Download Lecture 2 Energy use is typically invisible for domestic consumers

Lecture 2
•
Energy use is typically invisible for domestic consumers (Stern and Aronson, 1984; Hedges,
1991)
•
Why?
–
Because billing mechanisms are typically delayed and aggregated across individuals
and appliances
–
Because bills are typically devoid of detailed information about the fuels or
resources used to generated electricity, the location of power stations and the
carbon impacts of such generation
–
Because of the ‘psychological distance’ from power generation for most households
Energy is complex
•
The absence of such specialist knowledge does not mean that the public has no thoughts on
such technologies – rather it has led to energy users developing their own ‘folk’ models of
how systems work which may be technically incorrect but have a certain‘bounded
rationality’ in that context (Kempton and Montgomery, 1982)
•
Lighting is the most ‘visible’ way of using energy in the home (e.g. Kempton and
Montgomery, 1982) - as a result, many people over-estimate the impact curtailing use of
lights will have on energy efficiency
•
People tend to use monetary indicators of consumption, not technical units - this can lead to
misleading assumptions if prices fluctuate
•
People tend to assume it is more efficient to leave appliances on all the time rather than
switching them on and off regularly (Hedges, 1991)
Meaning of energy
•
Stern and Aronson (1984) asserted that 'there is no single socially shared concept of energy’
(p15)
Hedges 1991 concluded - He concluded that ‘energy’ was not a single, integrated concept but an
abstraction that covered many aspects of experience, including warmth, light, power and mobility
Symbolic Meanings
•
Energy technologies have symbolic qualities or meanings associated with them that go
beyond their technical and instrumental aspects
•
These derive from the social, cultural and institutional context in which energy is consumed
(Shove et al., 1998)
Stern and Aronson, 1984
View of Energy – Commodity, Ecological Resource, Social Necessity, Strategic Material
Contrasting approaches in energy social science
-
Attitude Behaviour Approach - Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour, 1991
Shove 2004 – Social Practices Approach
Attitude Beahaviour Approach
•
•
•
•
•
Ajzen’s
Originates in social psychology
Focuses upon the individual as the primary unit of analysis, and particularly their cognitive
processes
Interested in causal relations amongst these, and how they predict behaviour
Tends to be embedded in a positivist, quantitative epistemology
Tends to lead to interventions targetting these processes to change behaviour
Attitude
Intention
Subjective
norm
Percived
behavioural
control
Behaviour
Social Practices Approach
•
•
•
•
•
Originates in sociology
Focuses on the activity (or practice) as the primary unit of analysis, not the individual
Tends to presume everyday behaviour is habitual, routinised and socially conditioned
Less interested in establishing linear, causal relations, more interested in systemic and
emergent properties
Tends to be embedded in a social constructivist epistemology and the use of qualitative
methods
SHOVE ABC model
•
•
•
•
•
Shove (2010) was critical of the ‘typically restricted’ models embedded in UK environmental
policy (e.g. DEFRA’s Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours)
Conceived this in terms of the ABC
Critique of externalising of ‘context’ in attitude-behaviour models and neglect of habit,
routine and capability
Instead proposed alternative conceptual approaches based upon technological transitions
and practices
Situates practices in contexts of ‘infrastructures of provision’ (e.g. washing machines,
freezers, dishwashers etc.)
Lewin’s Model
•
Therefore, to create a supportive context for pro-environmental behaviour, one must ensure
that both the contextual and the psychological influences upon pro-environmental
behaviour are facilitative rather than inhibitive.
Any human behaviour is the outcome of two types of process: contextual and psychological
Principles of effective behavioural interventions
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Use multiple rather than single interventions
Understand the situation from the actor’s perspective
Assess the limiting factors (both contextual and psychological)
Set realistic expectations for change
Monitor responses
Adhere to ethical standards
Use participatory methods of decision-making
Source: Gardner and Stern (2002)
DEFRA Framework 2008
4 E’s
Enable/Engage/Encourage/Exemplify