Initial Effects of a Community-

Based Initiative for Energy

Saving

Nick Bardsley and Milena Büchs

with

Patrick James,

Anastasios Papafragkou, Tom Rushby,

Clare Saunders, Graham Smith,

Rebecca Wallbridge and Nick Woodman

Background: Emissions Reduction

through Behaviour Change?

Behavioural Intervention: Focus on

Community & Community Groups

Can social practices be

transformed via social

interaction involving

community groups?

But little hard evidence …

Davidson (2010); Hargreaves et al (2008);

Nye & Burgess (2008); Cox et al (2012) …

Research Design • Matched case and control trial; N = 180 households

• Qualitative interviews with participants

• Comparative analysis to other energy savings initiatives –

qualitative interviews with participants from 7 similar

initiatives

Control n=75

Home insulation upgrade

Energy measurement

Self-reports on travel &

consumption

Treatment n=105

As control group +

interaction with

community greening

group

3 years'

observation

Building Intervention & Monitors

Insulation offer £1000-1500

Which Kind of Behavioural

Intervention?

• Desired

– Genuine involvement of community group

– Could be adopted by government / local authorities

working with such groups

– Informed by research

• Outcome:

– Commitment by CG to run a minimum of 1

householder meeting per year, co-planned

– “Energy user group" to meet more frequently

Is there a Pulse?

• Main research questions are about energy

use over the 3 year period, using

comprehensive measures

• But if intervention makes a difference we

would expect to see a "pulse" at the time

of the main householder meetings

First Meeting

• home energy use (spatial heating and

electric power)

• also wider context (climate change) and

energy use (travel and consumption)

• "take-home actions"

– Reducing thermostat setting by 1C

– Not leaving appliances on when not in use

– Not leaving things on standby

Results: Heating (Temperature)

Results: Power

Difference 2

Difference 1

Permutation test (2-tailed) "difference in differences" (DID): p = 0.095

Estimated DID = 30W = 5% of national average annualised HH rate

02

04

06

0

-500 -250 0 250 500 750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750

Treatment Control

Pe

rce

nt

difference in power (W)

Change in Power Use: 4 Weeks Before - 4 Weeks After the Event (>50% datapoints)

Outliers

Statistics: Power Use

T-test p=0.049

BUT …

Theories

• Small groups and (face to face) interaction

– Information: deliberation / trust (e.g. Hobson

2003, Middlemiss 2008)

– Social norms (e.g. Georg 1999, Davidson

2010, Nye & Burgess 2008)

– Self-efficacy (Kollmuss 2002, Heiskanen

2010)

• Our data: interviews with 62 participants in

7 community groups

Information: deliberation / trust

“We were prompted to get the solar

panels because it was highlighted to

us about the really good tariff. That

came from Tom. Well we knew about

it a bit, we were sort of vaguely

thinking about it but then he said, but

you get 40 odd pence (….) a unit you

get paid for creating it. And I thought,

what? It’s so generous” (Alan, C7)

“Through all that I actually got converted if you like. I sort of went from not being

interested and not recycling anything and not doing anything to being a

volunteer myself. [For example], I think they were talking about saving energy

by just boiling a little bit of water in the kettle, and I thought, “Well I can do that.”

And then I started doing that at work, and things like that, and it got sort of:

“actually, this makes a lot of sense” (Christine, D13)

“Yes, it did [help me change

behaviours] because I

probably wouldn’t have

listened to the preaching

and the teaching had I not

been part of it so yes, it did,

it has” (Raymond, D1)

Social norms

“Probably it’s… more than learning

or not learning, all of them are things

that people know, but things that you

don’t put into practice. (…) So just

being surrounded by that, it puts a

little bit of pressure on yourself to

do it – so positive pressure more

than… [learning something new]

(Luca, I1)

“So yeah, I think these sort of

groups are really good

because they just keep

pushing you on to consider

things and if they don’t work

for you then you can say no

but if it works then you carry

on“ (Mark, C5)

“It [the group] serves as a

bit of a reminder

sometimes to, sort of,

think about what I can do”

(Melissa, C3)

Self-efficacy and emotions

“Yeah, it [going to meetings and

meeting people] bolsters you up a

bit. (…) Because otherwise you

would get disheartened. You look

round and you think, “What’s the

point?” But if you know that

there’s more than one, it’s not just

you that’s making the effort, and

especially if you see some younger

ones, you know, because like I said

to you, if you were born just after the

war you’re going to have that sort of

mentality anyway, but if it’s younger

ones that is really... you think, “Ah,

yes, there’s a point to it” (Dawn, C8)

“What it did do was it helped my

own feeling of helplessness and

depression because it was a way

of, perhaps, in a very small way,

becoming part of the solution rather

than part of the problem” (Lisa, F6)

“Possibly not [done anything new]

but the way in which they’ve been

done has probably changed. I

think it’s given me a bit more

courage to know that there is

actually stuff worth doing, that

I’m not just a freak of nature

that’s doing these crazy things

by myself” (Steven, G2)

Other Theoretical Perspectives

• Economics

– inability of received economic theory (e.g.

Samuelson, public goods) to explain collective action

– alternatives from behavioural economics still focus on

means-ends (e.g. reciprocity, team agency);

emotional dimension missing

• But is means-ends aspect well-conceptualised in

psychological theories (individualistic); self-efficacy?

• Being part of a joint effort reduces feelings of powerlessness

• But prospect of joint success also matters (e.g. voting)

Conclusions

• Estimated 30W reduction in power use (difference in differences) over 4 weeks

• Appears sustained over 15w period

• But can't be inferred with confidence i.e. 10% significance level

• No evidence of effect on heating energy (temperature)

• Initial data suggests potential savings from such interventions

• Further work examines rebound, cumulative effects of interventions, qualitative insights

Conclusions

• Qualitative interview material supports

several theories on role of small groups for

behaviour change

• These mechanisms are likely to overlap

• Possible scope for improved

characterisation of motivational aspects

• Scope for rolling out delivery of energy

saving programmes through community

groups?

References

• Davidson, S., 2010. Global Action Plans's EcoTeams Programme. In Peters, M., Fudge, S. &

Jackson, T. eds. Low Carbon Communities. Imaginative approaches to combating climate change

locally. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 157-177.

• Georg, S., 1999. The social shaping of household consumption. Ecological Economics, 28 (3),

455-466.

• Hobson, K., 2003. Thinking Habits into Action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning

household consumption practices. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and

Sustainability, 8 (1), 95 - 112.

• Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what

are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 239-

260.

• Middlemiss, L.K., 2008. Influencing Individual Sustainability: a review of the evidence on the role

of community-based organisations. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable

Development, 7 (1), 78-93.

• Nye, M. & Burgess, J., 2008. Promoting Durable Change in Household Waste and Energy Use

Behaviour. Report, University of East Anglia.

• Randall, R., 2013. Carbon Conversations. Six meetings about climate change and carbon

reduction. Facilitator's guide (revised ed.). Stirling: The Surefoot Effect.