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 28
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 29
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 30
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 31
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 32
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 33
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 34
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 35
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 36
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 37
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 38
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 39
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 40
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 41
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 42
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 43
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 44
