also becomes an issue when sharing, as it meant pre-planning and coordinating (CH, HU, FR):

“In the company where I worked, we tried to organize a carpool. There are people who live far away and don’t leave at the same time, so the logistics are hard to organize.” (FR) For people who are accustomed to car ownership, car-sharing seemed to be much more convenient since it would invariably be parked just in front of one’s house, ready to be driven at any moment. When a good has already been acquired and its use and reliance

Report BarEnergy

become a habit that is taken for granted, it could be reasonably argued that giving it up would not be tempting. Again, it could be argued that the change from individual car use and ownership requires a change in lifestyle which poses a large barrier to many potential car-sharers (CH):

“In an ideal world I think yes it doesn’t make sense to have the A40 grid-locked every day when you could probably, if you pooled all the people together you could probably, like you say, a few mates in together…but at the same time, I wouldn’t want anyone telling me that I have to have strangers or even other people in my car. That’s a personal choice and I like driving and listening to the radio on my own and having that peace and quiet before I get in.” (UK) It was apparent that a ‘culture of individualism’ was strong in many Western European countries, whereby issues such as trust and reciprocity have declined to a certain extent (UK). In CH it was argued that car-sharing seems less “democratic”. Consumers there expressed an idea of a democratic or human right to access (through cars generally) consumer goods, commuting, etc. It was suggested that denying people this “right” to their car would be like denying “democracy”. With regards to car pooling, there was also a feeling of insecurity, because of “unknown” car-poolers – especially for women (FR).

Knowledge barriers There was evidence of a lack of coherent information and guidance available to direct behaviour towards car-sharing. This was seen as the main barrier in FR. This lack of information was linked to subsequent problems with the quality and development of car-sharing networks. Similar to the costs of public transport versus private car use, the costs of carpooling were seen as higher than with car-ownership (CH). The costs of buying and maintaining a car were quickly forgotten, as people generally only calculated the cost of the journey using gas prices. Thus, the all-inclusive price per kilometre applied in car-pooling made this appear a more expensive alternative. This issue ties in with the above mentioned lack of information.

Physical and structural barriers The lack of knowledge about car-pooling, its availability and potential benefits, led to subsequent problems with the quality and development of car-pooling networks. The development of car-pooling or car-sharing schemes and networks are also quite unevenly distributed in the countries of study.

3.4.5

Summary on energy saving behaviour within the domain transportation “We are all wealthy people, living in a wealthy country… We want to have our comfort.” (NL) The consumer survey suggested that short distance driving scores higher on problem awareness than regular car use and this was more pronounced in urban areas. The survey results also showed a moderately positive attitude towards reducing car use in general.

Energy saving

Summary

On the basis of the data collected, the most important barriers to emerge against achieving less “short distance driving” and “changing from private car to public transport” were a combination of factors that each served to reinforce one other. Firstly, from a consumer level, it was clear that the comfort of the private car and the advantages it offers are important. Benefits include flexibility, saving time, comfort and personal space. However, clearly these patterns are supported and shaped by more dominant macro related barriers: the political barrier of urban planning being focused on private car transportation; the economic barrier of relatively high income levels in the countries of study; and the cultural barrier which encourages a modern lifestyle focused on comfort and individuality. As already discussed, the consumer survey showed that participants scored low on “perceived behavioural control” and psychological factors only accounted for about 10% of the variance in relative car use. Analysis showing that other factors are more explanatory when it comes to consumer behaviour regarding car use further supports this argument. We thus see structural barriers, such as poor infrastructure (poor public transport services/options for bicyclists/poor car sharing networks) as the fundamental ones, and the first necessary challenge to overcome before the other barriers come into play. A fundamental issue to address for behavioural change amongst the individual consumer would appear to be to first provide credible alternatives – in this case primarily by improving public transport infrastructure, more eco-friendly city planning and better car-sharing and car-pooling solutions and networks. After addressing the structural framework and shifting it towards alternative modes of transport – increasing motivation amongst the individual consumers –the other significant barriers, on a more psychological and cultural level, which we identified here (comfort, flexibility, time saving, lifestyles and habits) could be addressed. These necessitate potentially politically controversial economic regulatory measures which only become amenable to acceptance, and with credibility, once the structural barriers have been removed.

3.5

Summary of barriers on energy saving The analysis of the barriers to energy saving from the stakeholder interview and focus group perspectives has shown that most of the barriers with regard to domestic energy use are knowledge-based, cultural-normative and individual in nature. Individual, knowledge-based and physical and structural barriers are ranked highest for energy saving in the use of appliances, whereas the main barriers to energy saving regarding personal transport are knowledge-based, individual, political and physical and structural. The tables below summarise the results for all three domains. This suggests that knowledge-based, individual and physical and structural barriers are mainly responsible for consumers’ lack of energy saving behaviour. These will therefore be the focus for further analysis.

Report BarEnergy

Ranking

Ranking of barrier categories for

Consumer

Domestic energy

Appliances

Sub-topic

Heating behaviour

Cooking and Baking

Use appliances

Knowledge-based

Individual

Cultural-normative

Knowledge-based

Individual

Physical and structural

Economic

Physical and structural

Cultural-normative

Political

Area

Ranking

Ranking of barrier categories for

Consumer

Transport

Sub-topic

Drive more efficient

Less short distance driving

Car use versus public traffic

Car pooling

Knowledge-based

Individual

Physical and

Individual

Knowledge-based

Individual

Knowledge-based

Political

Cultural-normative

Physical and

Area

structural

Economic

Political

3.6

Policy strategies and instruments to overcome barriers This section offers some recommendations for strategies and tools to address some of the identified barriers to energy saving behaviour, in the three areas of study (domestic energy use, household appliances and fuel consumption of cars). These were discussed with stakeholders and focus group participants in all countries of study. Key players required for the implementation of the suggested strategies â&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e. companies, energy producers and distributors, various political authorities, NGOs and civil society â&#x20AC;&#x201C; are also proposed.

Energy saving

Summary

Potential strategies are categorised in the following dimensions: — Technical improvements and innovations — Change in infrastructure — Economic tools — Juridical Instruments — Information directed toward individual consumers and households

A comprehensive list of possible measures to overcome barriers to energy saving is provided in Annex I.

Congestion charges

Economic and structural advantages for shared/pooled vehicles

Car Free Zones

Shift in urban planning: emphasis on improved public transport infrastructure

Overcome Individual - psychological barrier

Realtime Feedback panels

Smart meetering

Information directed to individual consumers and households

Overcome Physical - structural barrier

Energy saving

Regulatory measures Support, information and voluntary action

Provide tax advantages for carpooling companies

Shift in city planning: to provide a more Eco-friendly infrastructure

Improve the quality of P+R services

Establish neighbourhood based carsharing networks

Price ladder Structure

Overcome knowledge - based barrier Financial and fiscal incentives

Innovation: Energy steering systems

Improved Standby Functionality

Overcome economic barrier Critically evaluate the EU energy efficiency label for vehicles

Initiatives from business (retail and manufacturers) Policy measures

Figure 17: Measures to overcome barriers for energy saving behaviour

Report BarEnergy

3.7

Political recommendations Potential strategies and initiatives to address the identified barriers are discussed below, with priority recommendations highlighted. Several of the proposed initiatives considered are interdependent: their potential for success is thus conditional on other initiatives being implemented.

3.7.1

Domestic Energy Use

Initially, the main impression from the data was that knowledge barriers tended to dominate; particularly as these were identified by the participants themselves as a major factor preventing them from adopting better energy saving practices. The apparent lack of direct feedback on energy consumption levels associated with different daily practices was also a key feature. However, much of this kind of information does appear to be available in most countries to those who chose to seek it out. This suggests therefore that consumers might not be sufficiently motivated to close the knowledge gap. As such, the main barrier is not so much a knowledge one, but more a combination of individual/ psychological factors – where comfort is a clear priority in particular – and economical factors, where the price of energy is not excessively high for consumers. The political recommendations therefore focus mainly on addressing the underlying issues that contribute to these individual/psychological and economic barriers, the aim being to motivate consumers to change their behaviour. One approach relates to empowering the consumer, giving them a greater level of control over their energy consumption patterns. By providing direct feedback, consumers may better understand the link between their behaviour and consumption levels. Combined with tailored energy advice, individuals would then be better prepared to take action to reduce their consumption and be confident that these actions are grounded in sound and reliable information. Smart Metering and Energy Steering Systems (both ‘technical improvements and innovations’) offer significant opportunity to increase consumer’s awareness of their energy consumption. To address the economic barrier, we suggest a structural change, in the form of a price ladder (‘juridical system’). This has the potential to both force and motivate the consumer to change their behaviour, thereby potentially simultaneously addressing the individual/psychological barrier related to comfort/lack of motivation. The synergies between the recommendations should be evident: the technological improvements provide the tools needed for the consumer to overcome the challenge of the price ladder.

3.7.2

Household Appliances

In the context of the ‘use of appliances’ and ‘cooking and baking’, the data showed that switching off appliances was a strongly habitual issue. This constituted the top ranking barrier – primarily an individual/psychological phenomenon. In addition, the physical and structural barrier of appliances requiring reprogramming after being switched off completely, or lacking the functionality to be switched off completely (without unplugging) is an important issue which needs to be addressed. A possible solution to both of these barriers might be to provide improved stand-by functionalities (through ‘technological improvements and innovations’).

Energy saving

Political recommendations

Feedback panels can provide the consumer with real time information about the energy consumption of different appliances. This could help to raise awareness, empower and motivate the consumer to act, thus addressing the main knowledge barrier related to the use of appliances. A final policy recommendation relates to the availability of information on the actual use of appliances themselves.

3.7.3

Travel and Fuel Consumption

Under the topic of short distance driving, and choosing public transport instead of the car, the individual/psychological barriers came through strongly in the data. Convenience factors associated with time, hassle, planning, and flexibility contributed to a general preference for the private car. This tied in with cultural barriers related to car use, reflecting important traits of modern lifestyles. There were also political barriers and it was argued that city planning was often too focused on the private car. This leads to the general perception that the infrastructure is not sufficient to support alternative means of transport, even in urban areas with some level of public transport services. Our argument is that it is both easier and more relevant to address the political and physical/structural barriers, improving the underlying infrastructure which shapes transportation behaviour. This might in turn help to overcome the individual/psychological barriers. It seems reasonable to argue that if politicians want people to act differently, then alternative options must first be available in sufficient quality. This is why we suggest it would be more effective to implement a shift in city planning (‘change in infrastructure’), to provide a more eco-friendly infrastructure (improving public transport services and providing better P+R services), before enforcing regulatory measures (‘economic tools’) on the use of private cars (for example, congestion charges, car free zones ). When it comes to car pooling and car sharing the main barriers identified were also individual/psychological in nature (related to the pre-planning needed, inflexibility, lifestyle issues, safety concerns). Knowledge (a lack of information about the services) and physical structural (poor quality of networks) barriers were also evident. As with the other two topics under transportation, we would argue that the service must first be improved for it to become a viable alternative to the use of private cars, thus addressing both the physical structural and individual/psychological barriers. Where sufficient car-sharing/pooling networks already exist, a lack of awareness can prevent them from succeeding. We therefore contend that the primary focus should be on improving both the quality of the networks, and raising awareness about them and the advantages over owning and using your own car. This could be achieved through policy initiatives that provide economic and structural advantages for shared/pooled vehicles, through tax incentives for car-pooling companies (economic tool/juridical instruments) and establishing neighbourhood-based car sharing networks (economic tools/change in infrastructure) that offer convenience, familiarity and security.

3.7.4 Similarities between the three fields and main framework of the political recommendations

Combining data from all the empirical research suggests individual/psychological barriers are the most prominent across all three fields (domestic energy use, household appliances, and private transportation). Personal comfort and convenience often appear top priority for consumers, ahead of environmental, and to some extent, economic concerns. However, we argue that the macro-related barriers are of higher importance, as these influence and shape the choices of the individual consumer, thus framing the barriers at the lower level.

Report BarEnergy

It is important to acknowledge the interrelationships between barriers at the different levels, as one can act to strengthen or diminish another. For example, urban planning, on a political level, which focuses on car use may subsequently encourage the consumer, on an individual level, to develop habits and daily practices that are reliant on driving. Such habits can become culturally inscribed, shaping future consumer behaviour on several levels, from the individual to the structural. Consequently behaviour appears as a manifestation of the relationship between the physical infrastructure, cultural lifestyle ideals and individual preferences. Whilst not disputing that knowledge barriers need to be addressed (hence the recommendations above for improved consumption feedback), in many cases information about ways to save energy is available. The key issue, which emerged across all three topics, lies in a lack of motivation by consumers to seek the information. This can be linked to the economic barrier of relatively low energy prices and high purchasing power of consumers. A further recommendation relates to the argument for first improving and providing credible alternatives and better technological solutions, followed by regulatory restrictions or incentives to drive consumer behaviour change. Again, the individual/ psychological behavioural barriers can be overcome after providing an infrastructure that supports such behavioural change. Findings from the project suggest that improving services and infrastructure is integral to the increased use of public transport. An alternative of insufficient quality makes regulatory measures on private car use politically unviable, and confirms the need for initiatives to be implemented in the appropriate order. The same issue would apply for household appliances, as the feedback systems and technologies that empower the consumer first need to be in place before the price ladder policy can be enforced. Thus in conclusion, the results in all three fields indicate that identified barriers need to be tackled in the right order to ensure the full potential impact of political actions is realised. A comprehensive set of recommendations to enhance behaviour change based on the findings from the empirical data is included in Annex II.

Energy saving

Political recommendations

Energy efficient purchase

4.1

Energy efficient purchase Stefanie Heinzle (UniSG)

Introduction

The BarEnergy project addresses behaviour changes along three dimensions: energy saving within households, energy efficient purchases within households, and changes toward more sustainable and renewable energy technologies. In this chapter we look at the results regarding â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;energy efficient purchaseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Why strive for energy efficiency? Households do not only consume a large amount of energy, but they also use that energy in a very inefficient way. Energy efficient technology already exists to help reduce energy consumption in households. By maximising technology potential with more widespread behaviour changes in practices and habits, the residential sector could generate huge energy savings compared to other sectors (UNECE, 2009). This chapter first explores the barriers to the three areas of study: energy efficient refurbishment, investment in energy efficient household appliances and purchase of energy efficient cars. Based on the results of the empirical research, innovative policy approaches to promote more investment in energy efficiency are then identified.

4.2

Barriers to energy efficiency refurbishment Improving the energy efficiency of the domestic sector requires step changes in the standard of both new buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s construction and the existing housing stock. Improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings through refurbishment represents a significant and costly challenge, and is one that has received insufficient attention over the years, primarily due to economic and political reasons. The most important barriers identified by stakeholders in relation to refurbishment were knowledge-based, followed by economic, physical and structural and political barriers. The table below gives an overview of all the barriers identified by stakeholders and focus group participants on the topic of energy-efficient refurbishment.

Report BarEnergy

Barrier categories

Examples

Knowledge

• Lack of cost transparency

based barriers

• Lack of knowledge of relevant professionals • Difficulty in identifying competent artisans

• Lack of technical knowledge of house owners

• Lack of knowledge about political incentives amongst consumers Economic barriers

• High initial costs

• Higher running costs easier to finance

• Motivational factors are clearly guided by a cost/gain perspective • Difficulty of getting a new loan for investing in energy efficiency

• Partial refurbishment is preferred due to high costs of full refurbishment • Investment in energy efficiency increases notional value of property Physical and

structural barriers

• Lengthy decision-making processes in joint ownership • Complicated collective decision making

• Problem of split burden between owner and tenants • Lack of skilled professionals

Political barriers

• Insufficient financial and ideological governmental support • Lack of consistent policy

• Complicated application processes

• Tax laws favour partial or incremental refurbishment

• Lack of skill, knowledge and capacity of local planning authorities Cultural

• Willingness to pay for measures that are provided free to others

social barriers

• Black market and a desire to avoid an audit trail

normative and

• Transitional phase hinders young peoples investment in energy efficiency

Individual/

• Pennies-a-day effect: households prefer smaller ongoing expenses

barriers

• Many energy-efficiency measures are not visible to others and as such cant

psychological

• Opportunity costs: energy issues take low priority be displayed as a symbol of success

• Large effort required (structural changes are perceived as troublesome) • The aging population and propensity of the so called ‘baby boomer’ generation to live a fuller life (“live like hedonists”)

Knowledge-based barriers Overall, the most important barriers to emerge in relation to refurbishment were knowledge-based barriers. There is a general assumption in the literature that knowledge-based barriers can be overcome by providing people with the correct information to enable them to make the right decisions. Regarding a lack of cost transparency, stakeholders interviewed noted that homeowners rarely know how much refurbishment costs, nor do they always know what benefits may be. Furthermore, homeowners often lack technical knowledge and have difficulty in identifying competent artisans resulting from a lack of knowledge of relevant professionals. In FR and the UK, stakeholders interviewed considered this

Energy efficient purchase

Energy efficient Refurbishment

to be the principle reason for the lack of progress in improving the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock. Knowledge of professionals was considered a significant issue, as homeowners often lack the ability and time to identify appropriate measures themselves. Discussion in the focus groups in FR and CH suggested this lack of technical knowledge was not limited to the household, but also applied to the installer. This finding is consistent with the results from the previous work packages. Kägi, Schäfli, Siegrist and Hässig (2004) argue that the “usual markets” struggle to keep pace with technological developments or invest in training. As a result, the installation of best practice measures may not be achieved (for more information on ‘lack of skill of relevant professionals’ see ‘physical and structural barriers’). Knowledge levels about existing political incentives for energy saving measures varied significantly amongst the focus group participants. In the UK for example, there seemed to be a low level of knowledge about the topic – some focus group participants were not even aware of the most long-standing government policies, such as ‘Warm Front’ which provides grants to homeowners for energy efficiency measures. Both the stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions suggested that consumers are often unaware of the possibilities that exist to make existing houses more energy efficient. Although many of the participants were aware of environmental issues and the urgent need to reduce global energy consumption, this did not extend to knowledge of their own energy consumption patterns and how they might reduce their consumption. Focus group participants indicated that there is a lot of information available about energy efficiency, but they struggle to understand all of the different issues surrounding it. This links to the concept of “value-attitude-behaviour” in environmental psychology (Abrahamse et al, 2007), which needs to be addressed by policy-makers to ensure the necessary shift in individual everyday practices are realised.

Economic barriers Investing in energy efficient measures may require significant upfront capital. In the stakeholder interviews these high initial costs were deemed a significant barrier to the uptake of energy efficient measures for many households. There was also a general consensus amongst focus group participants that financial constraints prevent many from making improvements to their homes. Some participants suggested that they were willing to make changes, such as insulation or improving the efficiency of their heating system, but that these changes were currently impractical due to financial considerations. These economic barriers are particularly pertinent to low income households: as Lagandre (2007) argues, it is predominantly the middle to high income households that undertake energy-efficient renovation and insulation measures, yet it is the low income households that have the greatest need to reduce their energy costs. There was evidence of this in HU, where consumers’ financial situation was one of the more obvious barriers. Many focus group participants who considered themselves motivated to reduce their energy consumption lacked the financial means to do so. For these households, enduring the higher running costs of an inefficient property were considered easier to finance. In other countries other barriers of similar or higher importance emerged. In CH, stakeholders explicitly stated that financial constraints were no longer considered the biggest issue. However, the quantitative consumer survey showed that households

Report BarEnergy

(in all countries) would welcome government subsidies to install energy efficiency measures: this was rated as a highly acceptable and potentially very effective strategy for reducing household energy consumption. Results from the focus group discussions (and consistent with the literature) show that motivational factors for current and future energy saving measures are guided by a cost/gain perspective. The environmental impact was considered more as positive side effect, than as a motivational factor in its own right. The consumer survey results present a similar picture: saving money was rated as a higher motivational factor for reducing household energy consumption than saving the environment. In general, individuals were more likely to install energy efficiency measures if they were able to discern what the benefits would be in financial terms. Thus, energy efficiency could be a key motivational factor if framed in the context of cost savings. An additional economic barrier which emerged during the stakeholder interviews and focus groups in HU relates to the difficultly in securing a loan for investing in energy efficiency. Households may be reluctant to accept further debt, for fear of being able to meet the repayments. In CH, partial refurbishment is often preferred. Upfront costs are lower and measures can be installed incrementally over time. As a result, however, the energy savings achieved may be compromised. Furthermore, investments in energy efficiency can increase the notional value of a property, which can result in higher taxation for the home owner (in CH the notional rental value of the property is considered taxable income). Structural and physical barriers appear very important in the context of energy efficient refurbishment. In countries with a large numbers of apartment buildings with multiple owners implementing energy efficiency measures necessitates a collective decision-making process, which can be cumbersome and time-consuming. This is a notable barrier to energy efficiency refurbishment, noted by stakeholders in CH, FR, NO and HU in particular. Tenure represents another potential structural barrier to the installation of energy efficiency measures. Low rates of refurbishment are linked to a high proportion of rental accommodation, due to the concept of ‘split burdens’: the burden of capital investments falls on the landlord, whilst the financial reward of reduced bills rests with the tenant. Thus, landlords lack the incentive, and tenants lack the capacity or power to implement energy efficiency improvements. In CH, where approximately 70% of the population are private tenants, this is a real problem. Another important structural barrier identified during the stakeholder interviews was the lack of professionals in the fields of energy efficient refurbishment. Refurbishment in the general sense and refurbishment with the specific aim of improving energy efficiency require quite different expertise, knowledge and approaches. In terms of the latter, a ‘whole house’ approach may be the most cost-effective and favourable solution. Without the necessary expertise, partial refurbishment is often undertaken, for example the replacement of windows or painting the facade without improving insulation. Stakeholders from the UK particularly stressed the fact that the building sector lacks sufficient skills needed for effective energy efficient refurbishment, the implication being that the construction industry needs to work more closely with other sectors, including planners and its supply chains.

Energy efficient purchase

Energy efficient Refurbishment

Political barriers The implementation of energy efficiency improvements is embedded within regulatory frameworks that exist at the local, national, and European level. Political authorities are responsible for the implementation of these laws and regulations, and are thus a determining factor in individual householdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ability to change behaviour. Insufficient governmental support was identified during the stakeholder interviews as an important barrier in the UK, NL, FR and NO. NO stakeholders particularly emphasized the lack of governmental support for refurbishment. However, this was explicitly mentioned as an ideological barrier as the amount of government money allocated signals the relative importance of the action. Furthermore, the lack of consistent policy is an issue in FR, CH and NL. In the latter, the unreliability of subsidies is a significant problem: the variability in subsidies available from one year to the next makes these are a less attractive proposition for consumers. This barrier was also noted in the HU focus groups, where participants contended that applying for a government subsidy can be a risky process. A further barrier was identified in CH in connection with the lack of consistent policy. Here, policy initiatives (including taxation, financial support, and building regulations) can vary from one administrative area, or even one town, to the next. As a result there is geographic variation in the regulatory framework. The process of applying for support or permission to implement energy efficiency measures can be very complex. In CH, slow and cumbersome procedures in securing permits for building work often deter people from doing so. This is a particular issue for historical buildings, which dominate in many towns. Securing permits for work on such buildings can vary from municipality to the next, which presents a confusing picture for householders. In FR, numerous approvals are required from the national technical and scientific building centre (CSTB) and town planning rules can prove to be a hindrance to refurbishment. Another important political barrier mentioned by CH stakeholders was that tax laws favour partial or incremental refurbishment. Here, taxation is linked to the value of the property and as such home owners avoid making substantial improvements at any one time, instead opting for implementing measures in isolation, even though this does not represent the most cost-efficient or effective approach. Stakeholders from the UK stressed the fact that local planning authorities currently lack the skill, knowledge and capacity to enforce building standards. Local planning authorities and building control teams have a key role to play in ensuring new developments comply with current and future building regulations. This would require an enhanced level of post-construction follow up work to ensure the end product meets the design specification. Evidence presented to the House of Commons Select Committee on Environmental Audit suggested that of the some 140,000 new homes built in 2006, one third did not comply with Government energy efficiency standards.

Cultural normative and social barriers The literature review undertaken for this study suggests that energy behaviours and practices are often linked to particular cultural practices, such as those arising from

Report BarEnergy

national, community or social identities. In the UK, the provision of free payback measures through government and energy supplier funded schemes was seen as a social and economic barrier by focus group participants. Consumers felt a diminished willingness-to-pay for measures that are provided to others for free. Under the UK Government’s Warm Front grant scheme for example, certain sectors of society (e.g. elderly, disabled and unemployed residents) have been eligible for free energy efficiency measures in a bid to tackle fuel poverty. Willingness to invest in energy efficiency measures may also be undermined by the tendency to frequently move home. For instance, during the focus groups consumers noted that young adults in NO usually own or live in a property for a short period of time. This transitional phase can be a barrier to investing in energy related infrastructure in the home. In the HU focus groups, another cultural-normative barrier identified relates to ‘black market’ style practices in investment. There exists a custom for by-passing formal purchasing arrangements. This stems from the decades of socialism, where using common goods to meet everyday personal needs was an accepted practice, combined with the notion of “kaláka”, whereby individuals offer their services ‘free of charge’ to one another in a reciprocal agreement, for example in the construction of dwellings.

Individual/psychological barriers Individuals’ willingness to change their behaviour can be a very significant barrier, especially when this requires a shift beyond established comfort zones. Short term thinking of households was mentioned as an important individual/psychological barrier, especially for property owners who fail to look beyond the initial investment costs when deciding whether to implement energy efficiency measures. Stakeholder interviews in HU suggested a preference exists amongst consumers for paying a bit more everyday, rather than investing large sums today for benefits in the future. This can be explained by the pennies-a-day effect (Gourville, 1998; Gourville, 2003) where consumers prefer a series of ongoing smaller expenses over an aggregate one-time expense. In addition, for many people, energy issues take low priority. Therefore the opportunity cost of investing in energy efficiency can be a significant barrier. For example, if choosing between investing in a designer kitchen or an efficient heating system, the consumer is likely to opt for the former. This suggests that consumer priorities, rather than costs are the deciding factor. Investment in energy saving measures are therefore only ‘justified’ in the consumer’s mind when linked to another advantage (e.g. enhanced comfort, property value, etc.). The invisibility of energy-efficiency measures is another important barrier in this respect. When refurbishing a house people invariably want to be able to see the results of their investment, i.e. to have something that is visible and tangible, such as a new kitchen or bathroom suite. Energy efficiency measures are often not visibly discernable (for example, occupants feel the benefits of insulation rather than seeing them). This notion correlates with energy efficiency investments being low down the order of priorities for householders. The implementation of energy efficiency measures may entail significant effort from the consumer, from sourcing a contractor to actually installing measures. Furthermore, structural changes to the house are invariably perceived as “troublesome”. This barrier

Energy efficient purchase

Energy efficient Refurbishment

is temporarily removed when participants are moving house or renovating, although these ‘windows of opportunity’ are not always realised. In NO, focus group participants observed a growing mentality in the older age group that retirement age is the time to “cash in” on and enjoy the benefits of years of hard work. Consequently environmental concerns slipped down their list of priorities. However, it was also suggested that this group of individuals maintain old habits and attitudes, such as frugality and prudence, and the results from the quantitative consumer survey showed a slightly higher environmental motivation amongst older respondents. These findings conflict with the carefree attitude associated with retirement identified above.

4.2.1 Initial conclusions on energy efficient purchase in the domain of domestic energy use Within the framework of the project, the multidisciplinary approach enables analysis of energy barriers from different theoretical viewpoints. The predominant barrier to emerge from the empirical studies regarding refurbishment was knowledge-based. Economic barriers, such as higher initial costs, also have an important role to play. However, the perceived higher costs were sometimes based on inaccurate estimations, as consumers tend to overlook long term and life-cycle costs. Physical and structural barriers were ranked as the third most important factor, e.g. the problem of ‘split burden’ between owners and tenants. This barrier was of particular importance for countries with a high number of apartments and private renters. Finally, it was apparent that environmental concerns alone are not sufficient motivation for consumers to adopt energy saving measures and investments in such measures must always compete with other investment aspirations.

4.3

Barriers purchase of energy efficient household appliances

Household appliances account for some 30% of all electricity consumption in OECD countries and demand for appliances is growing at a rapid rate. The long-term trend in household electricity use is often associated with this growing demand for consumer electronics (Burwell and Swezey, 1990). However, there is also potential for significant energy savings in this area, by switching to the most efficient technologies on the market and advancing research and development (IEA, 2007). In general, barrier ratings to the uptake of energy efficient appliances were lower than in the previous section on energy efficient refurbishment. This suggests that the transformation of the market has to some extent been achieved, although it is too early to say whether this shift will be sufficient enough to meet increasing environmental and energy efficiency targets. The quantitative consumer survey explored the purchase of energyefficient light bulbs. This was chosen as an area of study as it is considered relatively common and familiar to the majority of consumers, thus ensuring a high level of response. Participants were asked to indicate the percentage of all working light bulbs in their household that were energyefficient. Figure 18 shows that the use of energy-efficient light bulbs is lower in NO than in the six other countries. On average, slightly fewer than 50% of all working light bulbs in households were reported to be energyefficient. Only minor differences were found between demographic factors, indicating that these have relatively little influence over light bulb purchase behaviour.

Report BarEnergy

In general, the results indicate that participants have very positive attitudes towards purchasing energy-efficient light bulbs. However, it appears that most participants did not think that the use of inefficient light bulbs causes environmental problems. In 2008 EU energy ministers approved an EU-wide ban on incandescent light bulbs, to commence in 2010. The results of the survey suggest consumer attitudes are, on the whole, consistent with and supportive of the ban.

Percentage of light-bulbs that is energy-efficient

United

France

Kingdom

The

Greece

Switzerland

Norway

Hungary

Netherlands

Country

Figure 18: Percentage of light bulbs that are energy efficient

Overall, the most important barriers to investment in energy efficient household appliances, identified in the stakeholder interviews are economic and knowledgebased, followed by physical and structural and political barriers. The table gives an overview of all the barriers identified by stakeholders and focus group participants.

Barrier categories

Examples

Economic barriers

• Higher upfront cost for energy efficient appliances

• Complete life-cycle costs are not taken into account • Low price of electricity

• Low income households lack cash or access to credit Knowledge based barriers

• Low knowledge of the connection between purchase and energy issues • Little understanding of energy consumption for small appliances

• Lack of knowledge concerning possible savings in monetary terms

Energy efficient purchase

Purchase energy efficient household appliances

Physical and

structural barriers

• Problem of split burden

• Lack of knowledgeable sales staff

• No labelling of specific product categories

• Retail acts as a major barrier when energy-efficient products are not showcased

• Decline of specialized stores with professional sales stuff

• Product design does not incorporate automatic power down and lower power modes

Political barriers

• Outdated test programs

Cultural

• General tendency towards accumulation of appliances

social barriers

• Higher standards of living and multiple purchases of electric appliances

normative and

• Low priority given by politicians to energy efficient measures

• Cultural trends shifting lifestyles

• Reluctance to replace old appliances leading to low turnover rate • Status symbol of big appliances

• For small or luxury products, energy efficiency is not taken into account • Some products are almost non-negotiable to everyday domestic living • Social norms stimulating good practices are weak Individual/

• Short-term thinking, lack of will of consumers to buy energy efficient

barriers

• Energy efficiency is not a first order buying criteria

psychological

appliances

• Scepticism regarding environmental claims

• Low awareness of the connection between purchase and energy issues Individual/

• Pennies-a-day effect: households prefer smaller ongoing expenses

barriers

• Many energy-efficiency measures are not visible to others and as such cant

psychological

• Opportunity costs: energy issues take low priority be displayed as a symbol of success

Economic barriers The higher price of energy efficient appliances is seen as the most important barrier by stakeholders in CH, NO, HU and NL. This is in spite of the fact that these higher initial costs are often earned back by the consumer overtime through the energy efficiency savings achieved. This links to the tendency, noted by focus group participants, for consumers to focus on the price of purchase - the “immediate and visible cost” - rather than the product lifetime expenditure. These are some of the reasons why the actual level of market penetration of cost effective, energy-efficient technologies is often far below the optimal level – a phenomenon referring to in the literature as the “energy efficiency gap”. Various stakeholders suggested therefore, the main problem lies not in the actual costs, but rather the different investment profile and life-cycle costs. This is consistent with the findings of research conducted by Young et al. (2009) who suggest that consumer purchasing decisions are complex and based on a range of factors.

Report BarEnergy

Focus group participants argued that when purchasing a new washing machine, for example, they often made their decision according to reasons relating to cost, purpose, and aesthetics. Therefore, while some participants still alluded to financial outlay as the key defining factor, others suggested that cost is just one consideration in a complex decision-making process. Besides the high initial cost, the low price of electricity was mentioned, by the stakeholders and focus group participants, as an important barrier. In NO and CH especially, the low price of electricity was associated with limited incentive to invest in energy efficiency. Some stakeholders considered the price of electricity would have to be substantially higher than current levels in order to act as any incentive to behaviour change. As in the previous section on energy efficient refurbishment, in the HU focus groups, low-income consumers - regardless of their attitude towards the environment - maintained that they could not always afford the more expensive energy efficient household appliances. This barrier was particularly pertinent for lowincome consumers in CH as they in particular lack the capital or access to credit. Some respondents implied that if they had the finances available, environmental considerations would take higher priority in their purchasing decisions.

Knowledge based barriers Despite a general awareness of the urgency of energy issues, when it comes to the purchase of an appliance, the connection to issues of energy efficiency and energy use is not always made by consumers. One FR stakeholder noted that while consumers were more informed on environmental issues, they did not yet fully understand the energy savings that could be made by using energy-efficient household appliances. The quantitative consumer survey showed that awareness of the environmental damage caused by the use of traditional light bulbs was relatively high in most countries. However, in NO and NL, awareness of environmental consequences was low. In CH, consumers perceived no link whatsoever with their purchase choice of cooking pans and energy consumption. With larger appliances, such as refrigerators, the energy label provides that missing link for the consumer. In general, focus group participants perceived large electrical appliances to be high energy consumers. Identifying the energy consumption levels of smaller appliances, including computers, irons and microwaves, proved more difficult for consumers. NL focus group participants also indicated that they would pay more attention to the energy consumption of â&#x20AC;&#x153;luxury appliancesâ&#x20AC;? if the information was available. This suggests there may be scope for expanding the energy label to include a wider range of appliances. HU stakeholders explicitly noted a need for an energy labelling system for certain product groups that are currently unclassified (e.g. gas ovens). A lack of knowledge about the potential savings from energy efficient appliances in monetary terms was also mentioned. Focus group participants, primarily in NO and CH, stated a need to see, in writing, the long term potential savings for different kinds of appliances. The persuasive power of numbers appeared to be strong for some, and again it is the potential economic gain that provides the main motivation. Also in the

Energy efficient purchase

Purchase energy efficient household appliances

CH focus groups, it was mentioned that provision of information by manufacturers in a simplified form would be preferred, for example by providing the estimated monetary operating cost of a given appliance, so that consumers can see at a glance how much money would be saved over the life cycle of a product. There is a risk, however, that money saved on energy saving measures might stimulate consumption further in other areas, creating a feedback or rebound effect (Sorrell, 2007). In general, stakeholders interviewed considered energy labelling of products as a successful initiative. The mandatory energy label is the main instrument for rational consumer choice in the market of household appliances. Stakeholders and focus group participants indicated that consumers are familiar with and trust the EU energy labelling scheme. This was consistent with the results of the quantitative consumer survey, which also suggest consumers do take account of the energy label rating when purchasing household appliances. There were however significant differences between the countries. For example, NO consumers expressed the lowest level of trust in the label of the seven countries surveyed. This finding could be related to the topic being lower on the political agenda in NO, due to the relatively low energy prices and clean hydro electricity. Focus group discussions in HU showed that respondents could only recall A-rated appliances in their home; they appeared to have no knowledge, or at least did not mention, appliances of other ratings. Whilst the energy label has been a relative success to date, it will face substantial challenges in the future. The label rating criteria to some extent lacks the flexibility to account for improvements in the efficiency of appliances. The European energy label was first introduced in the mid-90s and since then innovation has led to the development of increasingly efficient products that surpass the original rating scale (Heinzle and Wüstenhagen, 2009). Nowadays, for some product categories, e.g. refrigerators or washing machines, only appliances with an energy efficiency class of C or better are available for purchase (Energieinstitut, 2009; CECED, 2005). In 2003, an expansion of the entire scaling system took place and new efficiency categories above class A (A+ and A++) were introduced to the market to accommodate most efficient products. Although this topic was not explicitly covered in the focus groups, it was discussed in detail by the participants, especially in CH. The expansion of the scale was criticized by many participants for lacking transparency and being difficult to understand. The following quote illustrates this dissatisfaction with the scheme:

“Honestly, this is just ridiculous. First there was just A, then there were A´s with a plus, and now we even have A´s with two pluses. I honestly don’t know how many pluses an appliance can have at all.” (CH) “The fact that there are so many A´s really confuses me. Industry has reached such a high level in energy efficiency, that they just pack more and more pluses on top of the scale. This scale has really lost transparency for me.” (CH) In particular, focus group participants suggested that by introducing additional categories on top of the A-rating, adds an undesirable level of complexity to consumer purchasing decisions. One respondent from CH maintained that only appliances performing to an A standard or higher could now be found on the market, thus

Report BarEnergy

undermining the utility of the entire rating system. Another participant argued that consumers understanding of the labelling scheme had been compromised by the introduction of the additional ‘A’ classes, and manufacturers could exploit this, by marketing C-rated appliances as still being within the top three categories. Thus, the findings from the focus groups suggest that whilst many consumers consider the EU energy label a success, it can also be misinterpreted and a source of confusion. The expansion of the labelling scale was also heavily discussed during the stakeholder interviews. Stakeholder maintained that the future of the energy label is on the political agenda.

Physical and structural barriers When discussing the purchase of large energy-efficient household appliances (such as refrigerators and stoves) it is necessary to differentiate between different groups of buyers. On the one hand there are private buyers (homeowners or renters) and on the other there are professional buyers (landlords, investors, architects, builders, etc.). These groups have different interests and motivations. The main difference is that the former use the appliances themselves and consequently must pay for the energy costs arising from their use. Professional buyers do not pay for the energy costs of running the appliance and thus often have other interests, such as design, aesthetics and profit margins. Landlords, for example, generally buy the lowest cost devices to avoid having to increase the rent. This distinction is especially relevant in CH where a very high proportion of population rents (approximately 70%). The quantitative consumer survey showed that lack of availability, or knowledge about availability, deters some individuals from purchasing and using energy-efficient light bulbs. Furthermore, ability to purchase and actual use are not necessarily correlated. Many stakeholders interviewed felt that salespeople were often not sufficiently trained to competently advise consumers on their purchasing decisions. Respondents from NO, FR and HU rate this structural barrier as important, whereas in the other countries it was rated of medium importance. Stakeholders (and some of the focus group participants) felt that it was the responsibility of the salespeople to point out the relevance of the labels and to answer questions regarding the energy consumption of appliances. When consumers are deciding between two products and one of them is significantly less expensive, this would suggest that the added value of the more expensive product needs to be clearly presented by salespeople; otherwise the less expensive appliance might well be purchased. More specifically from the manufacturer’s viewpoint, an FR stakeholder denounced the message conveyed by large-scale retail: “In marketing, we say “not seen, not sold”. If consumers can not find the best products, they will not buy them. Environmentally friendly products need to be visible to the consumer and from this perspective retail acts as a major barrier. If the product is not showcased, the products won’t be sold. This same stakeholder also argued that sales staff are often driven to sell extended warrantees and therefore, because of the price differential between green products and standard alternatives, they sell the cheapest products: “It is the message of large-scale distribution, which designs sales arguments to sell products and warrantees”. Also in HU, stakeholders mentioned that in the past there were a plethora of specialized

Energy efficient purchase

Purchase energy efficient household appliances

stores with professional sales staff where consumers could purchase electrical appliances. Nowadays however, there has been a shift towards superstores and megastores where there is often a distinct lack of trained sales personnel. In addition, more and more products are being purchased online or in stores without salespeople. Another important topic discussed – particularly during the focus groups – was “standby losses”. Standby power is described as the energy used by an appliance that is plugged in but not being used. Focus group participants noted that many appliances draw power 24 hours a day, often without the knowledge of the consumer. In addition, many products are now designed to be equipped with low power modes for services that the consumer does not necessarily need. In FR and UK focus groups, some appliances were thought to be useful only when on standby. Stand-by modes represent a constraint to energy efficient behaviour that is integral to the appliance and therefore to some extent removed from consumer behaviour.

Political barriers In NO stakeholders mentioned that European testing of appliances shows that many products are classified at too high levels. It was also argued that the selected test programs, for example the ‘cotton at 60o’ test for washing machines may no longer be the most appropriate and relevant for European households. The barrier of low priority given by politicians to the topic of energy efficient measures was discussed in FR, where this was considered mainly the result of a lack of investment from government and wider stakeholders, manufacturers and energy suppliers. The household appliances sector is not considered to be a focal sector for energy savings. It is indeed true that real energy savings are not as substantial as in the construction industry and building sector. In addition, employment issues in this sector are gradually decreasing, as production is increasingly moving overseas. Also, in the UK, stakeholders noted that the country has traditionally lagged behind others in the development of markets for energy efficient appliances, particularly from a political leadership angle. Focus group participants in the UK noted a “lack of trust” in politicians, which was often compounded by conflicting political rhetoric. This is consistent with current research suggesting that trust in the UK government is low (Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003). However, in other countries in the study, the quantitative consumer survey revealed that trust in government was generally low, with some differentiation between countries: CH and NL reported the highest degree of trust, and (GR) the lowest.

Cultural normative and social barriers In CH and the UK, the tendency of household appliance accumulation was rated as a barrier of medium importance by the stakeholders interviewed. In the UK, there also appears a growing trend for ‘frost-free’ cold appliances and integrated appliances, which have a higher energy demand than the standard varieties. This trend is exacerbated by “cultural” cooking habits in the UK, which show a tendency for processed and frozen food and ready-meals, compared to other EU countries. This eating habit encourages ownership of multiple fridges and can be linked to the shift towards bigger “American” style cold appliances. UK stakeholders believed this could be related to higher levels of disposable income, as well as a strong US influence on UK lifestyles.

Report BarEnergy

In HU too, it was noted by stakeholders that there is an increasing cultural trend shifting lifestyles towards the more modern, Western standard of living, with an associated increase in demand for household appliances. The focus group discussions revealed a perceived need to keep up with trends and fashions and to own the latest products on the market. The notion of status was mentioned as a factor driving certain product choices, particularly in the context of higher income households. Participants perceived richer people to buy more expensive products with no consideration of energy consumption, but instead only taking brand and fashion into account. Higher income participants who conformed to this stereotype justified their comfortand status-related purchase choices with respect to: having appliances that increase convenience for housewives; enjoying home entertainment on a higher level (e.g. Plasma TV instead of LCD TV with lower energy consumption); and simply making themselves feel better by owning the product. NL stakeholders maintained that the fridge is considered by some consumers as furniture rather than an electric appliance; it being somewhat of a status symbol that should look nice in the kitchen. It is therefore valued as a piece of furniture rather than a utensil, like a washing machine. Furthermore, many people own a refrigerator which is larger than necessary for the size of their family and appear reluctant to replace it for a smaller version. Thus, the number of appliances at home remains a material and symbolic sign of modern social conventions and the consumption of goods, services and energy is a symbol of the social identity (Jackson, 2005). This concept alludes to a huge cultural barrier tied up in the acquisition of modern goods, resulting in higher levels of comfort and energy consumption and “positive” social representation (modernity, social ease, generosity, etc). Conversely, energy savings are synonymous with loss of comfort, of backward-looking practices, stringiness, of material and social poverty, etc. (Zelem, 2005). Consumption and identity can be seen as interlinked and consumer goods play vital symbolic roles in individual’s lives (Barthes, 1973; Czikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, 1981). Therefore, consumer goods are not only valued for what service they deliver, but also for what they represent to individuals themselves and others (Jackson, 2005). Focus group participants also argued that some household appliances - particularly white goods, such as washing machines and fridges - were an “accepted” cultural aspect of modern living regardless of their energy use or efficiency rating. Many of the focus group participants maintained that they could not do without these goods due to the convenience factor, whatever their level of energy consumption. It was also argued by some participants that there was a certain cultural expectation from the younger generation that they should own certain electrical appliances, such as games consol’s, IPods, etc. In the UK focus groups, the role and importance of washing machines and fridges came across as almost non-negotiable accessories to everyday domestic living. This was particularly true of many of the female participants, many of whom provided their own reasons for the importance of washing machines in domestic life associated with having children. A recurring topic of discussion in both the stakeholder interviews and focus groups was the reluctance to replace old appliances leading to low turnover rates. In the focus groups in NO, consumers expressed a reluctance to replace older appliances which still worked, even if they were aware these had a higher energy demand (“If it works, don’t change it.”). In the NL focus groups, older participants in particular showed a lack of inclination to replace their current appliances with new, energy efficient ones.

Energy efficient purchase

Purchase energy efficient household appliances

Replacing working appliances was seen as a waste of materials and money, even if it may have been cost-efficient to do so. According to a UK stakeholder, the turnover rate on fridges in the UK is between 12 to 15 years; much higher than the suggested optimum of just 7 years. In this extended lifetime fridges are likely to operate at the lowest levels of energy efficiency. Moreover, studies in several countries show that the purchase of a new fridge with an A-label does not necessarily mean a decrease in energy consumption, because consumers use the old fridge as well: “Old cold appliances are put into basements and second homes and continue to use electricity long after the “replacement””. This delays the effect of the efficiency revolution by at least one “product generation” (Strandbakken, 2006). Dujin, Poquet and Maresca (2007) also contend that when new appliances are installed in a household, the previous ones are only moved to another place in the house, and not replaced, thus actually leading to an increase in the electricity consumption. The literature describes the purchase of appliances to be socially differentiated. For example, some appliances are categorised as “basic” and indispensable, whereas others are considered as more “superficial”, comfort or luxury products (Desjeux et al., 1996). Thus, whilst basic products will be bought by most households, the purchase of comfort products depends on financial, personal and situational circumstances. Another distinction in the purchase of appliances is related to individual definitions of what is “small” and what is a “big” appliance, in particular in regard to their energy consumption. When the acquisition of an electric appliances is regarded as luxury consumers console themselves with justifications based on usefulness (the coffee maker is old, the machine is obsolete, not good enough, a new one could make life easier); altruism (for one’s children or partner); aesthetics (create atmosphere with a new light fixture, etc.); ritual celebrations (Mother’s day, Christmas, birthdays, etc); or unexpected occasions, such as inheritance. As a general rule, attention was not given to the electricity consumption of small appliances, in the same way as large appliances (Desjeux et al., 1996). In NO, FR and NL, participants also tended to be more environmentally conscious in the purchase of white goods than brown, or “luxury or entertainment products”. Participants indicated that with appliances such as television sets, which are used in the living room in a highly visible position, the design of the appliance was more important than its energy use. Consumers reported in the quantitative consumer survey that they did not feel social pressure to purchase energy-efficient light bulbs instead of energy-inefficient ones. The extent to which individuals perceived such social pressure was moderate-strongly predictive of actual use of energy-efficient light bulbs, indicating that a lack of social pressure may prevent consumers from purchasing energy-efficient light bulbs.

Individual/psychological barriers Price and design were considered the main criteria in consumer purchasing decisions, whereas electricity use is invariably not a first order buying criteria. Design is an important consideration as the style and aesthetics of appliances can be perceived as a more general representation of the homeowners taste. These findings were confirmed in the focus groups in CH and NL. Besides price and design, other non-environmental consumer purchase criteria included brand, warranty, and service. The relative importance of the different purchasing criteria will vary with individual perceptions, lifestyle needs and spending power, but on the whole, it seems that ecological

Report BarEnergy

considerations are secondary. During the HU focus group it was noted that consumers generally lack an appreciation of long-term benefits, which is highly applicable in the purchase of energy efficient appliances. As such, consumers willingness to pay a higher price for a more energy efficient product may be limited. There was some evidence to suggest that scepticism about the true extent of environmental problems influences consumerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decisions to purchase energy efficient appliances. The NL focus groups also suggested that energy efficient product varieties may sometimes be perceived to be lower in quality and functionality than the standard alternative.

4.3.1

Initial conclusions on the energy efficient purchase of household appliances

The growing demand for consumer electronics in recent years poses a real dilemma for governments as they try to reconcile lifestyle aspirations and concerns over environmental degradation and energy security. Overall, the ratings of barriers to the purchase of energy efficient household appliances were lower than in the previous section. The (perceived) higher price of energy efficient appliances emerged at the most important barrier. Levels of disposable income and the lack of awareness of, or appreciation for, life-cycle costs were also relevant in the context of price. Whilst the energy label was acknowledged to be a success in communicating energy efficiency ratings to the consumer, there was some level of confusion with the application of the expanded scale. Consumer purchase decisions are influenced by a wide range of factors. The extent to which energy efficiency is a consideration appears to vary according to (amongst other things) whether the appliance is considered essential to everyday life (such as the washing machine), or a luxury product.

4.4

Barriers towards purchase of energy efficient cars

Fuel efficient cars were only discussed in the stakeholder interviews in CH and HU, although this topic also came up at some of the focus groups. In contrast to hybrid or electric cars (see chapter 5), on average fuel-efficient cars were not considered any more expensive than inefficient cars; hence higher purchase price was not identified as a barrier. However, as discussions in the focus groups revealed, as inefficient cars are still affordable and there is a growing tendency for leasing cars, the economic barrier remains important. The main barrier identified by interviewees relates to insufficient regulations and standards on the fuel-efficiency of cars. Fuel-efficiency was also identified as a low or non-existent consideration for car buyers. The table below gives an overview of all the barriers identified by stakeholders and focus group participants on the purchase of energy-efficient cars.

Barrier categories

Examples

Political barriers

â&#x20AC;˘ Insufficient governmental regulation and financial support

Energy efficient purchase

Purchase energy efficient cars

Economic barriers

• Inefficient cars are still affordable

Physical and

• Lack of second-hand cars

structural barriers

• Trend for leasing makes it possible for people to afford bigger, luxury cars • Reluctance of automobile dealers and manufacturers to develop and sell energy efficient cars

• Salespersons’ commission linked to CO2 emissions (higher commission for higher emitting cars)

Cultural normative

• Lack of willingness to buy more efficient, less prestigious cars

Individual/

• Low priority of fuel efficiency for car buyers

and social barriers

psychological

• Owning a big car is associated with prestige and status

barriers

Knowledge based barriers

• Difficulty in identifying relevant information (due to information overload)

Political barriers Regarding fuel efficient vehicles, insufficient governmental regulation was identified as a significant issue, particularly by CH stakeholders. First and foremost, there was consensus that there is insufficient regulatory support from the government. Government policy has a key role in framing development and impetus in the automobile industry. Radical political measures are non-existent (e.g. banning of SUV’s for private use) and there appears a reluctance to introduce effective control measures. Insufficient regulation means there are few clear incentives to encourage consumers to purchase and drive energy-efficient cars. Stakeholders consistently agreed that enforcing regulatory measures to ensure the purchase of energy efficient vehicles needs to be much higher on government agendas.

Economic barriers CH stakeholders maintained that buying inefficient cars is relatively inexpensive, and the trend for leasing cars makes it possible for people to afford bigger, luxury vehicles that would otherwise have been beyond their reach. One stakeholder considered finance to be the main influencing factor in the purchase of private vehicles. Another clear barrier mentioned by the CH stakeholders was the higher profit margin for luxury and larger cars. This presents a financial incentive to sales people who may thus prioritise these vehicles over smaller, more efficient varieties.

Physical and structural barrier HU stakeholders explicitly mentioned the distinct lack of availability of smaller, more affordable vehicles. Similarly, interviewees from CH noted a lack of efficient cars in the second-hand market, which is where the majority of vehicle purchases are made. In FR the reluctance of automobile dealers and manufacturers to sell efficient cars was noted as a barrier, which can be linked to the economic rationale discussed above.

Report BarEnergy

Cultural normative and social barriers In the UK, stakeholders described a significant growth in the popularity of the most polluting cars, with sales of 4x4s increasing by 18%, whilst sales of efficient cars have been on the decline. Focus group participants in CH suggested there is a sense prestige and status associated with driving a larger car.

Individual/psychological barriers In the CH stakeholder interviews fuel efficiency was not considered a top priority for car buyers. A survey conducted in Switzerland showed that power, make and model of the vehicle are more important factors. This may be due to advertising campaigns being more heavily focused on inefficient cars, or that energy efficient cars are perceived to lack the status appeal of larger, high consuming alternatives. This relevance of this latter barrier should decline as efficient cars are becoming “cooler looking”. A number of explanations of the differentiation between the initial cost and secondary costs have been proposed in the literature. A study conducted by Wüstenhagen and Sammer (2007) compared the influence of eco-labelling of different products with other attributes (such as brand, fuel type etc). The results showed that the influence of the energy efficiency rating on car purchases is much smaller than for household appliances. One reason for this is the difference in the decision-making process for purchasing cars and household appliances. The level of energy consumption is considered more important in household appliances because the energy costs to run the appliance over its lifetime account for a higher proportion of the total cost, compared to cars: gasoline consumption accounts for approximately 15% of total lifecycle costs of a car, whereas energy costs for refrigerators amount to more than 30% of its lifecycle costs, rising to 80% for lighting (Wüstenhagen and Sammer, 2007). When the initial, upfront costs are so high, the overall running costs (insurance, fuel and maintenance), which require a long-term perspective, appear less significant.

Knowledge based barriers

A study by Turrentine and Kurani (2006) showed that virtually none of the interviewees perceived car fuel costs to be a burden on the household budget. This finding could be traced back to a knowledge barrier: the majority were unaware of the true cost of running their car and had low recall of their expenditure on fuel. This non-rational approach helps explain the lack of consideration of fuel costs at the time of vehicle purchase (Turrentine and Kurani, 2006). The empirical studies undertaken for this project, however, did not identify knowledge based barriers as important in the context of purchasing energy efficient cars.

4.4.1

Initial conclusions on the purchase of energy efficient cars

The increasing trend for private vehicle ownership continues to pose significant problems for governments across the EU. Overall, the main barrier to the purchase of energy-efficient cars was the lack of sufficient regulation to enforce higher standards for fuel efficiency. This lack of political regulation in the automotive sector means that inefficient cars are still widely affordable. In a decision-making process centred on price, there is therefore little incentive for consumers to purchase the more energy efficient alternatives.

Energy efficient purchase

4.5

Purchase energy efficient cars

Summary of barriers to purchasing energy efficient products

The most important barriers to purchasing energy efficient products and undertaking energy efficient refurbishment, as identified in the stakeholder interview and focus groups, are knowledge-based, economic and physical and structural. Economic and physical and structural barriers also ranked highly in the purchase of fuel efficient cars, whereas knowledge barriers were not perceived as significant in this area. The tables below summarise the results for all three domains. This suggests that knowledge-based, economic and physical and structural barriers are mainly responsible for consumer’s reluctance to invest in energy efficiency. These will therefore be the focus for further analysis. Ranking

4.6

Ranking of barrier categories for Energy efficient refurbishment

Purchase of energy efficient appliances

Purchase of fuel efficient cars

Knowledge-based

Economic

Political

Economic

Knowledge-based

Economic

Physical and structural

Political

Cultural-normative

Individual

Cultural-normative

Knowledge-based

Policy strategies and instruments to overcome barriers

There are multiple examples of policy measures implemented in EU countries to promote energy efficiency. This chapter presents an overview of exemplary policy strategies and instruments to overcome the three most important barriers in the field of consumer investment in energy efficiency: knowledge-based, economic and physical and structural barriers. The results from the quantitative study showed that there is a clear difference in consumer perceptions of ‘pull’ and ‘push’ measures. Pull measures were generally deemed very acceptable, fair and effective, while push measures were considered the exact opposite. Differences in attitudes between countries were generally small; on the whole there was consensus on which measures are acceptable and which are not. Enforcing tighter controls on energy efficiency standards of new builds appeared less acceptable to consumers than supplying subsidies for the installation of retrofit measures. This result was consistent with the findings from the focus groups where participants supported substantive public investment in the form of subsidies. In general, incentive systems or mandatory but “pain-free” systems were favoured over taxation. The latter was heavily criticized and considered to be socially regressive and “opportunistic”. Thus, whilst there was a general feeling that companies should

Report BarEnergy

be taxed on energy use, economic incentives were considered most appropriate to encourage consumer behaviour change. Most focus group participants in CH were supportive of government subsidies for the development of clean energy technologies at an industry level. In the HU focus groups, consumers expressed a distinct lack of trust in the government and whilst they were positive about government subsidies for energy efficiency measures, the current level of support was considered too low. In NL and NO, all focus group participants agreed that more government subsidies should be available to encourage the uptake energy efficiency measures in households. However, in the NO an HU focus groups, there was a sense that subsidies alone would not be sufficient to ensure effective change; stricter regulatory measures were also considered necessary. The apparent support for regulation can be related to a lack of confidence in consumer’s willingness and ability to change their behaviour at current energy price levels. In the UK, whilst not dismissing consumer’s responsibility to adopt more sustainable consumption practices, focus group participants placed significant emphasis on the role of the government in effecting the scale of change required to address environmental issues.

4.6.1

Exemplary policy strategies and instruments

This section presents an overview of various policy instruments aimed at increasing investment in energy efficiency. These were all discussed in the stakeholder interviews or consumer focus groups. In the previous section, the most important barriers to investment in energy efficiency were identified as: economic, knowledge-based and physical and structural. The policy instruments discussed here will therefore be classified under these three headings and by type7: — Financial and fiscal incentives — Regulatory measures — Support, information and voluntary actions — Initiatives from businesses (retail and manufacturers) Figure 19 provides an overview of a selection of policy instruments in the field of energy efficiency. A comprehensive list of possible measures is included in Annex III.

Energy efficient purchase

Policy recommendations

Bonus-Malus scheme Provision of specified feedback

Provision of energy audits

Overcome economic barriers Information campaigns

Indication of energy costs

Public leadership program

Scrappage scheme Bonus-Malus Subsidies scheme

Improved marketing effort

Overcome knowledge - based barriers

Implementation of energy efficiency education in school

Tax incentives

Mandatory energy efficiency label for Mandatory energy appliances performance certificates for buildings

Financial and fiscal incentives Regulatory measures Support, information and voluntary action

Offer of zero interest ecoloans by banks

Energy efficiency

Minimum energy Performance Standards

Overcome physical - structural barriers

Ban on sale of inefficient products/cars Voluntary choice editing Establishment by retailers of collective coordinating bodies

Initiatives from business (retail and manufacturers)

Automatic low power mode

Education and training or professionals

Figure 19: Measures to overcome barriers for energy efficient purchase

4.7

Policy recommendations

Knowledge-based barriers were identified as the most important in the context of investment in energy efficiency. The recommendations discussed therefore focus on policies to raise awareness and educate consumers about energy efficiency, the assumption being that this will give rise to better-informed decisions and ultimately a change in attitude and behaviour. Education programmes are designed to support critical thinking and empower the consumer. This can have widespread repercussions when considering the role of individuals not just as consumers, but also as citizens exercising a social, political and environmental responsibility (for example, by taking part in demonstrations, lobbying government, and voting). Based on the conclusions from the empirical work, a set of priority recommendations to encourage energy efficient purchases is listed in Annex IV.

7) Classification based on UNEP, 2007; UNECE, 2009

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

5.1

Changing to sustainable energy carriers Andrea Farsang and Alan Watt (CEU)

Introduction

The BarEnergy project addresses behaviour changes along three dimensions: energy saving within households, energy efficient purchases within households, and a shift towards more sustainable and renewable energy technologies. This chapter summarises the results on behaviour changes to sustainable energy sources. Why strive for a shift to sustainable energy carriers? The rising costs, scarcity of supply and negative environmental impacts of fossil fuels necessitate a shift to alternative energy sources. The domestic and road transport sector account for a significant proportion of total energy consumption. We therefore explore the barriers to using sustainable energy in both the home (including the installation of photovoltaic panels, the purchase of green power, and the construction of energy efficient houses) and private transportation (focusing on hybrid and fuel-efficient cars). The BarEnergy project combines an individual and institutional approach: consumer behaviour and changes in this behaviour can only be fully understood by taking into consideration how the values, attitudes, norms and knowledge among individuals reflect and are reflected by the institutional settings within which they operate. Shifting to sustainable energy sources mostly requires long-term energy investment decisions. A key question of interest was therefore the potential for change with regard to so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;windows of opportunityâ&#x20AC;?. These may be created by businesses and political authorities with directives, laws, taxes, economic incentives, information provision or changes in infrastructure. Changes at the individual level could also represent an opportunity, for example, moving house, getting married or having children. This chapter discusses the main barriers preventing consumers from using more sustainable sources of energy, as identified in the empirical research, and explores possible tools and policies to overcome.

Report BarEnergy

5.2 Barriers to shifting to sustainable energy technologies for domestic energy use 5.2.1

Barriers to a shift to photovoltaic panels

Photovoltaic panels use solar cells to convert energy from the sun into electricity. Due to the growing demand for renewable energy technologies, the manufacture of photovoltaic panels (PV) has advanced dramatically in recent years. Driven by advances in technology and increases in the scale and quality of manufacturing, the cost of PV has declined steadily since the first solar cells were marketed8. Sophisticated metering combined with financial incentives, such as feed-in tariffs, has supported the uptake of solar PV in many countries. Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) are one of the fastest growing segments of the photovoltaic industry9 and becoming increasingly popular in new domestic and industrial buildings, as the principal or ancillary source of electricity. The table below shows the main barriers to consumer take-up of PV, as identified and ranked by the stakeholders interviewed. Barrier categories

Examples

Economic barriers

• High costs of PV systems

Political barriers

• Unreliable and low level governmental subsidies

Physical and structural

• Low demand and low supply

Knowledge based

• Lack of specific, user-friendly information

Cultural normative and

• Lack of change in architectural thinking

Individual/psychological

• Competition with other investments

barriers

social barriers

barriers

• Lack of financial incentives

• Lack of consistency in policy framework/regulations

• Physical limitations of PV panels

• Aesthetic reasons

• Lack of trust and confidence

Economic barriers The installation of renewable energy technologies, such as photovoltaic panels, usually entails significant upfront costs. The most important economic barrier mentioned in both the stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions is the high initial investment. The cost of the technology and its relative lifetime also mean that, compared to normal electricity, solar power has a very high unit price.

8) Richard Swanson. Photovoltaics Power Up, Science, Vol. 324, 15 May 2009, p. 891 9) Building Integrated Photovoltaics, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, accessed: 2007-03-23.

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Photovoltaic panels

Focus group participants perceived investment in solar panels to result in higher energy savings than could be achieved through behaviour change. However, they also expressed doubts about the cost-effectiveness of making such an investment. These misgivings were often sufficiently strong to prevent them from installing the technology. An additional economic barrier identified is the lack of financial incentives offered to potential consumers, which could help to overcome the economic constraint discussed above.

“I’d like to have solar panels, and I have looked into purchasing them…but it’s simply too expensive, and government subsidies always run out really quickly. So it is simply not feasible for me.” (HU) From this perspective, it is not surprising that many consumers indicated strong support for government subsidies to assist in the purchase of photovoltaic panels. Such an initiative was also deemed very acceptable and considered highly effective by consumers in the survey. Whilst this positive consumer attitude towards subsidies for PV does not guarantee uptake, the data suggests it would significantly help in addressing a key barrier. In CH, customs duties and tariffs, which may be applied to PV systems, add further to the cost of installing the technology.

Political barriers The most important political barrier to emerge was the low level or lack of government support and inconsistent political framework. This barrier was mentioned in all countries of study. Within-country inconsistencies and variability in securing permits for installing PV presents a further barrier. The issuing of permits can depend heavily on the attitude of the individual in charge of approving them. Furthermore, there appears a reluctance in some authorities to change building regulations to be more accommodating to PV systems.

Physical and structural barriers

There were many physical/structural barriers identified in relation to PV. For one, electricity suppliers are often ill-equipped to deal with photovoltaic systems. Some countries also lack regulations or best practice examples for connecting PV systems to the grid (e.g. HU). Stakeholders also identified a lack of competency in sales and marketing. Supply-side offers are often poorly structured and not focused on customers and consumers’ needs. There also appears a distinct lack of professional installers. This barrier correlates strongly with the current low demand for the technology, in a negative feedback loop: low demand results in poor availability/quality of supply, which subsequently further discourages demand. In CH, low demand is an obvious consequence of the low level of home ownership. With some 70% of the population in rental accommodation, there is very limited scope for

Report BarEnergy

investment in PV panels. The concept of split incentives, discussed in section 2.1.5, is applicable here. The availability of roof space and/or orientation of roofs represent real physical barriers to the uptake of PV. Installation of panels in inappropriate locations will result in a lower power output which may be insufficient to meet consumer needs. Furthermore, there is the longstanding issue with PV associated with the misalignment of times of high power output (during the day, in summer months) and high consumer demand (in the evening, in winter months).

Knowledge based barriers The most important knowledge-based barrier is the lack of high quality information and knowledge about the technology, which inhibits informed consumer choice. As the results from focus groups in several countries show (e.g. CH, HU), there is much general information available, but a notable lack of specific, tailored advice. Most customers turn to architects or installers for guidance, but they also often lack adequate knowledge. According to stakeholders interviewed, another significant problem is a lack of consumer understanding of the technical, solar-specific terminology and power outputs. Among the general public, solar collectors are frequently confused with solar cells and people often have no comprehension of how much energy can be produced from a given surface area.

Cultural, normative and social barriers Three cultural/social barriers were identified in the research. The first, which also relates to knowledge-based barriers, is that architects rarely consider the design requirements for buildings to accommodate photovoltaic systems. The second barrier is related to aesthetics: it is not uncommon to face objections to PV installations on the grounds of visual impact. These may be related to concerns over direct impacts on individuals (for example, glare affecting neighbours) or more generally (for example, integrating a modern product with traditional buildings). Addressing objections to PV installations can be a lengthy and complex process. In the UK in particular, focus group participants viewed this as a major barrier to more widespread use and purchase of photovoltaics.

Individual/psychological barriers The most important individual barrier concerning photovoltaic panels is their competition with other large investments. Where the installation of PV requires upfront capital from the consumer, they may face an ‘opportunity-cost’ predicament: their decision to invest in PV may be at the expense of another investment, such as new car or vacation. Personal priorities and aspirations therefore come into play. Another barrier is consumer’s lack of trust in and perceived risks associated with photovoltaic technology. Consumers generally have limited awareness of level of expertise in the sector. The lack of trust in photovoltaic panels therefore not only concerns the technology, but also the process of installation and long term liability. This combined with the perception that photovoltaic technology is still being improved, leads to a ‘wait-and-see’ attitude amongst consumers.

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Photovoltaic panels

“Someone should explain to people the main things about these technologies. If people see and realise that the cost of investment is worth it, then they will become more open to it.” (HU)

5.2.2

Barriers to buying green energy

Sustainable energy is the provision of energy such that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Brundtland, 1987). A broad interpretation of this may permit the use fossil fuels as a transitional source while sustainable energy technology develops; as long as new sources are developed for future generations to use. A narrow interpretation limits the definition to energy sources that are not expected to be depleted in a time frame relevant to the mankind. Sustainable energy sources are most often regarded as including all renewable sources, such as biomass, solar, wind, wave, geothermal and tidal power. It also usually encompasses technologies that improve energy efficiency. Conventional fission power is sometimes referred to as sustainable, but this is politically controversial due to concerns about peak uranium, radioactive waste disposal and safety risks associated with an accident, terrorism, or natural disaster. The use of green energy differs across socio-demographic groups in the countries studied. In most instances, relatively more participants living in rural areas use green energy than urban dwellers (with CH being the exception). Household income level also appears to influence the use of sustainable energy, with an increased use in the higher income bands (except in HU and NL where this trend is not evident). The table below shows the barriers to buying green energy, as identified and ranked in the stakeholder interviews. Barrier categories

Examples

Economic barriers

• Higher price

Individual/psychological

• Lack of trust

barriers

• Lack of visibility

• complicated administration

Knowledge based

• Lack of trust and awareness

Physical and structural

• Structure of electricity purchase and supply

Political barriers

• Quantity and severity of administrative regulations

Cultural normative and

• Aesthetic problems and acceptance of the community

barriers

social barriers

• Competing interests of big suppliers and smaller green ones

• Family structure and decision making

Economic barriers The most important economic barrier is the difference in the unit price of energy. In some countries, like HU, the use of traditional/standard energy sources is supported by financial tools, while in other countries the energy price is already relatively low. At the same time, green electricity is a premium product in most countries (though not in the NL and NO) and is charged at a higher unit compared to standard tariffs.

100

Report BarEnergy

The consumer survey shows that individuals from lower-income groups are less likely to use green energy than individuals from higher-income groups. Similarly, higher income groups showed greater willingness to increasingly use green energy sources. This suggests that the economic barrier is highly influential in preventing individuals from making the switch to green energy. This is true in all countries except NL, where there is no price premium for green energy, and HU.

Individual/psychological barriers The most important individual barrier is the lack of trust and visibility. The former includes a lack of trust that energy declared as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;greenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; by power companies is in fact wholly so, and in energy-related information provided by private companies and governmental agencies. This was particularly evident in the UK and FR focus group discussions. Since electricity is not visible, many consumers do not think of it as a product, and therefore purchasing decisions are not subject to the same conscious choices. At the same time there is a perception that individual consumer behaviour cannot have any significant influence. Furthermore, in many countries people perceive the process of switching to green power as complicated and time consuming. This barrier is reflected in the results of the consumer survey, in which consumers indicated that it would be difficult for them to increase their use of green energy. The survey showed that, on average, consumers have highly favourable attitudes towards increasing their use of green energy. However, these attitudes are poor predictors of actual behaviour, indicating that other barriers prevent individuals from acting upon these latent attitudes. Whether individuals feel morally obliged to use green energy was more predictive of their actual use of it. Individuals who feel it is morally right to use green energy over other sources are more likely to use it.

Knowledge based barriers Many consumers are simply not aware of where their electricity comes from. In HU, the whole population is using some green energy as it is in the mix they are offered, but often they are not aware of this, mainly due to a lack of information. This lack of awareness was evident in all empirical data - no stakeholder or focus group participant mentioned green energy as part of the energy mix. Without access to information on the sources of electricity provided, it is very difficult for consumers to be conscious of the issue. A further barrier is that the perceived additionality of green power (power plant, certification process, etc) is often not sufficiently communicated and consumers do not therefore understand the implications of opting for green power. Furthermore, the justification for the additional cost of green energy in comparison to standard tariffs is often unclear to consumers.

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Green energy

Physical and structural barriers The only barrier mentioned in this area was the structure of electricity purchase and supply; however, this problem varies from county to country. In HU for example it is obligatory for service providers to distribute green energy to all households by including it in the standard energy mix. Therefore the consumer perceives little significance in their purchasing choices. In CH, green power is not available everywhere. In many locations, especially in rural areas, it is not possible to purchase green power (i.e. for about 50% of CH). Of approximately 900 Swiss electricity suppliers, only about 400 offer green power products, and these are usually the larger utilities. The source of energy supply is not visible to consumers nor does it affect the ‘quality’ of energy supplied. From a practical perspective, there is little need to use green energy; as such, households tend to accept whatever supply is offered to them as the default. As most electricity providers don’t offer green power as their standard package, consumers have to make the effort to sign up for green power. The level of effort involved varies considerably between countries: in NL and NO, individuals indicated that they found it reasonably easy to switch to green energy, while in other countries, switching to green energy is perceived as more difficult.

Political barriers Planning regulations were identified as an important barrier to consumers adopting green energy. These were considered too stringent and overly complex. At the same time, subsidies are generally considered too low and difficult to apply for - the amount of paperwork required puts people off.

“I would like to have a windmill in my back garden - I looked into the possibility, but the municipality will not allow it.” (CH) In some countries, for example HU, the current regulations positively discriminate in favour of green energy, but in many ways this is counter-productive: if wind turbines produce energy in excess of demand, the leading regional energy supplier is obliged to purchase the surplus. This conflicts with the commercial interests of the energy supplier.

Cultural, normative and social barriers Many participants in the focus groups suggested that the appearance of some solar and wind power installations would challenge cultural and aesthetic preferences. This was considered a barrier to more widespread uptake of these two renewable technologies, in CH and UK in particular. Related to this is the level of acceptance from neighbours, the local community, or the general public, which could also hinder the installation of renewable energy technologies. Social acceptance is crucial for the implementation of renewable energy projects, illustrating the assertion that technological innovation needs to be grounded in what Habermas (1976) calls ‘lifeworld’. In general, most focus group participants had a positive image of renewable energy technologies, especially wind and solar energy, but such attitudes are not always evident when if comes to approving local installations.

101

102

Report BarEnergy

There seems to be little pressure from local communities on individual consumers to switch to green energy. Consumers indicated in the survey that they did not feel pressure from others to switch to green energy, even though, on average, individuals are aware of the environmental benefits of renewables. The extent to which individuals perceived social pressure to use green energy was weakly predictive of actual use of it, suggesting that it is perhaps not the main barrier for change. A lack of social support can nonetheless be included as one of the barriers preventing individuals from using green energy. According to stakeholder interviews family structure is another relevant barrier. The bill payer usually takes the lead in supplier choice, but there is evidence to suggest that if such choices were discussed with other family members, different choices might be made.

5.2.3

Barriers to the construction of low energy houses

The barriers identified in relation to the construction of low energy houses are summarised below. Barrier categories

Examples

Economic barriers

• High initial investment

Political barriers

• Insufficient support

Knowledge based

• Lack of knowledge of all stakeholders

Physical and structural

• Lack of competent professionals

Cultural normative and

• Lack of interest (due to low demand)

Individual/psychological

• Invisibility of energy-efficiency measures

barriers

social barriers

barriers

• Lack of knowledge of stakeholders

• Lack of skills and knowledge of local planning authorities

• Lack of cost transparency – lifecycle costs

• Lack of trust in new technology

Economic barriers As both stakeholders and focus group participants argued, the main economic barrier to the construction of low energy homes is the high initial investment costs. Such costs are supplementary to an already heavy financial burden on the owner and may therefore be perceived as unattainable.

Political barriers Insufficient government support is the most important political barrier to building energy efficient houses. Stakeholders felt that governments need to provide greater support to enable the more expensive energy efficient construction methods.

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Low energy houses

The lack of capacity, skills and knowledge of local planning authorities also emerged as a key barrier. In the UK, enforcing current building standards is considered a complex and time consuming process. The consumer survey showed that a majority would approve of tougher political regulation to enforce energy-efficiency standards for new housing developments. Individuals considered such measures to be acceptable, fair, and effective in reducing household energy use.

Knowledge based barriers In general the lack of knowledge of almost all stakeholders (owners, installers and architects) was considered an important barrier to building energy efficient houses. Finding an architect who is familiar with low-energy homes is difficult, and it can take multiple attempts and more effort. The further important barrier is the lack of cost transparency. Initial costs were generally the most important for consumers, and only rarely were life-cycle costs discussed, as they are more difficult to calculate.

Physical and structural barriers A lack of knowledge amongst professionals and installers was seen as a barrier by stakeholders. This was especially the case with architects (who sometimes know less than contractors about low-energy housing), but also contractors for larger buildings. Stakeholders maintained that most of these people currently have little experience in the construction of low-energy housing.

Cultural normative and social barriers As with the physical barriers, cultural barriers are also strongly connected to the knowledge based. A lack of existing knowledge about low energy construction amongst professionals necessitates extra effort on their part for a project to come to fruition (for example, undertaking further training). If demand for standard building types remains high, there may be little motivation and incentive for them to engage in this.

Individual/psychological barriers The most important individual barrier identified relates to the invisibility of energyefficiency measures. When building a house, it was suggested that people want something visible and tangible to show for their investment. As such, technologies or features that are more visible than energy-efficiency measures (such as insulation or advanced ventilation or heating systems) may be prioritised. On the other hand, visibility can itself be a barrier if it is negatively perceived, as is sometimes the case for PV. Another significant problem is the lack of trust in new technology. A ‘fear of the unknown’ acts as a deterrent to consumers embracing new technology and building low energy homes. Also, there is sometimes misinformation, or “myths”, associated with low-energy housing, for example that windows cannot be opened, which contributes to this problem.

103

104

Report BarEnergy

5.2.4 Initial conclusions on the barriers to shifting to sustainable energy carriers for domestic energy use Lack of trust in new technologies, which is related to a lack of knowledge and subsequently a lack of awareness, was identified as a key barrier. These are all individual/psychological in nature. High initial investment costs combined with insufficient governmental support are also very important. Finally, the strict and geographically inconsistent regulatory frameworks (NO, CH) were also identified as relevant limiting factors. Whilst there are many similarities in the barriers identified across the different topics and countries investigated, it is worth distinguishing Hungary and Switzerland from other western European countries. In Hungary, the lack of financial resource and subsequent lack of awareness seem to be more relevant than in other countries, while in Switzerland regulatory issues are more relevant due to the political status (non EU member) of the country. Hungary seems to have fewer opportunities and services compared to other countries studied, but the available solutions are relatively developed. This finding might be a result of the so-called leap-frogging potential of less developed countries. For example, in HU, PV technology was absolutely unknown until recently, therefore less efficient models are not present.

5.3

Barriers to shifting to sustainable fuel cars

5.3.1

Barriers to behaviour change towards green fuel cars

The transport sector is facing serious challenges, brought on by the oil and climate crises. The European Commission has a target of a 20% reduction in emissions in the EU by 2020. Achieving this target will require a step change in the fuels used and the way we use them. Thus countries must urgently focus on developing more effective transport systems, where unnecessary travel is reduced, energy is used more efficiently, and alternative fuels account for an increasing share of the market. The table below shows the barriers to consumer purchase of sustainable fuel cars, as identified and ranked by the stakeholders interviewed. Barrier categories

Examples

Physical and structural

• Lack of petrol stations with green fuels

Knowledge based

• Lack of consumer knowledge of the environmental impact

Political barriers

• Differences between EU countries’ tax incentives

Economic barriers

• Lack of competitive pricing of green fuels compared to traditional fuel

Cultural normative and

• Lack of trust among different partners of the whole chain

barriers

social barriers

• Lack of choice of green fuel vehicles

• Lack of development of EU green fuel standards

• Higher production costs for green fuels

• Claim that bio-fuel may be a threat to food production

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Green fuel

Individual/psychological barriers

105

• Lack of sense of urgency to shift energy carrier • Lack of marketing

• Uncommon among peers

Physical and structural barriers

Overall, the most important barrier impeding a shift towards green fuel cars are physical and structural in nature. This relates to lack of infrastructure and facilities, for example petrol stations selling green fuels. At present, fuelling stations usually offer three to four different products (e.g. diesel, 95 and 98 octane). It may not be considered practical or feasible to increase this to accommodate only a limited number of green fuel vehicles.

Knowledge based barriers

Two major barriers related to a lack of knowledge amongst consumers were identified. Firstly, there appears a lack of awareness about the environmental benefits of green fuels. Secondly, consumers lack technical knowledge about using green fuels, with associated concerns about the potential damaging effects of bio-fuels on car engines.

Political barriers One of the political barriers to emerge from the data related to the difference between EU countries’ tax incentives encouraging the use of green fuels. In NL, for example, no fiscal policy incentives exist for green fuel cars. The lack of progression of EU green fuel standards presents a further political and administrative barrier. At present, the European standards for bio-fuel are B5 in diesel production and E5 in gasoline (5%), but these standards are likely to be upgraded in the next few years.

Economic barriers Economic barriers hinder the large-scale introduction of green fuel cars. The production of B5 (diesel) and E5 (petrol) increases the production costs of diesel and petrol. At present, there is a lack of transparency in the pricing of high blend green fuels; no clear price exists and market values are therefore speculative. Another economic barrier is the high investment needed in infrastructure and distribution systems to ensure these are compatible with high blend green fuel vehicles.

Cultural normative and social barriers Biofuels have been the source of some debate and subject to some criticism over their potential threat to food production. This has resulted in a lack of trust in the concept among different (potential) partners. Concerns about the resources required in the production of crops and development of biofuels inhibit the level of commitment and support from policy makers, civil organizations and businesses. It is not only the higher price that makes green fuels less attractive: there is also a lack of marketing and skepticism about their sustainability credentials. This last point also refers to the claim that bio-fuels may be a threat to food production, as noted above.

106

Report BarEnergy

Individual and Psychological barriers

There appears a lack of the sense of urgency to shift to green fuels amongst individual consumers. This is due to a combination of the barriers described above, including lack of awareness of the impact of driving; lack of marketing; lack of suitable cars and infrastructure; and the lack of familiarity with green fuel cars. The latter point relates to the ‘I will if you will’ attitude – a low uptake of green fuel cars in society limits consumer pressure and willingness to act.

5.3.2

Barriers to the purchase of hybrid and electric cars

Stakeholder interviews related to the purchase of hybrid cars were conducted in CH, FR, UK, HU and NL. Electric cars also became a topic of discussion at some of the focus groups. In contrast to the challenges facing fuel-efficient cars, discussed in chapter 4, the main barrier to hybrid cars was identified as the higher price tag, followed by the fact that there are few models to choose from (where either of these barriers could be seen as the cause or effect of the other). Some interviewees also noted that car buyers do not have a clear picture of the long-term value of hybrids (for example, in their value in the second hand market), which further accentuates the higher price barrier.

“Why should people pay 6,000 euro extra for the same type of car?”(HU) The table below outlines all the barriers to consumer purchase of hybrid and electric cars, as identified and ranked by the stakeholders interviewed. The table below shows an overview of barriers for change towards purchase of hybrid and electrical cars. Barrier categories

Examples

Economic barriers

• High initial investment

Physical and structural

• Supply limitation

barriers

• Uncertainty over the long term value of hybrid cars

• Not enough second-hand hybrid cars • Limited choice of vehicle models

Cultural normative and

• Uncommon among peers

Political

• Too little government support

Individual/psychological

• Image of hybrids as “powerless”

social barriers

barriers

Economic barriers As noted above, the relatively high cost of hybrid cars is a notable barrier for consumers. Furthermore, the cost savings from more efficient fuel consumption do not always adequately compensate for the higher purchase price: on average it takes about seven years to recover the cost of investment in a hybrid vehicle, whereas the average length

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Hybrid and electric cars

of vehicle ownership is just three years. In HU, FR and CH, stakeholders linked the high costs with the lack of mass production of these vehicles. Larger, luxury cars can offer a higher profit margin compared to hybrid vehicles, thus incentivising salespersons to focus their attentions on these more inefficient, highconsuming models.

Physical and structural barriers One of the main barriers identified in the FR stakeholder interviews was the lack of marketing and retail offers in relation to hybrid vehicles. NL and CH stakeholders alluded to the limited choice in hybrid vehicles. Whilst there are hundreds of different makes and models of conventional vehicles, there is just handful of hybrid varieties. HU stakeholders explicitly mentioned the lack of small-class vehicles with lower prices and interviewees from CH noted the lack of a good second hand market for these cars. All these factors accentuate the financial inaccessibility of hybrid vehicles. The reluctance and disinterest of automobile dealers and manufacturers to develop the market for hybrid and electric vehicles was also criticised. One stakeholder maintained that in the last 30 years, major manufacturers have been heavily focused on improving conventional vehicles – for example, noise, pollution levels, reliability and economy – at the expense of eco-models.

Cultural normative and social barriers In the UK, there has been significant growth in the popularity of ‘gas-guzzling’ vehicles, with sales of 4x4s increasing by 18%, whilst the purchase of efficient cars has been on the decline. Focus group participants in CH suggested there is a sense prestige and status associated with driving a larger car. In the NL, stakeholders suggested that the environmentally-friendly, “green” image is often associated with a lack of vehicle power. Whilst some consumers are attracted by the new technology of hybrid and electric vehicles, others see them as unfashionable and impractical. For NL consumers, a consideration of vehicle suitability for holidays was an important factor in their purchase choice. Stakeholders therefore suggested that marketing of hybrid cars should focus on both the environmental and ‘standard’ credentials.

Knowledge based barriers In the NL and CH, stakeholders suggested there is a lack of awareness amongst consumers about the long-term value of hybrid and electric cars. This links to the lack of an established second hand market for these vehicles.

107

108

Report BarEnergy

Individual/psychological barriers Fuel efficiency was identified as being a relatively low priority for car buyers. In a survey conducted on behalf of the Swiss Government, horse power and brand were, amongst other things, found to be more important. This may be the result of advertising being focused on inefficient cars, or the perceived low status symbol of energy efficient cars, as discussed above. Another issue identified, in the FR stakeholder interviews, relates to anxiety amongst consumers about the reliability of new technologies. This is a well known barrier in the history of innovations (Beillan and Legris-Desportes, 1995). In particular, low battery capacity and safety concerns were raised in the focus groups. As such, electric cars were perceived only as a viable choice for a second car for people living in urban areas. Whilst some consumers recognised the environmental benefits, the level of concern still surrounding electric vehicles on the whole outweighed these: “Although the ecological cost of the vehicle is never spontaneously mentioned, this item is perceived as a “half car”, because of the technical constraints which significantly reduce the overall functionality of the vehicle” (Faivre d’Acier, 2008).

5.3.3

Initial conclusions on barriers to shifting to sustainable fuel cars

The most important barriers regarding the change towards green fuel cars exist at both the institutional and individual level. At the institutional level, a lack of infrastructure and appropriate facilities is a significant barrier preventing green fuels from becoming mainstream. The main barrier for hybrid cars is the higher price tag, followed by the fact that there are few models to choose from. From a market perspective, there is a need to increase the supply of hybrid and electric vehicles, to expand both the new and second hand market. The prevalence of economic barriers suggests that, from a policy perspective, financial incentives are needed to encourage consumers to shift to sustainable fuel cars. On an individual level, the lack of knowledge and trust in hybrid and electric vehicles, and scepticism surrounding the sustainability of biofuels emerged as significant barriers. This suggests a need for improvements in the quality and accessibility of information, at the consumer level, on technical, environmental and ethical issues related to the production of biofuels and driving electric and hybrid cars.

5.4

Summary of barriers to changing to sustainable energy sources The analysis of data from the stakeholder interviews and focus groups identified the main barriers to changing to sustainable energy sources in the context of domestic energy use to be knowledge-based, economic, political, and physical-structural. In the context of personal transport, knowledge-based, political, physical-structural and economic barriers prevail. The tables below summarise the results for all domains, giving a comprehensive overview of all barrier types identified. This suggests that, in fact, knowledge based, economic, political and physical-structural barriers are mainly responsible for the reluctance of consumers’ to shift to sustainable energy sources. These will therefore be the focus for further analysis.

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Summary

Ranking

109

Ranking of barrier categories for DOMESTIC ENERGY

Sub-topic

Photovoltaic panels

Buying green energy

Constructing low energy houses

Economic

Political

Individual

Political

Physical and structural

Knowledge-based

Physical and structural

Cultural-normative

Political

Individual

Cultural-normative

Ranking

Ranking of barrier categories for TRANSPORT

Sub-topic

Hybrid cars

Green fuel cars

Economic

Physical and structural barriers

Physical and structural

Knowledge based barriers

Cultural-normative

Political barriers

Political

Economic barriers

Individual

Cultural normative and social barriers

5.5

Individual/psychological barriers

Policy strategies and instruments to overcome barriers This section presents an overview of various policy instruments to encourage a positive change in consumer energy use behaviour (see figure 20). The policies included are all based on the discussions in the stakeholder interviews or focus groups, and address the headline barriers identified in the previous section, namely: economic, knowledgebased, physical and structural, and political barriers. The policy instruments are therefore classified under these barrier headings and by type10: — Financial and fiscal incentives — Regulatory measures — Support, information and voluntary actions — Initiatives from businesses (retail and manufacturers)

10) Classification based on UNEP, 2007; UNECE, 2009

110

Report BarEnergy

Labeling system

Awareness raising

Decreasing VAT of relevant products

Overcome knowledge - based barriers Integration to official education

New construction standards

Awareness raising

Energy price regulation

Behaviour change

Overcome political barriers

Governmental support

Labeling system

Overcome economic barriers

Feed in tariff Incentives for contructors

Government al support

A waiver for PV construction permits

Decreasing VAT of relevant products

Energy efficiency norms

Overcome structural barriers

Creditable information

City planning

Trainings

Financial and fiscal incentives Regulatory measures Support, information and voluntary action Initiatives from business (retail and manufacturers) Policy measures

Figure 20: Measures to overcome barriers for change to sustainable energy sources

A comprehensive list of possible measures to overcome barriers to shifting to sustainable energy sources is described in Annex V.

5.6

5.6.1

Policy recommendations

These recommendations emerged (mainly) from the stakeholder interviews and are conceptual rather than fully developed policy programmes. The feasibility of the recommendations is not analysed, so in many cases they may be aspirational. As economic and knowledge-based barriers were identified as highly relevant, financial and regulatory tools, and information and education campaigns dominate the recommendations.

Domestic Energy Use

The state and energy suppliers clearly have a strong role in ensuring a transition to sustainable energy technologies. Governments need to development a clear and consistent policy, to eliminate any distrust or uncertainty amongst producers and consumers about investing in sustainable energy. This may include re-evaluating planning laws to ensure flexibility in accommodating renewable energy developments and/or enforcing fiscal incentives for the generation of renewable energy. The provision

Changing to sustainable energy carriers

Conclusions

of competitive and attractive finance/loans for consumers investing in sustainable energy installations is also important. In this way the state provides opportunities for the installation of renewable energy technologies and consumers have the means to maximize these opportunities. Feed-in tariffs are an example of such an approach: by guaranteeing a price for renewable energy generated, consumers have a sense of security in their investment. Drawing on the conclusions from the empirical work, a set of top priority policy recommendations to enhance the shift to sustainable energy sources is listed in Annex VI.

5.6.2

Sustainable cars and green fuels

At the institutional level, a lack of infrastructure and appropriate facilities is a significant barrier preventing green fuels from becoming mainstream. The main barrier for hybrid cars is the higher price tag, followed by the fact that there are few models to choose from. From a market perspective, there is a need to increase the supply of hybrid and electric vehicles, to expand both the new and second hand market. The prevalence of economic barriers suggests that, from a policy perspective, financial incentives are needed to encourage consumers to shift to sustainable fuel cars. Based on the limited empirical work on this sub-topic, it was not realizable to generate a representative list of priority policy recommendations to enhance the shift to sustainable cars and green fuels.

111

Conclusions and recommendations

6.1

113

Conclusions and recommendations Martin van de Lindt, Sophie Emmert and Helma Luiten (TNO)

Introduction

The BarEnergy project aims to explore the strength and relevance of various barriers to change in consumer energy behavior; make policy recommendations for overcoming these barriers; and contribute to methodological development in this area of research. The study addresses three fundamental strategies for reducing domestic energy consumption: a change in day to day energy consuming practices; in installation of energy efficiency measures and purchase of energy efficient appliances; investment in renewable energy and the adoption of new sustainability concepts. Three domains of consumer energy consumption are explored within each strategic area. These domains were chosen for their high impact potential, as follows: — domestic energy use, which is responsible for 40% of total energy consumption; — household appliances, which are used daily within the home, often with little regard for the environmental implications — fuel efficiency of cars, as CO2 emissions from transport in Europe increased more than 20% in the last decade and mobility in general is expected to grow further for the coming decade. A number of barriers exist that impede changes in consumer behavior necessary to achieve a reduction in energy consumption. These barriers can be classified as follows: 1. Physical and structural barriers: availability to resources and infrastructure 2. Political barriers: laws, directives, regulations 3. Cultural-normative or social barriers: societal rules, habits etc 4. Economic barriers: investments, payback time 5. Knowledge based barriers: relevant information, pros and cons of solutions 6. Individual/psychological barriers: individual taboos, experiences, upbringings Overcoming these barriers presents a number of challenges, not least because they are interconnected at various societal levels (see figure 21). As such, we distinguish between: — the market, where consumers, producers and retailer “meet”; — the state, which represents not only the governmental level, but also regimes, (e.g. planning), and stakeholders involved in these regimes; — civil society, which represents the consumer, social networks, daily practices, perceptions etc.

114

Report BarEnergy

State

Physical - structural barriers

Market

Economic barriers

Energy Behaviour Knowledge barriers

Political barriers

Individual - psychological barriers

Civil Society Cultural - normative barriers

Figure 21: Interplay between behavior, barriers , institutions and regimes

By recognizing the interrelationship between the different barriers, and based on the findings of the empirical research, it is clear that a combination of policy approaches on various levels is necessary to provoke the required behavioral change. The first three sections of this chapter discuss the different approaches applied in the three consumer areas. A comprehensive overview of barriers and measures identified in the research is provided in Annex I, III and V of this report. This chapter concludes with a reflection on the methodology and suggestions for further research.

6.2 Main policy directions regarding the strategies of saving, efficiency and change The results from the empirical research on the strength and relevance of the various barriers to the three strategies (saving, efficiency and change) suggest there is little difference between the strategies. The same sets of barriers were repeatedly identified for all three strategies, as shown in figure 22. However, conditions surrounding the barriers do differ substantially, as is discussed in following sections.

Conclusions and recommendations

115

Energy saving

(Domestic energy, household appliances, fuels (cars))

Energy efficiency

(Domestic energy, household appliances, fuels (cars))

Change towards sustainable energy (Domestic energy and fuels (cars))

Individual - psychological Knowledge based Physical - structural

Economic Knowledge based Physical - structural Economic Knowledge based Physical - structural Political

Figure 22: results main barriers

6.2.1

Saving: policy directions in domestic energy use, household appliances and mobility

In the context of energy saving, knowledge-based barriers are critical. Reducing energy consumption without compromising comfort and personal status is a key challenge for consumers. As such, these barriers are closely related to individual/psychological factors, which are in turn influenced by our daily practices, social networks, etc, and even by physical-structural barriers. The results of the survey showed that consumers perceive the availability of goods, services and infrastructure as barrier to changing practices. This was echoed in the focus group discussions where, for example, consumers showed little willingness to reduce their car use for short distance journeys. This stems from a long-established dependence and reliance on the private car. Car use being at the centre of town planning has, in many instances, resulted in a lack of alternatives, or at least alternatives which are not considered comparable with the benefits of driving, thus further accentuating the prominence of car use.

Social networks have a key role to play in changing personal habits and cultural norms. However, these must be combined with market support, in the way of information and products that create opportunities for energy saving behavior. The State therefore also has a responsibility, in providing the required resources and infrastructure to effect this change. Figure 23 illustrates this multi-layered approach. The potential for energy policy to change behavior could be enhanced if combined with other consumer interest campaigns. For example, reducing car use for short journeys can be framed within a health and fitness agenda. Effective targeting and tailoring of initiatives to address the needs of specific consumer groups is also fundamental for policy success.

116

Report BarEnergy

State

Providing information/ products

Providing infrastructure/ information

Energy Behaviour

Market

Focus on networks and practices

Civil Society

Figure 23: Main policy directions towards energy saving

6.2.1.1 Domestic energy use Knowledge-based barriers also dominated in the context of domestic energy use. Here the major factor preventing consumers from adopting better energy saving practices related to a lack of information in general, and direct feedback on personal energy consumption patterns specifically. However, economic and individual/psychological barriers were also evident, with cost and comfort being the main drivers of energy consumption in the home. However, the latter appeared as top priority: on the whole consumers would only consider rationing their energy use, and compromising comfort, once the cost became prohibitive. At present, energy prices appear too low to motivate consumers to change their habits in this regard. In summary, it seems that the interrelated individual/psychological and culturalsocial barriers are the most pertinent for policy-makers to consider. Comfort appears to be the top priority for many â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ahead of both economic and environmental concerns. Here both daily habits and the personal efforts related to energy saving behaviour are important factors. In addition, whilst relevant information on energy conservation and environmental issues appears to be available in most countries, it could be more readily so, making it accessible to not just the motivated consumer. Based on the discussion above, there appears a policy gap in relation to providing feedback at the individual consumer level, on daily domestic energy use. Smart metering, combined with real-time home energy displays offers one possible solution. Depending on the functionality of the display, this has the potential to improve consumer understanding of the consequences of their practices, in terms of energy consumed, cost and environmental impact. However, according to our policy framework smart metering has to be supported by the state and the market. The state may be required to address privacy issues related with smart metering and mandate the provision of the devices. Furthermore, it is recommended that smart metering be combined with the introduction of a price ladder system, which again would require state enforcement. Price laddering sees the unit price of energy increase with consumption levels. Both the state and energy suppliers have a role in ensuring consumers have the necessary information to maximise the benefits of smart metering. Community level activity in rolling out the devices could

Conclusions and recommendations

be highly beneficial in ensuring consumer acceptability and engagement. The market has an obvious role in ensuring a sufficient supply chain and innovative, user-friendly products are available, and similarly retailers in being equipped to advise consumers about the devices. 6.2.1.2 Household appliances With regards to cooking and baking, a notable barrier is the lack of will amongst many participants to change behaviour. These individual/psychological barriers are important, and are almost certainly linked to further underlying barriers related to lack of knowledge, direct feedback on actions and low energy prices, which all lower motivational levels to act. As with cooking and baking, the habitual factor is very strong when it comes to the use of appliances. For instance, switching off lights can be a highly automatic behaviour, governed by both personal and collective norms. The topic of “use of appliances” also shows similarities with “domestic energy use” with knowledge-based barriers again being highly relevant. However, in the context of the former, the knowledge gap is very specific to appliances. In the focus group discussions, participants demonstrated a fairly low level of knowledge about the energy consumption of different household appliances. Structural barriers were also present, particularly in relation to stand-by, which is increasingly becoming the default ‘off’ mode. Additional effort is thus required from the consumer to fully turn an appliance off (e.g. unplugging at the wall), which can also result in the appliance then needing reprogramming. This suggests a need for technological innovation to accompany behaviour change in this area. Culturally, there is a differentiation between what constitutes a ‘necessary’ and ‘luxury’ appliance, and consumer expectations of the former appears to be expanding, from appliances such as the fridge, stove, washing machine and TV, to include tumble dryers, dishwashers and computers. Thus there exists a real challenge for policy makers in addressing this cultural shift in the modern consumer lifestyle. 6.2.1.3 Mobility: reducing fuel use in cars Reducing the fuel consumption of private cars can be achieved in a number of ways. The BarEnergy project explored three key areas: short distance driving, using public transport and car pooling and car sharing. Individual/psychological barriers appear highly relevant in the context of short distance driving, and choosing public transport instead of the car. Convenience factors associated with journey times, hassle, journey planning, and flexibility contributed to a general preference for the private car. This ties in with cultural barriers related to car use reflecting important traits of modern lifestyles. There were also political barriers associated with city planning being too heavily focused on the private car. This results in a general perception that infrastructure is insufficient to support alternative means of transport, even in urban areas with some level of public transport services. In the context of car pooling and car sharing, the main barriers identified were also individual/psychological in nature (for example, the pre-planning needed, inflexibility, lifestyle issues, and safety concerns). However, knowledge-based (lack of information about the services) and physical-structural barriers (poor quality of networks) also emerged.

117

118

Report BarEnergy

The everyday need for mobility underpins the policy framework for reducing car use. However, role for the state / regime is emphasised here, more so than in the other two consumer areas. We maintain that as addressing physical-structural barriers is both easier and more relevant for improving the underlying infrastructure that shapes transportation behaviour. This might in turn help to overcome the strong individual/ psychological barriers that exist. It could be reasonably argued that if politicians want people to act differently, then alternative options must first be available in sufficient quantity and quality. We therefore suggest a shift in city planning towards a more eco-friendly infrastructure is first required, for example, by improving public transport and providing better P+R services. There are a number of European cities that provide examples best practice in the development of sustainable transport infrastructure. For example, in the Dutch town of Houten, the city transportation network was developed in such a way that it is possible to travel around the town much quicker by bike than by car, thus overcoming some of the major barriers associated with time and flexibility of short distance driving. Park and Ride services could be improved in a number of ways. For example, increasing the frequency of shuttle units; providing more up to date travel information to encourage use; and ensuring sufficient infrastructural capacity at rush hours. Such initiatives are important to ensure consumer motivation and satisfaction compared to the alternative choice of driving. Park-and-bike services or offering low cost city bicycles networks could also encourage consumer to choose alternatives to short distance driving. Following the improvement of infrastructure and services, we recommend the introduction of regulatory tools, in the form of congestion charges/car free zones (economic tools/change in infrastructure). Congestion charges or traffic charges could be introduced for cars entering specific areas of cities, or at specific times. Exceptions could be made for cars with 2 or more persons, thus also encouraging car-sharing. The benefits are two-fold: public transport becomes relatively less expensive, and revenue can be reinvested in further improvements to infrastructure and services. Measures that impinge on personal freedom, through regulation of car use, or increase costs for the individual consumer, will face public scrutiny. It is therefore pivotal to ensure transparency with regards to re-investment in public transport to ensure public acceptability. Car free zones in cities, where restrictions could be limited to certain times of day, or specific days, is another highly relevant, recommended initiative for addressing private car use. For car sharing and car pooling it is again important that the service is first improved, for it to become a viable alternative to the use of private cars. In doing so, individual/ psychological barriers that exist for consumers will also be addressed. Where sufficient car-sharing/pooling networks already exist, a lack of knowledge and awareness of the service can act as a barrier to uptake. It is recommended that policy initiatives focus primarily on improving the quality of the networks, and then increasing awareness about them and their advantages over owning and using your own car. In parallel, there needs to be a provision of economic/structural advantages for shared/ pooled vehicles and tax incentives for car-pooling companies (economic tool/juridical instruments); and neighbourhood-based car sharing networks (economic tools/change in infrastructure) that offer convenience, familiarity and security.

Conclusions and recommendations

119

6.2.2 Efficiency: policy directions in domestic energy use, household appliances and mobility

The results from the BarEnergy project show that in the field of domestic energy efficiency, knowledge-based barriers again play a very important role. Clear and reliable product information is central to ensuring informed consumer purchase choices. From the consumers perspective, awareness of the availability of products and, where relevant, subsidies is also important. Furthermore, the quantitative survey showed that consumers often perceive ‘green’ products and services to cost more than ‘traditional’ ones. That these high upfront costs can be recovered through energy savings over the lifetime of the product is of little consequence to consumer purchase decisions. Policy directions to address barriers surrounding energy efficiency in the home should therefore focus on the market, such that products have to meet specifications and retailers act as sources of information. At the same time, consumer demand for energy efficient products has to be stimulated. Policy measures must also therefore take account of social networks and practices, and focus on maximizing potential ‘windows of opportunity’ (moving home, refurbishing etc). In some of the focus groups, participants seemed willing to embrace “green purchases” at opportune moments, but reduced payback periods are crucial to ensuring this willingness is acted upon. Thus the state/regime has an important role in providing targeted information and a simple subsidy scheme (see figure 24 below).

State

Providing (stimulation) infrastructure/information

Focus on consumption – production chain product requirements, retailer as source of information, stimulating consumer demand

Energy Behaviour

Market

Networks and practices

Civil Society

Figure 24: Main policy directions towards energy efficiency

6.2.2.1 Domestic energy use In the context of domestic energy use, the BarEnergy project addressed the subject of energy efficient refurbishment. The predominant barriers to emerge here were knowledge-based, such as the lack of expertise amongst all involved market players including professionals, home owners and installers. Economic barriers, such as the (perceived) high initial cost of measures, also play an important role. Consumers often face a barrier in financing home improvements, either

120

Report BarEnergy

because they do not have the capital available or cannot secure a loan. However, the perceived high costs can be misconceived. Consumers do not often adopt a long term perspective and take account of life-cycle costs of measures. This can stem from a lack of knowledge or interest. Thus the economic and individual/psychological barriers are closely interlinked. Physical and structural barriers were ranked as the third most important factor, especially the problem of split-burden between owners and tenants. This barrier is of particular relevance in countries with a high proportion of apartments and renters. The environment per se does not appear significant motivation for consumers to save energy and investments in home improvements must always compete with other purchases, such as a new car or kitchen. Such decisions are heavily influenced by lifestyle choices and social norms. Based on the barriers identified, it is recommended that the market forms the basis for the policy framework, in particular the evident skills gap in the area of energy efficient refurbishment needs to be addressed. This could be achieved through appropriate training and education systems for professionals and installers, such that they are equipped to provide consumers with correct and relevant information about energy efficiency measures. At the same time, on the demand side, consumer awareness needs addressing. This could be achieved through awareness raising initiatives, combined with (free) energy audits. However, such initiatives need to go beyond the general, to ensure tailored information is targeted at specific consumer groups and windows of opportunities, for example, buying a new house/moving home, transitions in family circumstances etc. This necessitates joint collaboration between professionals, the state and regime players, taking advantage of popular media and maintaining a consistent and clear message. According to our policy framework the state/regime also has an important role in reducing the economic barriers. It is therefore recommended that the state provide a consistent and reliable subsidy arrangement, linked with a mandatory energy labeling system for houses. For example, offering home owners tax incentives for achieving a certain level of energy efficiency can ease the issue of split-burden. Direct subsidies for energy efficiency installations can help to alleviate the economic barrier and reduce the payback time of measures. At the same time manufacturers and retailers should be rewarded for producing or selling energy efficient products that meet certain standards. Although most energy efficiency measures are cost effective within a relatively short period of time, many are not realized because of financial barriers. It is therefore recommended that attractive financing mechanisms are introduced that see the costs of retrofit measures reflected in the market value of the house. Another option is to offer homeowners the opportunity to install energy efficiency measures at no upfront cost, but instead spreading repayments over long periods of time. Repayments can be set in line with estimated energy bill savings resulting from the measures and would be attached to the property, not to the owner. In theory this approach also addresses the financial barrier associated of lower income households’ lack of access to credit. The UK´s pilot “Pay-as-you save scheme” is an example of such an approach. Similarly, in Switzerland, special mortgages - Minergie mortgages - are available for refurbishment up to a certain standard.

Conclusions and recommendations

6.2.2.2 Household appliances The growing demand for consumer electronics in recent years poses a real dilemma for governments as they try to reconcile lifestyle aspirations with concerns over environmental degradation and energy security. The higher price of energy efficient appliances emerged the most important barrier to their uptake. However, the empirical studies showed that the real problem lies not in the actual cost of these appliances, but in the different investment profiles and opaque life-cycle costs. It was apparent that the purchase of household appliances was influenced a range of factors. There appeared a tendency for consumers from all countries to view “white” goods, such as the refrigerator and cooker, as being non-luxury, essential items indispensable to basic day-to-day practices of modern society. Participants also expressed concern that the proposed extension to the European Energy Label would add a level of complexity and confusion. It is therefore recommended that the established, straightforward and familiar format of a closed A-G label is maintained, with a regular rescaling to guarantee effectiveness. For the latter to be meaningful, a date should be included to indicate the validity of the rating. Furthermore, changes to the existing label will require a substantial communication effort in order to reduce ambiguity for manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Although at the time of writing, the European Parliament has approved the new layout of the EU energy efficiency label, introducing additional “plus” classes to the familiar colour scheme, we recommend a review of consumer behaviour should be undertaken in relation to this. Our research suggests the “A” rating is still considered as the best class by consumers and as such the utility of the proposed additional classes is questionable. There is a strong role for the state and regime in addressing demand side issues associated with the purchase of energy efficient appliances. We strongly advise that education about energy efficiency becomes a mandatory part of the school system, thus addressing the knowledge gap and helping to develop critical skills in the field of energy efficiency. Children often act as “environmental agents” at home, sharing knowledge from school and having a direct impact on the behaviour of their parents. For this potential to be realised, teachers will also require adequate training and resources. Targeted promotion campaigns, taking advantage of popular media, where NGO’s and social networks take a lead can also help to raise consumer awareness. New, innovative ways of reaching different consumer groups through different media should be explored. In this respect the internet is important channel to consider. Furthermore, we recommend a bottom-up approach is adopted, using a range of communication channels and online tools (e.g. games, social networks, blogs where advice is shared peer-to-peer) to ensure the relevant information is easily accessible to consumers when they want it. 6.2.2.3 Mobility: purchase of energy efficient cars Continuing increases in the volume and number of private vehicles poses a significant problem for governments across the EU. Overall, the main barrier to the purchase of energy-efficient cars related to insufficient regulations on fuel-efficiency standards. As a result, inefficient cars are still affordable to consumers and, as consumers are mostly guided by a cost/gain perspective, there is little incentive to opt for a more efficient vehicle. On the supply side, a higher profit margin for luxury and larger cars focuses sales attention on these over energy efficient models.

121

122

Report BarEnergy

Individual/psychological barriers also important. In the stakeholder interviews, fuel efficiency was identified as a low priority for car buyers. Horsepower and brand were considered far more important. This may be the result of advertising being focused on inefficient cars, or the perceived low status symbol of energy efficient cars. The latter point should become less relevant, as efficient cars are becoming “cooler” looking and some are attracted by the innovative technology. The influence of eco-labelling on car purchase appears much smaller than on household appliances. This relates to inherent differences in the decision-making process associated with cars and household appliances. The level of energy consumption is considered more important in household appliances because the cost to run the appliance over its lifetime accounts for a higher proportion of the total purchase cost, compared to cars: gasoline consumption accounts for approximately 15% of the total lifecycle costs of a car, whereas energy costs for refrigerators amount to more than 30% of its lifecycle costs, rising to 80% for lighting (Wüstenhagen and Sammer, 2007). When the initial, upfront costs are so high, the overall running costs (insurance, fuel and maintenance), which require a long-term perspective, appear less significant. Based on these barriers, one of the main recommendations focuses on the product – consumer chain: that is to introduce incentives for the purchase of fuel efficient cars, and penalties for buying inefficient cars. The state/regime has a crucial role in implementing such incentives. Initiatives include: scrappage schemes; exemption from import and excise duties; free parking for fuel efficient vehicles; exemption from road tolls; and permission to use public transport lanes. Various fiscal incentives and subsidies are already in place in different countries (see Annex XX for examples). However, the potential distributional impacts of such policies, for example, on low income groups should be considered. On the supply side, retailers have an import role. It is recommended that the system of higher profits/commission on larger and more expensive cars is re-evaluated. Furthermore, sales personnel need to be well trained to give consumers correct and relevant information about rules, regulations, life-cycle costs, etc. The manufacturing industry is already sending a positive message, with increasing emphasis being put on manufacture of fuel efficient cars and developing more appealing models. The government should support these kinds of developments and develop transparent policy on efficiency standards.

6.2.3 Change to sustainable energy technologies: policy directions in domestic energy use and mobility

The change towards sustainable energy represents a personal transition of meeting our energy needs in a more sustainable way. This personal transition is hampered by a number of barriers. The knowledge barrier is highly relevant. Consumers need to have a greater level of understanding of the different products available and their applicability, if they are to fully embrace and invest in new concepts, such as passive housing and electric vehicles. This is particularly pertinent when considering that many of these innovations are more costly than the traditional solution. From the consumers’ perspective, as well as from the research and business perspective, existing laws, rules, regulations, and inconsistent (energy) policy framework further restrict progression in this area. This issue was cited in both the stakeholder interviews and participants focus groups. Thus policy measures must combine a top down (state), and bottom-up approach

Conclusions and recommendations

123

(see figure 25). Focus should be on state governance ensuring opportunity for new initiatives, with a clear and consistent energy policy framework, and rewarding frontrunners at the consumer, business and research level. This should be supported by using social networks to reach and engage consumers and targeting specific groups within a specific context, to maximize windows of opportunities. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;marketâ&#x20AC;? also has a role in ensuring retailers are equipped to act as trained consultants in advising consumers.

State

Consumptionâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;production chain Retailer as consultant

Market

Energy Behaviour

Focus on space for new initiatives, clear energy policy, rewarding policy for frontrunners (consumers, business, research)

Social networks and practices of frontrunners

Civil Society

Figure 25: Main policy directions towards change towards sustainable energy

6.2.3.1 Domestic energy use In the context of adopting sustainable technologies in domestic energy use the BarEnergy project focused on photovoltaic panels, green energy and low energy houses. Overall, barriers identified were fairly consistent across the three topic areas and countries investigated. The first general barrier relates to a lack of trust of individuals in new technologies, which ultimately stems from a lack of knowledge and awareness. These are all individual/psychological barriers. Naturally, high initial investment costs combined with insufficient governmental support are also very important barriers. Finally, the strict and inconsistent regulatory framework apparent in some countries (NO, CH) further hinders take up of sustainable energy technologies, e.g. regional variations in building regulations and permit allocation. The state and energy suppliers clearly have a strong role in ensuring a transition to sustainable energy technologies. Governments need to development a clear and consistent policy, to eliminate any distrust or uncertainty amongst producers and consumers about investing in sustainable energy. This may include re-evaluating planning laws to ensure flexibility in accommodating renewable energy developments and/or enforcing fiscal incentives for the generation of renewable energy. The provision of competitive and attractive finance/loans for consumers investing in sustainable energy installations is also important. In this way the state provides opportunities for the installation of renewable energy technologies and consumers have the means to maximize these opportunities. Feed-in tariffs are an example of such an approach:

124

Report BarEnergy

by guaranteeing a price for renewable energy generated, consumers have a sense of security in their investment. In parallel, it is extremely important to address the knowledge gap. It is recommended that this is approached from the combined perspective of producers, consumers and research institutions. The latter have a role in furthering understanding on the topic of life-cycle costs and sharing the findings with producers, who can then act as consultants in advising consumers. Developing understanding of life cycle costs will make purchase decisions more transparent for the consumer. In relation to this, it is also important that energy companies provide reliable information about the origin of the energy supplied. This should be a mandatory part of a monthly energy bill, thus embedding it within consumerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s daily practices. Whilst there are many similarities in the barriers identified across the different topics and countries investigated, as discussed above, it is worth distinguishing Hungary and Switzerland from other western European countries. In Hungary, the lack of financial resource and subsequent lack of awareness seem to be more relevant than in other countries, while in Switzerland regulatory issues are more relevant due to the political status (non EU member) of the country. Hungary seems to have fewer opportunities and services compared to other countries studied, but the available solutions are relatively developed. This finding might be a result of the so-called leap-frogging potential of less developed countries. For example, in HU, PV technology was absolutely unknown until recently, therefore less efficient models are not present. 6.2.3.2 Mobility: change to green fuels The most important barriers regarding a change towards green fuel cars exist at both the institutional and individual level. At the institutional level, a lack of infrastructure and appropriate facilities is a significant barrier preventing green fuels from becoming mainstream. The main barrier for hybrid cars is the higher price tag, followed by the fact that there are few models to choose from. From a market perspective, there is a need to increase the supply of hybrid and electric vehicles, to expand both the new and second hand market. The prevalence of economic barriers suggests that, from a policy perspective, financial incentives are needed to encourage consumers to shift to sustainable fuel cars. On an individual level, the lack of knowledge and trust in hybrid and electric vehicles, and scepticism surrounding the sustainability of biofuels emerged as significant barriers. This suggests a need for improvements in the quality and accessibility of information, at the consumer level, on technical, environmental and ethical issues related to the production of biofuels and driving electric and hybrid cars.

6.3

Reflection on the methodology

6.3.1

The added value of different methods for collecting information

Introduction

The use of three different methods for collecting information is considered one of the key strengths of this project. The stakeholder interviews provided the expert perspective; the quantitative survey provided a representative view on drivers for change; and the focus groups gave in-depth information about consumer behaviour.

Conclusions and recommendations

These methods did not always provide the same results. In this section, two contradictory results of the different studies are discussed. Some clarification on these contradictions is provided as well as a discussion on the added value of using multiple methods.

Knowledge

Participants in the focus groups stressed that they were willing to take steps to reduce their energy consumption, if only they knew how. This emphasis on knowledge as an important barrier is at odds with the results from the quantitative survey and with previous (quantitative) research. In the survey, it was found that knowledge about solar panels was a very poor predictor of the acceptability of subsidies for the installation of the panels. Previous quantitative work also reports that knowledge levels have little predictive value for pro-environmental behaviours (see Gorsira et al., in progress). Clearly, consumers require a certain amount of knowledge to effectively reduce their energy consumption; but most participants in the focus groups appeared to have a basic grasp of this topic. The main barrier seemed to be not knowing exactly which behaviour is most appropriate and effective, rather than not knowing what to do at all. Individuals who do not know exactly how to reduce energy consumption are still able to make changes in the right direction, assuming they are motivated to do so. This may explain why knowledge levels offer little predictive power in quantitative models that include motivational factors: less motivated individuals may use a lack of specific knowledge as justification for not reducing their energy use, whilst in reality their lack of action is down to a lack of willingness to act. Thus, lack of specific knowledge can be an excuse for not acting rather than a major barrier.

Environmental motives

The quantitative survey results show that consumers are motivated by the environmental consequences of their behaviour. When asked directly, participants indicated that environmental impacts are an important reason for them to reduce their energy consumption. Furthermore, the extent to which respondents regarded certain behaviours as environmentally damaging was highly predictive of whether they engaged in these behaviours (including reductions in car use and the use of energy from sustainable sources). However, the focus groups provided different results. Focus group participants emphasized personal benefits (money, comfort) rather than environmental benefits as the main reason for changing behaviour. Moreover, in several countries the outcome of the focus group discussion was that environmental consequences in themselves are not sufficiently motivating to trigger behaviour changes. One explanation for this difference may be the fact that during the focus groups participants were asked to compare the different motives, while in the quantitative survey, respondents only had to indicate to what extent environmental concerns were important to their decision-making. Therefore, the participants in the focus groups may have overemphasized personal benefits simply because they found them more important than environmental consequences; not because environmental consequences were unimportant.

Summary

In summary, there are a number of reasons behind the different results obtained from the different research methods. Firstly, the things people say may not necessarily translate into the things they do. There may be an inclination to provide socially desirable answers or they may not be aware of the discrepancy between their words

125

126

Report BarEnergy

and their actions. People who are not motivated to reduce their energy consumption may feel the need to justify their failure to do so (particularly when asked about it in a focus group). The reasons given may not necessarily be the ones that really prevent them from changing their behaviour. This is where the combination of different methods has real value â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the quantitative and qualitative work combined give a more comprehensive understanding of which barriers are most important.

6.3.2

Recommendations for further research

The categorisation of the barriers is interesting and relevant, but the results show that these are interconnected. This explains in part why the â&#x20AC;&#x153;solutionsâ&#x20AC;? are not simple to identify. For example: political and structural barriers overlap, where stakeholders perceive government to have an important role in shifting towards more sustainable infrastructures. Further research on this topic is necessary to provide better insight into the barriers and their interdependence with opportunities. It may lead to new definitions of barriers and opportunities, as well as the development of energy policy. It is also recommended that the research should not be limited to the housing/domestic sector. The commercial sector also has high energy consumption. It consists of a large variety of buildings, belonging to various economic sectors. Each of them has special characteristics and requirements with respect to the physical structure and ownership, management, etc. For a sound and consistent policy towards energy saving, efficiency and behaviour change, further research to barriers, opportunities and motives is absolutely necessary.

127