The survey also found that lower income Americans would rather spend more on their energy bill than invest in energy efficiency. Why? For the most part, it is because they can't afford to invest. Oddly enough, wealthier Americans are more sensitive to increases in their energy bills than those with less money.
When asked how much how much their monthly bill would have to go up to push them spend more money on energy efficient home improvements, those making higher incomes ($100,000 or more) gave an average answer of $113, compared to $120 for those earning lower incomes (less than $25,000). Those with graduate degrees had an even lower threshold -- $98, compared to $122 for those with only a high school degree or less.Those are some pretty big increases. I live in an area where energy costs are low compared to other parts of the country. But using the figures above, the monthly cost for someone living in a home that performs comparably to my own would have to triple before financial motivation would kick in as a serious factor. This implies that the mechanisms that are currently in place to encourage energy efficiency, which largely consist of poorly advertised, fractured, and complex utility and tax rebate schemes along with an occasional bill insert-based outreach campaign, are poorly suited to create changes in behavior.
While money might be a key motivator, the study also looked at other forms of persuasion to learn more about which techniques are most effective. They found that social norming is a powerful tool to convince people to shift their energy consumption habits. In other words, energy use declines among those who are identified as using more energy than their neighbors, and messages that reinforce the idea that other people are saving energy encourage folks to do something so that they will fit in with the group.
This is consistent with findings from a number of projects and studies. It suggests that an important persuasive element is to incorporate social proof into broader energy efficiency outreach campaigns. Based on additional information, the benefits of social proof tend to wear out over time, so it is also important to include other persuasive elements as well. These might include revising existing rebate programs so they provide positive and time-relevant feedback loops, and rewards that are closely tied to monthly energy use.
With consideration of BJ Fogg's Motivation-Ability-Trigger model, I can see tons of opportunity for innovation in the energy efficiency space. I'd like to explore barriers and techniques to motivate change further in my Beat Blog.
Nice post. Few years ago, a friend and I were working on an energy efficiency product startup to help homeowners conserve energy and made similar observations:
ReplyDelete- money appears to be one of the strongest motivators
- results are better if you can help them do things automatically. Large number of programmable thermostats aren't programmed due to complexity or laziness. We provided this capability through the internet.
Another aspect you touched on is behavioral change through "social norms". Two approaches that seem to be helping:
- Some Bainbridge Is residents realized that energy usage by residents of the island was on the high side and being an island, meeting increased demand through generation alone was an expensive proposition. Positive Energy (http://positiveenergybi.org/) was set up with a mission to educate, inspire and mobilize the community to address their energy future through efficiency, conservation and renewables.
- Companies like OPower are using social norms to drive down consumption modestly.
Not to be cynical, but at the end of the day these still bottom out to being about money. But that's ok as in the short-term TBL will get a more traction if the social and environmental bottom lines can be viewed as contributing to the economic bottom line :-)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Murthy. You are so right about "automating" energy efficiency by making it the default or built-in option. Instead of something that has to be turned down or turned off when not in use, how about the other way around? It troubles me that right now we only collectively achieve efficiency thru the actions of a small number of highly motivated individuals. Avoiding wasteful energy use is in everyone's interest, from the utility who can avoid adding capacity, to the nation that avoids dependence, to the globe that reduces climate impact. To get there, we would benefit from a collective policy than does more than just leaving it up to you and me deciding to save some pennies.
ReplyDelete