2 | Literature Review, Energy Modelling
2.6 Sociology of energy consumption
A report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP SBCI, Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative, 2008) has shown that more than 80% of total energy con-sumption takes place during the use of buildings (heating, cooking, cooling, etc.). This result highlights the importance of taking into consideration people’s behavior toward their energy consumption. Farhar-Pilgrim and Shoemaker (1981) have defined energy conservation as the behavioral changes of using less energy.
Some authors focused on communication about energy conservation or consumption.
Bottrill (2007) has shown that tools used to promote energy conservation lack the abil-ity to give people advice to accurately monitor their energy use and provide them with meaningful feedback and guidance for modifying their energy consumption. Wood and Newborough (2007b) are pointing out the potential of Advanced Energy Consumption Displays (ECDs) to promote energy awareness and energy efficient practices by influenc-ing consumer behaviour thanks to the information. Rydin et al. (2007) and Nye and Burgess (2008) outlined the importance of engaging root practice(s) and the context in which those practices take place to generalize changes and make them permanent. Other works have shown that an increase in communication about environmental behavior in a family likely goes with an increase in environmental behavior (Hondo and Baba, 2010).
Previous studies have discussed some specific action that affects energy consumption.
Gyberg and Palm (2009) highlighted that people provide two motivations for changing their behavior: lower energy costs and a reduced impact on environment. Ouyang and Hokao (2009) studied the relationship between electricity consumption and household lifestyle. In their study’s context, improving consumption behavior can save up to 10%
of energy use. Weber et al. (2009) analysed the influence of the customer’s information on their choice of six electricity pricing schemas depending on the origin of the electric-ity in canton of Geneva. Räthzel and Uzzell (2009) found that individual behavior is the most important cause of environmental degradation through open-ended questions.
Through these texts, one can see that energy use behavior depends on our culture and on socioeconomic aspects and that information can play a role in providing wider awareness to citizens. Finally, Hargreaves et al. (2010) explores how UK households interact with their domestic energy consumption, especially when "invisible" energy consumption was made "visible".
So, studies about energy and consumer’s behaviour exist, however this information has to be transformed into well-formatted data in order to be usable in a normative optimisation model.
One of the basic assumptions of the neoclassical economics is that, once we know the basic desires and tastes for a given population, we can then understand how people
Sociology of energy consumption 43 make rational decisions about how to acquire goods and how to allocate their resources50. However, as consumers are not perfectly informed, they are optimising their choices ac-cording to many criteria while maximising economic advantage is only one of them which is not necessarily ranked with the highest priority. The answer to the question "where do preferences come from" will be different depending whether it comes from behavioural economy, social psychology or anthropology. In neoclassic economy, the desire for objects is an expression of an objective need, in social psychology it stems from an individual urge grounded in psychology while in anthropology, acquiring an object is satisfying a need for fulfilling social obligations and represents the distribution of goods as a symptom of the form of society. These are all different perspectives raising issues that lie beyond economics (Douglas and Isherwood, 1979).
In Chapter 4 on page 109, we are discussing the method we chose to decompose the direct link "price - consumption" into a chain "price - information - perception - atti-tude - behaviour - resulting consumption", cf. Fig. 2.9 on page 44. The first schema is a simplified relationship coming from neoclassical economics proposed to keep rela-tionships simple and clear. Models based on economic equilibria are all using the same hypotheses of perfect information and of perfect economic rationality, in addition to per-fect behaviour of optimising one’s own utility. The first two hypotheses are key economic assumptions of MARKAL modelling framework while the third one is expressed by min-imalisation of the global system cost. The second schema is a proposal of relationship that we are going to use for Socio MARKAL. Again, it does not come from a social theory but is drawn for the needs to keep mathematical relations simple and feasible.
Please note that the presented schema is not an RES, Reference Energy System, but a schema of behavioural variables in a classical MARKAL model (where there are no behavioural variables at all, just neoclassical hypotheses that are sources of systematic errors), and behavioural variables in the Social MARKAL model where sociological sur-veys are used to measure variables like information, perception, attitude, and behaviour.
When considering social theories designed to explain ecological behaviour, the rela-tionships get more complicated. We are going to present the concerned social theories in a structured way from the perspective of usability in a normative energy-economy model, regardless of the goal to explain the most ecological behaviour like in a "pure"
social model.
A behavioural change according to Steckler et al. (2002) can be described using the following sequence. First, the individual becomes aware of a problem or need which gives
50Neoclassical economics is what is called a metatheory, a set of implicit rules or understandings for constructing satisfactory economic theories. Fundamental assumptions can be resumed as:
1. People have rational preferences among outcomes.
2. Individuals maximise their utility and firms maximise their profits.
3. People act independently from each other on the basis of full and relevant information.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NeoclassicalEconomics.html retrieved on 31 December 2012.
Prices - Quantities
Hypothesis of Perfect Information
Hypothesis of Perfect Economic
Rationality
Figure 2.8: Classical Economic Equilibrium. Out of their original domain of validity, neoclassical hypotheses are no more valid and introduce a systematic error that we seek to eliminate.
Prices -Information - Perception - Attitude - Behavior -Quantities
Imperfect Information
(can be measured) Aggregated Rationality
Figure 2.9: Proposed Formulation of Economic Equilibrium. It is not targeted to best explain the ecological behaviour like the sociological models do; instead, it has been constructed for inclusion of behaviour into normative engineering models and the figure is drawn for a comparison with sociological models presented later.
the individual an initial reason or initial incentive to pursue a given course of action (or information). Most of these problems or needs are routine and are solved in a routine way following standard actions, in what is called “habitual behaviour” (Cyert and March, 1992). There is not necessarily an awareness of the problem, it is just solved as it occurs.
If the problem is new or does not occur regularly, then a search for solutions begins.
Knowledge of alternatives is gathered, evaluated and compared. Either a ready-made solution is applied, or a new one has to be found. The individual weights of advantages and disadvantages of behavioural alternatives determine thedecision. The decision cri-teria may be minimum cost, but also non-economic cricri-teria such as comfort, quality, image, perceived risk and incertitude and attitude toward them, etc. This process of evaluating and comparing advantages and disadvantages is forming theattitude, a cog-nitive, affective and normative process of evaluation directed towards a specific action: a
Sociology of energy consumption 45 decision. But all the factors, awareness, knowledge, norms and values, and attitude, lead to an intention for making a decision to implement the solution of the problem. Unless there are barriers, if the individual is in possession of resources and skills allowing him to pursue, then the intention may lead to behaviour or behavioural change. After es-tablishing a new behaviour, the individual may display an emotional, physical or social reaction towards the behaviour from the context: afeedbackfrom peers or experts that directly strengthens the behaviour. So we see that the behaviour is the product of both the individual and its environment.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) that describes the influences of a person to engage in a behaviour, and Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) which is offering a framework for understanding of underlying processes for persuasive communication, are the models most frequently used to explain pro-environmental behaviour. TPB assumes that the best prediction of the behaviour is given by asking people if they indend to behave in a certain way. Assuming that intention can explain the behaviour, how to explain the intention? According to Ajzen (2012), three determinants explain behavioural intention:
1. The attitude (opinion of oneself about the behaviour)
2. The subjective norm (opinions of others about the behaviour)
3. The perceived behavioural control (self-efficacy towards the behaviour)
These relations are drawn on Fig. 2.10. According to the TPB model, attitudes, subjec-tive norms and perceived behavioural control predict the intention, which in turn predicts the behaviour. Background variables, such as demographical factors, are supposed to in-fluence the three determinants of the intention. The intention is a good predictor of the behaviour which has an importance when constructing a sociological survey to measure behavioural intentions. Ajzen states that for a predictive value of a model, it is necessary to define the model variables at the same level of specificity. For example, when investi-gating explanatory factors of buying low consumption bulbs, prediction will not be found in the attitude toward the environment, but in the attitude toward lighting bulbs. On the other side, if the purpose of the study is the pro-environmental behaviour in general, then the determinants of the intention should be measured on this general level and the survey variables constructed accordingly.
The TPB assumes that customers make decisions by calculating the costs and benefits of different courses of actions, then choosing the option that maximises their expected net benefit. Thus the TPB belongs to rational choice models. It is built on the assumptions (Egmond and Bruel, 2007):
• Individual self-interest is the appropriate framework for understanding human be-haviour as the rational bebe-haviour is the result of a process of cognitive deliberation
• The most important role is played by internal factors, especially the attitude This is compatible with the assumptions of the neoclassical synthesis of perfect economic behaviour (profit-maximising firms, cost-minimising customers), perfect information and
attitude
subjective norm
perceived behavioural
control
intention behaviour background
variables
feedback
Figure 2.10: A schema of the Theory of Planned Behaviour according to Ajzen (2012).
The figure is drawn after Egmond and Bruel (2007).
perfect economic rationality, which in TPB terms are determinants of behavioural inten-tion.
The critique of the TPB (and of rational choice models in general) is also similar to objections toward the neoclassical economic equilibria models:
• Although the economic rationality can explain much of human behaviour, it cannot explain all its complexity with social, moral and altruistic behaviours that are complementary to self-interested ones. For example, charity, hobbies, open source programming or simply "doing the right thing" cannot be explained within the framework of neither rational choice models nor neoclassic economic equilibria.
Behaviour also can be embedded in collective and social decision-making contextual factors such as deliberate following interests of a social group or a class, for example monks in a monastery or gardener hobbyists will not behave accordingly.
• Cognitive deliberation can be bypassed by habits and routines that Herbert Simon calls "procedural rationality" (Simon, 1955, 1957). Usually, this remains a marginal phenomenon nevertheless it undermines the key assumptions of the model and attention has to be paid whether the basic assumptions are still valid.
• Cognitive deliberation can also be bypassed by emotional or affective responses, for example affective relations that consumers build with certain goods or brands, as described in the marketing theory.
Compared to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the Habitual Behaviour (HB) is a form of routine and automatic behaviour that people repeat without thinking about because routine is easy, comfortable, conformist and rewarding. Using routine behavioural blocks that were originally acquired as planned behaviour, but by repeating them often passed into state ofdynamic stereotype51, allows one to pass to a higher level of abstraction when deciding on complex behavioural schemas without weighing pros
51Dynamic stereotype: a type of integral activity performed by the cerebrum of higher animals and man and manifested by a fixed, or stereotyped, succession of conditioned reflexes, cf. Pavlovskie sredy, vol. 3., Moscow-Leningrad, 1949.
Sociology of energy consumption 47
Figure 2.11: A schema of the Habitual Behaviour representing up to 95% of household energy consuming behaviour (Wagenaar, 1992). Figure is adapted from Egmond and Bruel (2007).
and cons of every simple atomic action. The schema is shown in Fig. 2.11: the pluses at the right of the model weigh against the minuses as a mini-feedback and change the originally planned behaviour into habit. The stereotype will be repeated until broken by external factors, such as higher cost or shortage of the preferred good, and then there will be again a search for new optimal solution which is typical for planned behaviour.
positive
Figure 2.12: A schema of the Stern’s Attitude - Behaviour - Context (ABC) Model applied to recycling. Figure is adapted from Egmond and Bruel (2007).
Integrated ABC (Attitude - Behaviour - Choice), as well as the Theory of Inter-personal Behaviour and Motivation - Op-portunity - Ability models are represent-ing an effort to overcome the dichotomy between internal and external factors. The starting point of the ABC model is that behaviour is a function of both the or-ganism itself and its environment. In terms of ABC, behaviour (B) isan interac-tive product of personal sphere attitudinal variables (A) and contextual factors (C) (Stern, 2000). The attitudinal variables considered may include a variety of spe-cific personal beliefs, norms, values, as well aspre-dispositions to act in a certain way.
For example, in our sociological survey about bulbs (2008), we measured the at-titude toward incandescent and electroflu-orescent bulbs by questioning the
prefer-ences and the reasons for these preferprefer-ences. Contextual variables may include influprefer-ences such as costs, tax incentives, subsidies, legal and institutional constraints, support of a public policy, physical capabilities or constraints, interpersonal influences (social norms, interaction with children education, etc.) or even broader social context such as influence of environmental movements. In our survey about bulbs, we asked for reasons of refusal of the new fluorescent bulbs, and we found that flicker, colour distortion and vision
prob-lems due to macular degenerescence of elderly people were a serious barrier to use these new light bulbs.
Proponents of the ABC model claim that the A-B (attitude - behaviour) link is strongest when contextual factors are zero and inversely, when contextual factors are strong, then the link A-B is weak or non-existent. This is why the ABC model is drawn in two dimensions, external factors (External context C) and internal factors (Attitude).
For example, in a recycling case widely described in the literature, if the access to re-cycling bins is very easy or very difficult, then it does not matter whether people have pro-recycling attitudes. In the first case, most people recycle, in the second case, almost noone will undergo the effort. The strongest correlation between pro-environmental at-titude and recycling behaviour will occur when recycling is possible but not easy, see on Fig. 2.12.
The paradigm ABC is not without controversy. Elisabeth Shove (Shove, 2010) is pointing out the gulf between the contribution of social sciences and models of social change embedded in UK environmental policy, be it the Attitude - Behaviour - Choice model based upon theories of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991, 2012) and in rational concepts of need, or the policy variant Attitude - Behaviour - Context proposed by the social psychologist Paul Stern (Stern, 2000). She says that moving beyond the main-stream ABC model is not simply a matter of changing attitudes and behaviour within policy. In policies rooted in determinist concepts of change, limited to technology, re-sources management and efficient use, manageability is often just an illusion. Shove is calling for development of alternative models of social change and policy outside of the mainstream paradigm.
There is one important element missing from Stern’s ABC (Attitude Behaviour -Context) model: the role of habit. This flaw is acknowledged by Stern himself (Stern, 2000) and he is proposing that an integrated model of environmentally significant be-haviour would consist of four factors:
1. attitudes
2. contextual factors 3. personal capabilities 4. habits
This is very similar to what social psychologist Harry Triandis proposed already 35 years ago when developing his integrated model of interpersonal behaviour (Triandis, 1977). According to Triandis, besides social factors and emotions, more factors are sig-nificant in forming the intentions. Past behaviour and experience is also playing a role on the present behaviour. So the schema will look like drawn in Fig. 2.13. We see that again, intentions are immediate antecedents of behaviour and that habits also directly influence behaviour. Both influences are moderated by facilitating conditions.
Sociology of energy consumption 49
Beliefs aboutoutcomes
Evaluation ofoutcomes
Norms
Roles
Selfconcept
Emotions
Attitude
Socialfactors
Af
Frequency of pastbehaviour
Intention
Habits
Behaviour
Facilitating conditions
fect
Figure 2.13: A schema of Triandis’ Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour explicitly drawing affective factors of behavioural intentions. Figure is adapted from Egmond and Bruel (2007).
Personalnorm (feeling ofobligation)
Beliefs about outcome ofbehaviour
Beliefs about controlover behaviour
Beliefs about others's wishes
Beliefs aboutone's own role / self-image
Emotions /feelings
Behavioural
intention Behaviour
Habit
Figure 2.14: Another schematic representation of Triandis’ Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour.
Figure adapted from Wagenaar (1992).
According to Triandis, behaviour is a function of intention, habitual responses and of situational constraints and conditions that are entering the equation as a modulator of the aggregated influence of intentions and habits. The intentions are function of social factors, affective factors and of rational deliberations defined as attitude. Behaviour is also a function of moral beliefs, but the impact of these is integrated into attitude and moderated by emotional drives and cognitive limitations.
A yet another representation of Triandis’ TIB model is on Fig. 2.14. Here, the be-haviour is influenced by bebe-havioural intentions and by habits. All the components of intentions are hierarchically at the same level without being first aggregated into at-titude, social factors and affect. Triandis’ contribution is to incorporate the affective factors on behavioural intentions and can be used as framework for empirical analysis of the role of the behavioural factors in various situations.
Beliefevaluations
Attitude towards behaviour
Intention
Socialnorm
Ability Habit,task knowledge
Behaviour
Opportunity Situationalconditions Motivation
Figure 2.15: A schema of Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) Model incorporating both a habit and a task knowledge elements into ability and a mini-TPB model into motivation (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995). Figure is adapted from Egmond and Bruel (2007).
Another frequently used concept to construct an integrative model of consumer be-haviour is the Motivation - Opportunity - Abilities (MOA) model (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995) drawn on Fig. 2.15. Improvement in predictive power is achieved by including an ability concept and a concept of facilitating conditions -opportunity - that both act
Another frequently used concept to construct an integrative model of consumer be-haviour is the Motivation - Opportunity - Abilities (MOA) model (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995) drawn on Fig. 2.15. Improvement in predictive power is achieved by including an ability concept and a concept of facilitating conditions -opportunity - that both act