Click for next page ( 28


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 27
2 The Potential for Limiting Climate Change Through Household Action Energy use in homes and in nonbusiness travel accounts for about 38 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2008; Gardner and Stern, 2008). Household action could therefore make a considerable contribution to reducing national emissions. Much attention has been given to achieving those reductions by changing financial incentives through higher energy prices or subsidies for energy efficiency. However, significant potential for reduction exists even with existing economic incentives. It has been estimated that energy consump- tion in the residential sector could be reduced by 28 percent with current technology in ways that would provide positive net present value for the households (Granade et al., 2009). This finding indicates a major energy efficiency gap—one that might continue to exist even with stronger financial incentives. In this chapter several leading behavioral and social scientists report on empirical research that helps clarify the basis for the energy efficiency gap and identify effective strategies for narrowing it. Although efforts to reduce household emissions have varied greatly in their effectiveness (National Research Council, 1985; Gardner and Stern, 2002), the most effective interventions show the potential impact. Research by Thomas Dietz and his colleagues shows that if the most effective documented methods were implemented nationally, the nation could achieve a reduction in household emissions of 20 percent within 10 years, without new technology and with little or no reduction in household well-being. The presentations identified the key elements of the most effective pro- grams, which use several instruments of behavioral change apart from or in 2

OCR for page 27
2 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES addition to financial incentives. The presentations concluded that programs aimed at households are more effective when they feature strong social marketing, reduce the cognitive burden of making wise energy choices, provide for quality assurance, make information available from trusted sources at points of decision, and appeal carefully to existing social norms. The research by Charles Wilson suggests some additional program features that can be applied in programs to change household behavior by influenc- ing manufacturers and retailers. Although much is yet to be learned, the behavioral research presented in this chapter increases understanding of the energy efficiency gap and identifies a variety of instruments of behavioral change that might be effective with respect to household action, in combi- nation either with the current economic incentives or with enhanced ones. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS Loren Lutzenhiser Portland State University Loren Lutzenhiser introduced the session by pointing out that this is a very timely topic. Local governments in climate-conscious areas are taking action, as are some states. For example, California is heavily engaged in policy development aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including regulatory requirements for buildings with zero net energy use in the com- mercial sector by 2020 and in the residential sector by 2030. The goals are very ambitious, but no one has a concrete idea how to accomplish them. In most of the climate policy framings, hardware changes are emphasized and users are absent from the analysis. Similarly, there is a significant amount of investment in “smart grid” activities, with billions of dollars of public and private funds being spent on new information and communication technol- ogy. Again, the investments are focused on devices, but in this arena there has been increased interest in providing better real-time feedback about consumption to energy users, to make more visible the energy flows that have long been invisible. The social sciences have considered ways to promote behavioral change in many nonclimate policy areas, including health, education, and men- tal health. However, the policy goal has been to change the behavior of children or deviant groups. They have not previously tried to change the behavior of large segments of the adult population over decades-long time spans. In the energy and climate arena, a lot of policy activity is occurring now, but very little involves the social sciences or social scientists. Yet very good work over the past three decades has provided insights about how consumption is constituted and about how and why behavioral change happens or does not happen in this arena.

OCR for page 27
2 LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACTION Lutzenhiser said that the workshop panel will explore some of those insights, going beyond the simple cost–benefit and return-on-investment frameworks of consumer choice that have oriented policy in the past. He noted that a lot of work on investments in energy efficiency has assumed that consumers are making “rational” economic decisions—a view that is not well supported by evidence. Several of the presentations will look at the evidence on actual determinants of those choices. THE BEHAVIORAL WEDGE: THE NATIONAL POTENTIAL FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTION FROM HOUSEHOLD ACTION Thomas Dietz1 Michigan State University Thomas Dietz presented work that he did in collaboration with Gerald Gardner, Jonathan Gilligan, Paul Stern, and Michael Vandenbergh (Dietz et al., 2009). He emphasized five key points from this study: (1) effective analysis requires not only a hardware focus but also consideration of who makes decisions; (2) there is substantial potential for mitigation via the household sector; (3) to estimate this potential, one must make realistic estimates of behavioral plasticity (how much the behavior can change) as well as elasticity (how much emissions would change if the behavior changes); (4) realizing the potential of household action will require effec- tive policy; and (5) effective policy must be evidence based, including social science evidence. Who makes decisions? Traditionally, decisions are defined in terms of technologies rather than decision makers. Households make decisions about many technologies: those for in-home energy use, transportation technolo- gies, and technologies that affect energy use indirectly. Their analysis con- siders only direct energy use in homes and travel. This underestimates total household impact; nevertheless, U.S. direct household actions account for 8 percent of total global emissions. What can be achieved? The researchers examined 17 action types (32 actions), all of which involve employing existing technology and have zero or low cost or a high rate of financial return. They categorized five kinds of decisions: (1) weatherization, (2) household equipment (e.g., vehicles and appliances, all of which have numerous nonenergy characteristics that mat- ter to consumers), (3) equipment maintenance, (4) equipment adjustments, and (5) daily use behaviors. These classifications were based on behavioral 1 Presentation is available at url http://www7.nationalacademies.org/hdgc/National%20Pot ential%20for%20Emissions%20Reduction%20Thomas%20Dietz%20Michigan%20State% 20Universit.pdf [accessed September 2010].

OCR for page 27
0 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES characteristics of the actions. They estimated the number of households already taking each action and corrected estimated emissions reductions for double-counting. They calculated the potential emissions reduction if all remaining households adopted each action. If all households took all these actions, U.S. household emissions would be cut by 37 percent, U.S. total emissions by 14 percent, and global emissions by 3 percent. The logic of a behavioral analysis is to develop science-based estimates of plasticity: how much behavioral change can actually be achieved. To make such estimates, the researchers went to the literature on programs that have actually tried to get people to take these actions. They estimated what could be achieved nationally if the most effective known programs were implemented, acknowledging that the best existing programs may not be the best that could be devised. They multiplied the estimates of plasticity— what is realistic—by potential emissions to get reasonably achievable emis- sions reductions (see Figure 2-1). That estimate was a 20 percent reduction in U.S. household emissions in 10 years (without a cap-and-trade policy), which amounts to a 7.4 percent reduction in U.S. emissions, or a 1.6­­­­­­­ per- cent reduction in global carbon emissions. In terms of the “stabilization Appliances Car pooling and trip-chaining Change HVAC air filters Driving behavior Efficient water heater Fuel-efficient vehicles HVAC equipment LRR tires Laundr y temperature Line drying Low-flow showerheads Routine auto maintenance Standby electricity Thermostat setbacks Tune up AC Water heater temperature Weatherization 0 20 40 60 Potential emissions reduction (MtC) Reasonably achievable emissions reduction (MtC) FIGURE 2-1 Technical potential and reasonably achievable emissions reductions from 17 household actions in the United States in million tons of carbon (MtC). NOTES: HVAC = heating, ventilating, air conditioning; LRR = low-rolling resistance. SOURCE: Data from Dietz et al. (2009). Used with permssion. Figure 2-1 R01827 editable vector image

OCR for page 27
1 LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACTION wedges” discussed by Pacala and Socolow (2004), this is the U.S. share of three wedges. And a 5 percent reduction in U.S. emissions could be achieved in 5 years with off-the-shelf technology. Effective policy is essential to achieve this potential. This implies some research needs: to improve understanding of the current penetration of technology and practices; to improve data collection at the household level that attends to the needs for both physical/engineering science and social science analysis. There is a need to improve understanding of plasticity by developing a database for secondary analysis, using policies as experiments to improve understanding, and to conduct designed experiments at near- operational scale. Dietz said that he and his colleagues were starting a paper on implement- ing the behavioral wedge (This work, Stern et al., 2010, and Vandenbergh et al., 2010, were published after the workshop.) Their reading of the evi- dence indicates that effective policies combine six program features: finan- cial incentives (when the costs are nontrivial); strong marketing, including social marketing; information on how to take advantage of a program; convenience; quality assurance; and a focus on actions with high potential emissions reductions. The exact design has to be sensitive to the target be- havior and the choice context. Dietz presented an exercise that rated three policies (“cash for clunkers,” energy efficiency tax credits, and incentives for residential photovoltaic energy production) and gave them letter grades on the six features, which showed considerable disparity across the pro- grams (much of this analysis is now available in Vandenbergh et al., 2010). He noted the lack of information on how well these policies have worked. He also pointed out that the incentives for photovoltaics vary from state to state, a natural experiment that could provide valuable knowledge. Dietz concluded by suggesting some programs for weatherization that would score well on the program features mentioned. Offering a 50 percent incentive with the other program features in place, he said, could get 90 percent of the weatherization needs implemented in U.S. households. He also suggested the potential of “invisible” loans, the cost of which could be paid for out of savings on monthly utility bills. He recommended requiring posting of the energy cost of home occupancy in real estate transactions. Finally, he noted that Davis, California, has since the 1970s required up- grades of homes to city standards before sale. In the discussion following the presentation, a participant asked about the potential for changing building standards. Dietz replied that the key is to find the leverage point, because of resistances in the building trades. Lutzenhiser said that the national laboratories have done a lot of work on this potential. Another question concerned the split incentives problem between own- ers and occupants of rented space. Paul Stern commented that disclosure

OCR for page 27
2 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES laws have some potential to address this problem. Susanne Moser said that it is too late if the disclosure requirement applies only at the time of transfer and suggested that it has to operate earlier in the decision process. A questioner asked about change in the housing market, with develop- ers not wanting to build the last “brown” development. Dietz noted that Edward Vine, in his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of California, Davis, in the 1970s, found that some developers want to do what they have always done, while others want to try what is new, to expand their markets. INDUCING HOUSEHOLD INVESTMENTS IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez2 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy The comments of Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez were based on prelimi- nary insights from work to be commissioned by the Building Technology Program at the U.S. Department of Energy. She is putting together a da- tabase on what works, drawing insight from many sources, including the experiences of utility companies (much of it anecdotal), the proceedings of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Studies, and other sources. This effort supports four points. First, there is widespread public support for energy efficiency, in con- trast to the polarization of views on climate change. Ehrhardt-Martinez reported that polls show that about 78 percent of people say they should be spending thousands of dollars to make their homes more energy efficient, although only 2 percent report having actually done so. However, people do not have a clear understanding about what are the best methods of sav- ing energy and making their homes more energy efficient. She mentioned a McKinsey report, indicating that only 15 percent of Americans see in- sulation as the preferred means to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 50 percent who cited recycling and energy-efficient appli- ances. In another study, three-quarters of respondents estimated that home energy retrofits would save 10 percent or less, while savings estimates from professional energy analysts are in the range of 10-25 percent. According to a study by Dietz et al. (2009), the higher cost investments, which are the focus of this presentation, are likely to result in a 14 percent reduction in household energy use, out of the total estimated potential energy savings of 20 percent. She identified a broad range of drivers of consumption, citing a 2 Presentation is available at url http://www7.nationalacademies.org/hdgc/Residential%20 Energy%20Efficiency%20Karen%20Ehrhardt-Martine%20ACEEE.pdf [accessed September 2010].

OCR for page 27
 LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACTION report by a task force of the American Psychological Association (Swim et al., 2009). She noted that most policy has focused on technology, regula- tions, and income, but not on the other factors. Second, regarding which kinds of retrofit interventions are most suc- cessful, she cited a National Research Council (1985) study indicating that grants and rebates were most attractive, followed by loans, but that higher income households favored loans. The study indicated that the size of an incentive does not determine whether people become engaged with a program, but it is important once people are engaged by affecting follow- through. The immediacy of the reward also matters. Other factors that matter include word-of-mouth communication and audits by trusted local groups (which were four times as effective in inducing action as audits by utility personnel). Third, she noted that energy savings from feedback vary dramatically. Past feedback studies indicate a savings range of 0 to 32 percent, although most programs have experienced savings in the range of 5-15 percent. She is currently engaged in doing a meta-review. (This review, Ehrhardt-Martinez et al., 2010, was published by ACEEE after the workshop.) Although energy savings from feedback have been fairly well documented, there continues to be limited information about the behaviors that households are engaging in to achieve those savings. Results from the ACEEE review of feedback programs indicate that higher income households may be more likely to achieve home energy savings through investments in energy-efficient equip- ment, whereas lower income households seem to achieve savings through a shift in everyday practices that include low-cost or no-cost actions. Fourth, she discussed evidence on barriers to purchases of energy- efficient appliances. A 1982 study of refrigerator purchases found that en- ergy information at the point of sale is important, that labels were not very effective, and that emphasis by appliance sales staff on energy efficiency made little difference. Notably, however, the commission-based compensa- tion structure for appliance sales personnel appears to lead to sales of more expensive and larger models of refrigerators, which, while efficient, tend to use more energy than smaller models. Ehrhardt-Martinez summarized by saying that the most effective inter- ventions typically target a particular action, address multiple barriers using multiple approaches, use social marketing methods and trusted information sources, and provide for convenience and quality assurance. The McKinsey study (Granade et al., 2009) identified barriers of awareness, the home ownership transfer barrier (i.e., the concern of homeowners that they will leave the home before the investment pays back), an inability to pursue savings, decision-making costs, and risk and uncertainty associated with contractors. Loans tied to property rather than to the homeowner could be effective at reducing some barriers. The McKinsey study also suggests

OCR for page 27
4 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES that barriers could be overcome through the implementation of building performance mandates at the point of sale or during major renovations, as well as through the development of a certified contractor workforce. Ehrhardt-Martinez concluded by recommending the systematic collection of social science data at the national or state level, with data used to identify target behaviors, populations, barriers to adoption, and specific program strategies. In the discussion following the presentation, Roger Kasperson said that a rational decision model underlies a lot of these presentations and wondered about the implication if that model is wrong. Are there other models that might work better? For example, diffusion theory suggests that the most important influence is whether a friend or neighbor has taken an action. That framework might supplement the analysis of investments. Ehrhardt-Martinez mentioned other social science models that have been applied: social norms research and concepts of identity and status as they relate to automobile choices. Kasperson noted that information might be most useful with early adopters and irrelevant for late adopters. Lutzenhiser noted that there are also potential applications of lifestyle theory and actor network theory. INDUCING ACTION THROUGH SOCIAL NORMS Wesley Schultz California State University, San Marcos Wesley Schultz began by emphasizing that behaviors cluster and that they diffuse in nonrandom patterns, even within communities. Social norms—an individual’s beliefs about the common and accepted behavior in a specific situation—are formed primarily through social interactions and exert powerful influence on behavior, especially in novel situations. He distinguished between injunctive norms (beliefs about what others approve of) and descriptive norms (beliefs about what other people do). Beliefs correspond with descriptive norms in self-reported energy conservation, for which correlation coefficients of .38 have been reported, and in other arenas. He reported on three studies. After the 2000 California energy crisis, his group surveyed Califor- nians to find the main reasons for conservation, which were self-interest, environmental concern, and social responsibility (Nolan et al., 2008). In an experiment, the research group provided materials that referred to these 3 Presentation is available at url http://www7.nationalacademies.org/hdgc/Inducing%20Act ion%20Through%20Social%20Norms%20Wesley%20Schultz%20California%20State%20 University.pdf [accessed September 2010].

OCR for page 27
 LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACTION three stated reasons, along with a social descriptive norm manipulation that stated a percentage of neighbors who do particular things to save energy. The group read utility meters for 4 weeks and interviewed residents in 1,207 households. The descriptive norm manipulation reduced electricity use by about 8 percent as compared with merely providing information about household electricity consumption. Appeals to the stated reasons for conservation had no effect. People said that the social responsibility and environmental messages motivated them, but that the descriptive norm was not motivational. However, the data showed a different pattern. Schultz emphasized that this manipulation affected relatively private behavior. He also noted that descriptive norm messages could serve as an anchor for people who conserve more than the average neighbor. He also pointed out that awareness campaigns typically implement a descriptive norm interven- tion incorrectly by saying that most people are not doing enough, which suggests a descriptive norm of inaction. In a second study (Schultz et al., 2007), the research group gave people feedback about their energy use, as well as information about what the average home consumes. He suggested that this manipulation might get people to converge on the average from both sides. The study also added an injunctive norm: half the participants were given a handwritten happy or sad face emoticon depending on whether their consumption was less or more than the descriptive norm. The high consumers decreased usage after 2 weeks with the descriptive norm and decreased even more with the emoticon added. Low consumers increased usage when given only descrip- tive norm information but, when the injunctive norm was added, decreased usage slightly. Schultz’s group then worked with the firm OPOWER to turn the idea into a product, marketed to utilities, to be scaled up from the small experi- ment level. OPOWER does messaging through the mail, via bill inserts. A randomized control trial in Sacramento collected meter data for 50,000 households over one year: 35,000 received feedback plus an injunctive norm message from OPOWER by regular mail. Over 6­­­­­­­ months, a 2.5 per- cent reduction in consumption was observed in this group. Households that had previously set conservation goals saved 8 percent. Households have been followed for 12-18 months in some utility service areas. The reduc- tions do not diminish and, if anything, get stronger (see Figure 2-2). In conclusion, Schultz said that social norms can play an important role in reducing energy consumption. More than feedback on energy use is needed, however. In particular, “smart” meters will not be sufficient. People need more than information. Normative messages can be scaled up and can provide an important supplement to information alone. In the discussion, a questioner asked whether information on cost savings reduces the ef- fects of other framings of energy savings. Schultz replied that there is some

OCR for page 27
6 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES Avg. Steady State Savings = ~2.5% FIGURE 2-2 Residential energy savings over time (in percentage) in the OPOWER system as deployed by five utility companies. SOURCE: OPOWER Home Energy Reporting system, see http://www.opower.com/ Results/Overview.aspx [accessed September 2010]. Used with permssion. evidence that framing energy savings in terms of money does make people think about energy that way, with the result that, if the savings are small, they may decide not to change their behavior. Another questioner, saying that a pilot study indicated that using two frames produced a greater effect than one, asked if Schultz had combined social norms and public commitment. Schultz replied that commitment was a core issue in the old feedback studies, but that his research showed that norms can move behavior even without feedback or commitment. In response to a question about personality differences in responsiveness to social norms, Schultz said that his group had failed to find moderators of the effect of norms, although they found equal levels of behavior change across countries. He noted, however, that Europeans say that norms do not affect them, while Chinese say they do. Finally, in response to a question about whether social norms can be used to increase actions that few people are taking, Schultz responded that injunctive norms might be useful.

OCR for page 27
 LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACTION SUPPLY CHAIN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HOUSEHOLD WEDGE Charles Wilson4 London School of Economics Charles Wilson explained that interventions in the supply chain are often referred to as market transformation because the intervention is in the market rather than with the consumer. The goal is the same: increasing adoption of efficient products, services, and practices. Interventions in sup- ply chains are intended to create fertile ground for such policies as codes and standards. Supply chains vary by technology and behavior. For appliances, the chain consists of manufacturers, retailers, and users. For home retrofits, the chain is longer. Chains tend to be more concentrated at the top and diffuse at the bottom. For example, there may be 5 glass manufacturers, 4,000 producers of window products, a larger number of installers, and 130 million homes. So there are fewer actors to change as one moves up the chain. Also, at different points in a supply chain, different interven- tions are appropriate. Training, quality assurance, and comarketing (e.g., ENERGY STAR labeling) all operate at mid-levels in the chain. There have been many successful initiatives, generally at the state level, to intervene in supply chains for energy efficiency. The American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy disseminates these examples. Wilson offered examples of best practice in market transformation. In Vermont, homeowners ask for energy audits, a request that triggers a process in which the recommended improvements are announced among certified contractors who can bid on the job, and financing is arranged for low-interest loans, with the contractor doing the paperwork. Financial in- centives are provided for both contractors and homeowners. The incentive is set at 6­­­­­­­0 percent for rental homes and 33 percent for owner-occupied properties, but it can be greater if more retrofits are undertaken. This kind of program can provide incentives for retiring some equipment before the end of its natural life. In New York, a market transformation program tar- gets appliances by providing consumer education about ENERGY STAR, placing information in retail stores, and training sales staff in order to cre- ate a constituency that can influence manufacturers’ decisions about which appliances to produce and market. Wilson offered a set of criteria for effective supply chain measures, say- ing that, for greatest effectiveness, programs should combine many types of interventions. 4 Presentation is available at url http://www7.nationalacademies.org/hdgc/Interventions%2 0in%20the%20Supply%20Chain%20Charles%20Wilson%20London%20School%20of%2 0Economics.pdf [accessed September 2010].

OCR for page 27
 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES 1. Concentration—focus on a small number of actors for maximum impact, such as manufacturers, high-consuming segments of a pop- ulation, low-income homes if they are being offered incentives, or entire neighborhoods. 2. Circumvention—seek ways to induce energy efficient behavior by reducing the cognitive burden of making well-informed energy ef- ficient decisions. 3. Certification—this approach can provide quality assurance and establish trusted brands. 4. Changeable—whatever is tried should be adaptable. For example, a program to promote energy-efficient air conditioning on Long Island, New York, started by offering rebates and then shifted its focus to quality assurance, with sliding incentives that paid more for more efficient products. 5. Conditionality—make some program elements require others. For example, incentives for energy-efficient equipment could be linked to postinstallation diagnostic checks, to a program that provides data to manufacturers to help them improve their equipment, or to a behavioral commitment. 6­­­­­­­. Contact points—focus on the points at which the household al- ready comes in contact with the supply chain (e.g., retailers, home improvement contractors). 7. Cross-selling—use contact points to sell more energy efficiency than the program’s initial target. For example, a program for home heating and cooling contractors in Texas gives the contractors ad- ditional incentives if they can get the homeowner to do a whole- house retrofit. The measures in the Dietz et al. (2009) behavioral wedge paper can be divided according to the form of household contact with supply chain; 53 percent of the potential emissions estimated in that paper require direct household contact with the supply chain and can be influenced through the supply chain. These can be used to induce additional action (e.g., auto mechanics could check tire inflation while they tune engines). Some actions can involve indirect or incidental contacts with the supply chain and create different opportunities for influence (e.g., plumbers could train households to reset their water heater temperatures). Other actions involve no contact with the supply chain. However, actions that account for almost 70 percent of the potential emissions reduction estimated by Dietz et al. (2009) could be accessed through the supply chain. Supply chain contacts can involve purchase, maintenance, and adjust- ment actions. One-time purchase or adjustment decisions can be influenced

OCR for page 27
 LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACTION through contractors and retailers. Maintenance decisions might be influ- enced differently. Wilson directed attention to the steady growth in homeowners’ ex- penses for home improvement. Energy-related improvements account for only about one-fifth of the total, with repairs after disasters or to replace old roofing, siding, and so forth accounting for about the same amount (see Figure 2-3). The rest is for improved amenities. The home improvement supply chain is much larger than the energy equipment supply chain. He noted that homes have different meanings. Households may see the home as a haven, as a project, and as a social space (an arena for activities), and these meanings imply different motives for action. Home as a project is driving many nonenergy expenditures. He noted that people’s decisions about home amenities may be different in important ways from their deci- sions about energy improvements. People’s stated motivations for amenity improvements tend to be emo- tional before the decision and more cognitive afterward. Wilson noted that the scope of home improvements often expands during the decision process, as households commit to going ahead with the improvements, confirm their affordability, and become more informed through contact with the supply FIGURE 2-3 Homeowner expenditures for home improvements, by purpose, United States, 1995-2007. SOURCE: Charles Wilson. Used with permission. Data are from tabulations of the 1995-2007 American Housing Survey by the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies.

OCR for page 27
40 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES chain. This fact provides opportunities to bundle energy efficiency improve- ments with amenity improvements. Doing this can help people rationalize their amenity renovations. However, he noted that the supply chains for these two kinds of renovations are largely different at present. Wilson concluded by emphasizing the need to try what one thinks will work based on what is known about how households actually make home improvement decisions. Two key elements are reducing the cognitive burden of informed decision making and leveraging existing contact points between households and the supply chain. As an example of the latter, he noted the opportunity for market transformation programs to work with real estate agents, for example, by requiring that homes being sold have an energy performance label, as is increasingly required in Europe. However, he noted that the real estate industry has not been used much as a channel for promoting energy investments. A questioner noted that many people in the United States see their homes as an asset and asked about the implications of that view. Wilson said that there is evidence that the value of renovations correlates with home prices. He found in his research, however, that home appreciation is mainly a post hoc rationale for expenditures. A related question concerned how to make energy improvements more visible. With an amenity improvement, a real estate agent might recommend that the seller fix the kitchen and then ensure that potential buyers look at the kitchen, thus making the investment both visible and valued. Could real estate agents be educated similarly to ensure that energy efficiency is valued by the marketplace? In response, Wilson noted that some jurisdictions have green training and certification programs for real estate agents, as well as certification programs for homes at the point of sale. DISCUSSION Lutzenhiser opened a general discussion by asking how these insights could be applied to policy. He said that these presentations have shown the value of a social science look at the programs and possibilities for house- hold action. However, he noted a mismatch of the social science and natural science with policy making and implementation. He said that a program cannot be executed from theory. The best programs can be described in terms like those used by Wilson, but only after the fact. Program design is not a matter of applying social theory. Because of the diversity of behaviors, technologies, and decision contexts, one size does not fit all. Variability is vast even in single-family homes in the same geographical area. This di- versity creates an almost intractable problem, making it easier for a policy maker to “throw a price at it.” The work by Dietz et al. (2009) focuses on things that are relatively painless. But there is room for a broader behav-

OCR for page 27
41 LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACTION ioral contribution that also considers how elastic comfort preferences are. Even larger savings are possible from lifestyle changes, but the research on this has not been done. Also, these studies have not addressed the human role in shaping technology. Dietz said that social scientists lack a partnership with engineers and other technical specialists to do life-cycle analysis for lifestyle change. He also commented that the largest uncertainty in the emissions scenarios used for climate change research is what society will do in the future. If scientists want to have better emissions scenarios for the sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment, is there an alternative to using price elasticity? Ehrhardt-Martinez said that it is necessary to map the diversity in motives and in ability to take action and then to develop policies that take this diversity into account. Economic in Comparison with Other Social Science Analyses Much of the discussion addressed the difference between economic analyses of energy efficiency, based on presumptions of “rationality” that emphasize the material incentives that affect choices, and the approaches in these presentations, which draw on behavioral research and presume a broader range of influences on choice. Schultz noted that the presentations shared a critique of “rational” actor models. However, he saw a diversity of views and no uniform voice. He suggested that because the rational actor models present a core message and these presentations do not, the latter are likely to be dismissed. Lutzenhiser said that each discipline “takes a little bite of the apple” and communicates a little with the other disciplines, but large parts of the problem area are not addressed. He noted that some research “drags the problem back into the disciplines.” Wilson agreed with Schultz that behaviorally informed policy sug- gestions did not have the clarity of what economists offer, which includes estimates of how much interventions will cost and how effective they will be. He said that the behavioral research message is that these interven- tions influence the price elasticity of demand, as Stern (1986­­­­­­­) has noted. Ehrhardt-Martinez noted important insights that behavioral research can offer, such as that households can make an important contribution, that framing actions in terms of energy is less politically controversial than fram- ing the same actions as responses to climate change, and that information and incentives alone are insufficient to change behavior. Dietz observed that there is a subgroup of economists who know their models are too simplistic and are open to that criticism, but that they want to be told how to do it better—for example, why price elasticity is sometimes low and sometimes high. Moser said that the interdisciplinary social science analyses are not

OCR for page 27
42 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES as scattered as Schultz stated and suggested that, with sufficient effort, they could have a unified message. Dietz added that this kind of problem- oriented meeting, with more than just a few social scientists interacting together, is really rare and much needed. He asked how to make more such meetings happen. Ehrhardt-Martinez said that the annual Behavior, Energy, and Climate Change (BECC) conference is geared to do that and to get social scientists together with practitioners and government officials. Lutzenhiser said that although BECC is good for exposure of social science ideas, it does not meet the need for in-depth interaction. Policy Applications of Social Science Work Another theme was the application of the kinds of work presented at the session. Stern said that energy policy makers are now reinvent- ing insights from behavioral research, sometimes creatively. He posed the problems of getting them to apply the insights systematically and to learn systematically from policy interventions. He also noted the need to build on the possibilities of local actions and to study those actions. He suggested the possibility of creating a Wikipedia-style database, with people supply- ing information on their local programs. Lutzenhiser noted that current efforts to promote weatherization are natural experiments that probably will not be evaluated closely, although social science could turn attention to it. A participant suggested that some private businesses might share data on their efforts. John Dernbach observed that current climate legislation—cap and trade, tax credits, cash for clunkers—makes a large number of behavioral assumptions. For example, the distribution of allowances to utilities makes assumptions about how they will use them. Legislation needs to be designed so that cost increases will yield behavioral pathways that lead people in the desired directions. The design of legislation should require consultation with behavioral scientists in the same way that it requires consultation on the science of climate change. There might be legislative proposals to create ways for consumers to follow paths to lower their costs that would increase chances for enacting the legislation. Kasperson suggested that, although the work discussed in this session covers a domain of knowledge that should be incorporated into policy, it is not happening. He said that to get this work implemented in policy will take more than just summarizing knowledge and giving it to people in a workshop report. Moser said that the receiving end lacks people who know how to implement what social science research has shown. There needs to be a dialogue with people at the receiving end who could implement what is known. Nicholas Pidgeon mentioned his recent paper (Spence and Pidgeon,

OCR for page 27
4 LIMITING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACTION 2009), which resulted from a discussion about what could be accomplished by lifestyle change, in the context of what is being assumed about behav- ioral change in many current models of future energy scenarios. The fourth IPCC assessment report in 2007 had only five footnotes on behavior or lifestyle. The IPCC adaptation report expressed medium agreement that lifestyle change can contribute—but there was no analysis behind this con- clusion. There is a need to tie the IPCC community down to these claims and require social science input and also to get the modelers to include more social science in their models. Potential for Larger Behavioral Changes Anthony Leiserowitz returned to the issue of larger behavioral changes raised by Lutzenhiser. He noted that society has multiple path-dependent systems and suggested that, in the big picture, the greatest leverage might come from life-changing moments that set new patterns. For example, there is huge potential for avoided emissions in developing countries where many people want to adopt U.S. lifestyles. Can one imagine a behavioral science approach to helping developing countries leapfrog the U.S. lifestyle and get more quickly to a lower emission future one? Ehrhardt-Martinez noted that there is a large potential if people “break out of the mold” of current lifestyles. Unlike Dietz’s work, her study found that 57 percent of potential savings in emissions came from changed habits, routines, and low-cost ac- tions. She noted in particular the case of Juneau, Alaska, which cut usage 30 percent in 6­­­­­­­ weeks during a crisis.

OCR for page 27