Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
An analysis of how to motivate pro-environmental behaviour through
energy labels
Jillian Student
24 July 2012
Supervisor: Elissaios Papyrakis
Second Assessor: Pieter van Beukering
External Supervisor: Jasper Gremmen
468017 ERM Research Project (18 ECTS)
Environment and Resource Management
ERM office:
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences
VU University Amsterdam:
IVM-ERM (Room A-503)
De Boelelaan 1087
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)20-59 89508
E erm@ivm.vu.nl
Environment and Resource Management
ABSTRACT
The European Union has committed to lowering energy consumption levels. Heating
buildings contributes to approximately 40% of Europe’s energy demand. In order to
lower consumption in this sector, Europe created an energy label for buildings. This
report focuses on the application of the energy label for residential buildings in the
Netherlands as it has faced considerable opposition by stakeholders and
households; after four years of being legally mandatory, only 15% of houses sold
have energy labels. This research looks at the motivational factors and perceived
obstacles that consumers perceive in regards to getting an energy label for their
home. The four motivational frames that are considered are ecocentric, egotistical,
normative and contextual. The methodology consists of a literature review,
interviews with researchers and stakeholders, a behavioural experiment and a
household survey. The main findings of the paper are that in the case of energy
labels for houses, ecocentric frames are weaker than the other three motivational
frames in the experiment. In the survey, for socio demographic factors, age and not
wealth was the most significant predictor of willingness to pay (WTP), a proxy for the
individual’s value of the energy label for energy conservation. Moreover, individuals
expressed a low WTP as awareness levels of what added benefits of the energy
label are were unclear to respondents.
Keywords: Energy label, motivation, pro-environmental behaviour, social norms
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project could not have been completed without the advice, skills and support of
many other individuals. Without Greenchoice’s thirst for knowledge on this topic and
their willingness to try new approaches, this type of research would not have been
imaginable. My supervisor, Elissaios Papyrakis provided a lot of assistance and
information on how to approach this challenging topic. My second supervisor, Pieter
van Beukering gave guidance on different frameworks and made the internship at
Greenchoice possible. Jasper Gremmen, my external supervisor at Greenchoice,
was a key person involved in the project and provided new insight, feedback, and
technical skills as well as resources to perform the project. Rob Heijmans devoted
many hours to checking and improving Dutch translations. He and Don Student
spent hours helping edit the final text. A number of colleagues at Greenchoice
helped provide different expertise that improved the quality of the final product and
the ease of data analysis; special mention goes to Sjoerd Hartman, Sierk Hennes
and Ruben Veefkind for their assistance. The individuals who took to answer
questions about the label, provided invaluable insight on research and contextual
factors; my thanks to Gratia van Hooijdonk, Joop de Boer, Kees Jan Hoogelander,
Marjolein de Best-Waldhober from the ECN, Onno van Rijsbergen, Robert Cialdini
and Sophie Welschen. Many thanks to all who made this project possible.
Environment and Resource Management
CONTENTS
FIGURES
6
TABLES
7
ABBREVIATIONS
9
1
INTRODUCTION
11
2
BACKGROUND
13
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Buildings
Energy Label Policy, Implementation and Stakeholders
Academic Research on Energy Labels
Research Question
Sub-Questions
13
13
17
18
20
3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
23
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Pro-Environmental Energy Conservation Behaviour
Behavioural Antecedents
Motivational Frames
Information as an Intervention Tool
23
24
29
31
4
METHODOLOGY
33
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Interviews
Participants of the Behavioural Experiment and Online Survey
Digital Door Hanger Behavioural Experiment
Online Survey
33
34
36
37
5
DATA ANALYSIS
40
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
Interviews
Comparison of Sample with the National Average
Sub- Question 1: Social Norm Framework
Sub-Question 2: Socio-Demographic Groups
Sub-Question 3: Level of Energy Consciousness
Sub-Question 4: Consumers’ Expectations
Sub-Question 5: WTP
Sub-Question 6: Comparison with ECN on Trust
Research Question: Motivating Factors
40
46
47
48
49
50
53
55
59
6
CONCLUSION
62
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Discussion
Limitations
Recommendations
Further research
62
63
63
64
7
REFERENCES
65
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
Appendix A Impact of Energy Consumption on the Environment
73
Appendix B Digital Door Hangers
76
Appendix C Door Hanger Sign-Up Page
78
Appendix D Online Survey Invitation
79
Appendix E Online Survey
80
Appendix F
Interview Questions
97
Appendix G VEH Answer Over Energy Label
99
Appendix H Responsibility Correlation Table
100
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Visual representation of the energy label
14
Figure 2.2 Ownership ratio of the energy label
15
Figure 2.3 Stakeholder relationships with households
16
Figure 4.1 Methodology flow
33
Figure 4.2 Living situation of respondents
35
Figure 4.3 House related demographics
35
Figure 4.4 WTP payment card
38
Figure 5.1 Average gas and electricity consumption
46
Figure 5.2 Situations where people would consider getting an energy label
50
Figure 5.3 Information that households find important in an energy label
51
Figure 5.4 Percentage of sample willing to pay for a given price
53
Figure 5.5 Percentage of sample that finds a free indication label useful
54
Figure 5.6 Sources of information consulted for improving energy efficiency
55
Figure 5.7 Comparison between GC and ECN samples on the information
56
Figure 5.8 Trustworthiness of information providers for energy efficiency
56
Figure 5.9 Comparison of the level of trust for the energy label between
GC and ECN
57
Figure 7.1 Primary energy use in the Netherlands
74
Figure 7.2 Residential energy use per person
74
Figure 7.3 Household energy consumption in the Netherlands
75
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
TABLES
Table 3.1 Summary of theories on pro-environmental behaviour
26
Table 4.1 Comparison of sample averages with Dutch average
34
Table 4.2 Motivational frames of the digital door hangers
36
Table 5.1 Summary of Stakeholder Interviews
45
Table 5.2 Chi-test for door hanger behavioural experiment
47
Table 5.3 WTP comparison between renters and homeowners
48
Table 5.4 GC and ECN means for trust and t-test
58
Table 5.5 WTP Regression analysis
59
Table 5.6 ANOVA table of the comparison among door hanger groups
60
Table 5.7 Comparison of means among the different
60
door hanger messages
Table 7.1 Correlation of perceived environmental responsibility, the ability
101
and intention to alter consumption levels, and actual/perceived
environmental responsibility
IVM Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
9
ABBREVIATIONS
ABC
BZK
CBS
CI
ECN
EPBD
EPC
EU
GC
GHG
IDEAL EPBD
IEA
IPCC
NAM
NHG
NVM
PJ
TU DELFT OTB
TPB
VBN
VEH
VROM
WTP
Attitude-Behaviour-Context (theory)
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties
(Ministry of Internal Affairs)
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Central Bureau for
Statistics)
Certificerende Instellingen (Certifying Institutions)
Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (Energy Research
Center of the Netherlands)
Energy Performance Building Directive
Energie Prestatie Certificaat
European Union
Greenchoice
Greenhouse gas
Improved Dwellings by Enhancing Actions on Labelling for the
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
International Energy Agency
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Norm-activation model
Nationale Hypotheek Garantie (National Mortgage Guarantee)
Nederlandse Vereniging van Makelaars (Dutch Realtor
Association)
Petajoule (1.0 x 1015 joules)
Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
Theory of Planned Behaviour
Value-Belief-Norm (theory)
Vereniging Eigen Huis (Association of Homeowners)
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
(former Ministry of the Environment)
Willingness to Pay
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
1
11
INTRODUCTION
Human-made environmental problems require human-made solutions. It is not
enough to only try to solve the environmental problem alone because at the center
of every anthropogenic environmental problem lies human behaviour. In one way or
another, human behaviour needs to change in order to address the environmental
deterioration that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Knowledge of energy
related environmental problems is widespread in Western countries; nonetheless,
peoples’ actions do not reflect this knowledge and per capita energy consumption is
increasing (Steg 2008). Energy conservation, in the form of efficient buildings, is one
way of addressing this issue. Energy labels are a tool to help promote awareness of
the environmental impacts of our human-made structures and encourage
improvements that improve energy efficiency. There are two labels identified in the
EPBD (Energy Performance Building Directive): residential and commercial/publics
buildings (Agentschap NL 2011c). Residential buildings are dwellings such as row
houses or freestanding buildings for private use (Agentschap NL 2011c). So far, the
energy label for residential buildings has been unsuccessful and has faced a high
level of resistance in the Netherlands. Motivation factors and barriers are distinct for
residential and commercial buildings; the former is the focus of this study.
All sustainability labels need to develop and gain acceptance in order to have a
perceived value by consumers. According to De Boer (2012), all labels go through a
development process; however, no other sustainability label in the Netherlands has
had such a bad start as that of the energy label for houses. Banerjee & Solomon
(2003) state that acceptance of an energy label is indicated by three criteria:
awareness, understanding and behaviour. De Boer (2012) proposes a slightly
different framework: consumers have to find energy savings important, they need to
find the information source credible and they need to feel that they can do
something with the information they have. If this does not occur, then energy
conserving behaviour will not follow as a result of a sustainability label. As the
number of houses that possess an energy label has not increased in the past four
years, research can provide valuable insight into the barriers and opportunities to
motivating households to engage in energy conservation. Thus, the aim of this
thesis is to analyze factors that influence consumers to use or not to use an energy
label in order to conserve energy so that this energy conservation tool can be better
applied. An interdisciplinary approach is taken to this problem using environmental
behavioural psychology, sociology and economics.
This research was conducted during an internship at Greenchoice, an energy
supplier in the Netherlands, that distinguishes itself by offering 100% renewable
energy sources to its clients. Promoting their clients to conserve energy is an
important part of Greenchoice’s strategy to be sustainable. After supporting
research into conserving electricity, the company is now also in the process of
developing an indication tool, an online generated indication of the energy label for
houses. This is done in order to promote consumer awareness of their heating
energy consumption as well as provide informational options on how clients can
improve their efficiency. During a four month internship, research in the form of a
key informant interviews as well as a behavioural experiment followed by an online
survey using a random sample of Greenchoice’s clients was conducted. As this
research focuses on residential clients and household surveys, this research that
gives insight into the motivational factors for getting a label would not have been
possible at this scale without their support.
Environment and Resource Management
12
INTRODUCTION
The scope of this paper is to study what factors in the past have served as barriers
for getting an energy label as well as the reasons that motivate consumers to use it
as an information tool to conserve energy. The research question is defined as:
What is the role of the following factors in motivating consumers to obtain an energy
label: ecocentric (environmental), economic (egotistical: financial and comfort)
normative (based on descriptive social norms) and legal obligation (contextual)?
Motivations and barriers for the energy label have been researched by the
Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECN) (Energy Research Center of the
Netherlands). What distinguishes this research apart from other projects done on
the energy label in the Netherlands is that it includes a behavioural experiment,
referred to as digital door hanger, which provides the opportunity to study causality.
The motivational frame of the message is manipulated in order to detect whether
households respond more positively to one frame over another. Traditionally,
appeals to self-interest or saving the environment are used in environmental
information campaigns, but Griskevicius et al. (2008) claim that social norms are an
underused tool for promoting climate change abatement. This study looks at the role
of social norms in motivating households to use the energy label tool for
conservation. Moreover, while previous studies have focused on homeowners that
already have an energy label or have purchased homes with energy labels, the
target audience of this research are individuals without energy labels and the
sample includes renters. Rented buildings account for 89% of the 1.8 million energy
labels in the Netherlands (Centraal Bureau Statistiek (CBS) 2011d). This project
helps shed light into the perceived obstacles and motivational factors for this sector.
Furthermore, to help understand the unique contextual background surrounding the
energy label for buildings in the Netherlands, key stakeholder groups that influence
households were interviewed. The methodology, the target audience and the insight
of the contextual factors expand the existing dialogue and literature on energy
labels.
The structure of this report is divided into six chapters. After the introduction, this
report begins with the contextual information in chapter 2, BACKGROUND. This
chapter looks at how buildings specifically contribute to environmental problems, the
policy theory and implementation of the energy label as well as the stakeholders
involved. It then describes the research conducted specifically on the topic of energy
labels, which leads into the research question and sub-questions of this study. Then
in section 3, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, the approach to analyzing the research
question is explored. This includes: pro-environmental behaviour pertaining to
energy conservation, the factors that lead to behaviour, the four motivational frames
and the role of information in altering behaviour are explained. This is followed by
the METHODOLOGY, chapter 4. Here, the purpose of the stakeholder interviews is
highlighted. Then, the household consumers, the center of this research project and
participants in the behavioural experiment and survey, are described. The
consumers are contacted twice, the first time for a short behavioural experiment,
referred to as a digital door hanger, and a second time to answer a survey about
energy savings and their perception of the energy label for homes. In section 5,
DATA ANALYSIS, the results are analyzed using histograms and statistical analysis.
The main results are presented and where applicable compared with findings from
previous research. Finally, in chapter 6, CONCLUSION, the added value of the
results, the limitations of their applications are discussed along with
recommendations for courses of actions to promote energy conservation and
possible avenues of future research.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
2
13
BACKGROUND
In this section, the background information of the energy labels and energy savings
is put into perspective. This chapter looks at the following: how buildings contribute
to environmental problems, how policy has been implemented and identifies the
target audience and key stakeholders. The challenges the energy label encounter in
the Netherlands form the foundation of this study. Then the main findings of existing
research on energy labels in the Netherlands are described. This is followed by the
research question and how this study adds to the existing literature. At the end of
the chapter, a description of the sub-questions and what part of the main question
each sub-questions investigates is given.
2.1
Buildings
Heating and cooling of buildings contribute to two main environmental problems:
resource depletion and climate change. In Europe, heating buildings is the source of
36% of CO2 emissions and in the Netherlands, 35.5% of natural gas consumed is
used for heating buildings (Agentschap NL 2011a; Europa 2010; International
Energy Agency 2011). For more information on the environmental problems related
to energy consumption please refer to Appendix A. For these reasons, it is critical to
promote energy savings and are thus a key part of the European Union’s (EU) plan
to curtail emissions as a component of the 20-20-20 target (reduce 20% of CO2
emissions and energy savings by 2020) (Agentschap NL 2011a). Residential
buildings are relevant for energy savings in Europe because 60% of the energy
savings potential comes from this type of building (IDEAL EPBD 2011). Energy
Performance Building Directive (EPBD) is a legislation that demonstrates Europe’s
commitment to meeting targets on climate change and security of supply as Europe
is increasingly dependent on foreign imports; the logic behind this is that while
supply is difficult to control, energy demand within Europe can be influenced
(Europa 2007). As part of the EPBD, the EU developed an Energy Performance
Certificate (EPC) or energy label as an information and economic tool to help lower
energy demand of current buildings.
2.2
Energy Label Policy, Implementation and Stakeholders
Policy
An energy label may be characterized as a tool that provides “relevant
environmental information about a product available to the appropriate consumers
through the product label to promote an environmental goal, cause or objective
through consumer choice” (Truffer et al. 2001:109). Educating in the form of
information can help make the link between one’s actions and the impact on the
environment salient (Gatersleben et al. 2002). In other words, an energy label
provides information about the energy efficiency of a building. The label proceeds
from A to G, with A being the most energy efficient and G the least. Please refer to
Figure 2.1 for a visual description of the label. It also offers tailored information on
what measures individuals can take in order improve their score and energy
efficiency (Agentschap NL 2011c). For example, households can take actions such
as installing double glazing, improving insulation, hooking-up to a renewable energy
source or decreasing draft. Thus, the label endeavours to create awareness through
Environment and Resource Management
14
BACKGROUND
information in order to promote pro-environmental behaviour. Pro-environmental
behaviours, or environmentally significant behaviours, refers to those behaviours
that change “the availability of materials or energy from the environment or alters the
structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere” positively (Stern 2000:408).
By increasing knowledge about related environmental issues and by outlining the
energy-saving behavioural options available, the energy label can promote energy
savings (Abrahamse et al. 2007).
Figure 2.1 Visual representation of the energy label (Woonbeheer Borne 2011)
Another primary goal of an energy-labelling program is to gain “favourable and
widespread consumer response” because this creates a market for proenvironmental behaviour (Banerjee & Solomon 2003:114). An underlying theory of
the label is that the information drives “market demand for energy efficient dwellings”
(Murphy et al. 2012:462). Energy savings contribute to maintaining affordable living
costs for households (BZK (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en
Koninkrijksrelaties) 2011; Rijksoverheid 2011). Therefore, the intention is that the
energy label plays a role as early as possible in the sales/rental process. By making
the value of a house’s energy efficiency explicit through a label, the label gives the
consumer information so that the buyer knows what they are really buying. The
former minister Donner who put forward the energy label compared it to the
mandatory information list for medicine and ingredients list (Duijnmayer 2011); “if
energy efficiency is an explicit consideration when consumers choose buildings or
appliances, better information will make their decisions more economically rational
in terms of energy” (Stern et al. 1987:349). Thus, providing information and creating
economic value for energy efficiency are the key attributes of the EU mandated
energy label.
Implementation
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
15
Although the concept of an energy label is designed to lower energy consumption,
there is still little application in practice. The energy label has been legally required
in order to sell houses, for new rental agreements and for large renovations since
January 1, 2008, but has been largely ignored by the housing market (Van
Hooijdonk 2012; Rijksoverheid 2012). Minister Donner expressly chose not to
impose fines for noncompliance because they require a lot of administration, added
bureaucracy and cost lots of money (Duijnmayer 2011). However, Murphy & Meijer
(2011) note that the lack of incentive for getting a label combined with the ‘voluntary’
nature of the label contribute to the slow development of the label in the
Netherlands. Moreover, the consumer advocate TV program Radar aired two
reports on the label, once on November 26, 2007, a month before it became official
and again on February 18, 2008, when the energy label was in its infancy that put
into question the quality of the label. In the program, the same house was reviewed
by three different energy label inspectors and was given three different labels. This
resulted in critique of the reliability of the label and the methodology. After this
program aired, there was no outspoken display of support that the label was credible
(De Boer 2012). In the initial period, 25% of the households sold had an energy
label, after airing of this program it later lowered to 15% (Van Hooijdonk 2012;
Brounen & Kok 2011). The early awareness of weak methodology appears to have
hampered the development and trust of the energy label.
In 2010, there were 7,172,436 residential building in the Netherland from which
3,148,461 or 43.9% of buildings are rental units (CBS 2011b). Approximately 15.5%
or 16,000, homes sold in 2010 had an energy label (CBS 2011a). In 2012, it is
estimated that slightly less than 15% of houses sold have an energy label
(Hoogelander).This is substantially less than the prescribed 100% that the 2008 law
mandates. The largest sector with energy labels for residential buildings are
woningcorporaties (housing corporations) that rent out buildings, holding 81% of the
total share of energy labels, please see Figure 2.2 for the ownership ratio of the
approximately 1.8 million energy labels issued (CBS 2011d).
Ownership Ratio of the Energy Label (N=1.8M)
8%
4%
7%
Private homeowners
Housing corporations
(woningcorporaties)
Owners of private rental units
Unknown
81%
Figure 2.2 Ownership ratio of the energy label (CBS 2011d)
Environment and Resource Management
16
BACKGROUND
As of January 1, 2013, there will be legal sanction applied. This will occur in the
following situations: an energy label will be necessary for the notary agent to finalize
the purchase of a house; in the case of new rental agreements, tenants can withhold
10% of the rent for all new rental agreements; and an energy label will be necessary
for permission to undergo large renovations (Agentschap NL 2012). The renter must
inform the landlord in writing that they are withholding 10% of the rent as a result of
the absence of an energy label (BZK 2011). In the Netherlands, 870,427 people
changed houses in 2011, which is the lowest amount in the last 17 years (CBS
2012). Thus, as the energy label sanctions only applies to new contracts, these laws
reach will affect approximately 5.2% of the population annually (based on CBS
2011b & CBS 2012 statistics).
Stakeholders
The target audience of energy labels for residential buildings is private households.
There are two types of households: renters and homeowners. Renters have limited
ability to change the structure of their dwelling and often use rental buildings as a
temporary rather than permanent housing solution. For owners, the purchase of
houses and renovations are often considered investments as they require large
amounts of money and occur infrequently. These types of purchases, although
important for consumers, do not always include a full cost-benefit analysis that takes
into account not only economic but also social and environmental implications
(Gaspar & Antunes 2011). Although consumers may be aware of climate change,
they are usually unaware or uninterested in the consequences of their energy
related behaviour (Boardman 2004) and not conscious of the links that their specific
actions have to environmental problems (Gatersleben et al. 2002). In practice, there
is little interest from either renters or owners about energy labels on the market (Van
Hooijdonk 2012; Rijsbergen 2012). This lack of interest is occurring in spite of the
trends and expectations of increasing energy prices (Brounen et al. 2011 & 2012).
Thus, there is usually no incentive for suppliers to improve technologies and create
market of tools that improve the energy efficiency in buildings (Boardman 2004).
A consumer is not alone in forming a perception of energy labels. There are other
influential parties involved during transaction or decision-making moments. For
example, in the case of energy labels for appliances, a key player/message provider
in the use and effectiveness of the label is the technical staff at the point of purchase
(Gaspar & Antunes 2011). In the case of labels for residential buildings there are a
few key players during transaction moments of renting, buying or renovating a
home, please refer to Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3 Stakeholder relationships with households
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
17
For renters, the property owner plays a role. A major organization that informs and
supports the needs of renters in this relationship is the consumer interest group
Woonbond. For home owners, when purchasing a new house, the realtor is
fundamental. The Nederlandse Vereniging van Makelaars (NVM) (Dutch Realtor
Association) is the largest association for realtors in the Netherlands and represents
as well as provides training and advice for their members. There is also a consumer
interest groups for homeowners that assists and advises during the purchase and
selling of a home as well as during renovations called Vereniging Eigen Huis (VEH)
(Association of Homeowners). Furthermore, there is the governing body who affects
not only the target group, but the other stakeholders: Agentschap NL. It is the
branch appointed by the Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken (BZK) (Ministry of
Internal Affairs) to design and carry out the framework of the European mandated
EPBD. Both the information they provide to households and the consultations done
with the aforementioned stakeholder groups are critical for decision-making. Figure
2.3 provides a visual representation of the interactions among the stakeholders as
well as their interactions with the target group.
2.3
Academic Research on Energy Labels
There only a few studies available about the energy label with a specific reference to
the Netherlands. Murphy et al. (2011 & 2012) analyzed the label as a policy tool.
Other research focusing on the Netherlands was completed by Brounen and his
colleagues and by the ECN as part of a multi-European country household analysis
co-researched for the IDEAL EPBD project (Improved by Enhancing Actions on
Labelling for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive). There is also currently
research being conducted by the Technical University of Delft’s OTB research
center (Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies) although the
topics and conclusions are not yet known. These are the main studies on energy
labels performed to date identified by the key informant interviews and personal
research.
Murphy et al. (2012) analyzed the theory and impact of the energy label as a policy
instrument using qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as Agentschap
NL, NVM, VEH and Woonbond among others. Stakeholders interviewees were
found to be involved in the development of policy and on paper they were actively
working together; in practice, however, the environmental impact of the label fails to
reach environmental targets and be fully integrated among households (Ibid.).
Murphy et al. identified a paradox with the label having “higher rated dwellings
obtaining a market advantage yet with the EPC performing poorly as a stimulus to
improve energy performance” (2012: 465). Thus, their findings suggest that the
theory and the application of the label are inconsistent and that the label does not do
what it was set out to achieve.
In the studies performed by Brounen & Kok (2011a & 2011b) and Brounen et al.
(2011), they focused on the labels as an economic tool. Using databases from the
EPBD and the NVM, they discovered that homes with a good label, C or higher,
have a shorter selling time and a higher selling price than houses with a lower label
score (D-G); on average, houses sold 24 days faster with a green A-label sold and
for approximately 3% more money, or €6000, than a comparable house with a red
label (Brounen & Kok 2011a & 2011b). They also discovered that the average
monthly gas costs can vary substantially for comparable houses with an A-label and
a G-label; for a standardized house the average monthly gas bill is €152 while it is
€105 for an A-label and €231 for a G-label house (Brounen & Kok 2011a). Despite
Environment and Resource Management
18
BACKGROUND
these substantial differences in cost, they also found that most people are neither
interested nor aware of their energy consumption (Econ Track 2012). In other
research conducted by Brounen et al. (2011) found that only 56% of respondents in
their survey of 1,721 Dutch households were aware of the costs of their natural gas
consumption and that young high income individuals had the lowest awareness
levels. They found a significant positive correlation between age and level of actual
consumption and predict that even with price increases energy demand will grow
with the aging population (Brounen et al. 2012). At the same time, the label is
relatively popular in the urban center, the Randstad, in poorer neighbours among
seniors (Brounen & Kok 2011b). They also found that buildings constructed before
World War II consumed 65% more energy than buildings from the twenty-first
century (Brounen et al. 2012). Brounen & Kok (2011a) argue that there are a
number of reasons for the limited effectiveness in the energy label for increasing
awareness and lowering consumption, including: negative publicity; insufficient
training of labelling organization; criticism from industrial bodies of the label and their
lack of willingness to share information about the label with consumers; and the
readily available and accepted option to waive the label during transactions. The
media sentiment and public opinion are thought to be important determinants of the
label adoption rate (Ibid.). These studies indicate that there are economical
arguments for energy efficiency, but that awareness levels of energy and the
perception of the label’s usefulness are low.
In late 2011, the ECN published the findings of a questionnaire that targeted citizens
whose home had an energy label irrespective of whether the owner had prior
knowledge of possessing a label (Backhaus et al.). Renters and owners without a
label were not considered in this study. The research involved questionnaires to
Dutch and other European households. The ECN preformed an analysis of
consumer motivation and barriers related to the energy label. Their findings show
that it is not only important what kind of information the energy label provides, but
also how it is presented (Ibid.). Another general finding is that people do not base
their purchasing decision of a house on its energy efficiency (Ibid.). This is
confirmed by the NVM as houses are often considered to be too unique to be
purchased because of energy efficiency (Van Hooijdonk 2012). A finding specific to
the Netherlands was the lack of trust in the energy label as a tool (Tigchelaar et al.
2011). The results of this study suggest that it is critical to look at the motivational
frames to determine how to present the label and that the distrust in the reliability of
the label has acted a barrier to the development this tool.
2.4
Research Question
This research builds on the existing scientific literature on energy labels. This study
is relevant the energy label has been unsuccessful so far and there are only a few
studies focusing specifically on the energy label. The interviews conducted by
Murphy et al. (2012) provide a backdrop of the policy tool has failed, but does not
specifically look at how stakeholders influence consumers’ perceptions of the label
and what they view as the barriers and motivation for getting one. The research of
ECN has made it obvious that an energy label is not the only deciding factor in
buying a house, but there remains a gap of how the energy label can be applied to
households who do not have it. Furthermore, both the studies by Brounen & Kok
(2011a &2011b) and the ECN research focus on the real estate market for analyzing
the perceived value of houses with energy labels while this study includes renters.
This inclusion is significant as wooncorporatie rental houses have a slightly lower
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
19
label score than owner-occupied houses, while private rental homes have the lowest
energy efficiency with one third of private rental housing stock having the lowest
label scores (BZK 2010). Thus, including renters provide valuable insight on how to
target the segment where some of the largest efficiency improvements can be
realized.
The adoption and application of the energy label is currently not widespread in the
Netherlands indicating a low perceived value. Thus, in order to improve the
effectiveness of a tool for energy conservation, Steg & Vlek state that it is generally
“important to understand which factors promote or inhibit environmental behaviour”
(2009:311); this is explored though interviews and the online survey. Furthermore,
although household energy conservation has been the topic of research for many
decades, more experimental research needs to be done and there is still a large gap
“on how consumers recognize, perceive, understand and consider the information
on the labels in their purchasing decisions” (Bamberg & Möser 2007; Heinzle &
Wüstenhagen 2012:61). Moreover, how information is framed and encouraging
sustainable consumer behaviour in the efficient use of energy has been identified by
researchers including McDonald et al. (2006), Press & Arnould (2009), Mick (2006)
and Loroz (2007) as important and relevant topics (Tangari & Smith 2012). This is
analyzed using a behavioural experiment. As an extension of the motivating factors
and barriers in the ECN survey, the role of social norms is considered.
The aim of this research is to be able to predict what factors influence the
behavioural decision to get an energy label and adopt technologies that improve the
energy efficiency of their homes. This project is commissioned by a utility company
that is interested in making a free online indication label in order to stimulate the use
of labels to improve awareness of consumption levels and to give clients ideas on
what they can do in order to conserve energy. As a result, the question that this
research attempts to answer is the following:
What is the role of the following factors in motivating consumers to obtain an energy
label: ecocentric (environmental), economic (egotistical: financial and comfort)
normative (based on descriptive social norms) legal obligation (contextual)?
As a part of the main question, there is an interest to look at the following subquestions, which will be describe in more detail in section 2.5:
Sub-Questions
1. Is there a significantly higher response by those who are requested to fill in signup page for an energy label that is framed using a social normative technique than
those who receive one that is framed using the other three methods?
2. Is there a difference in which factors motivate specific socio-demographic
groups?
3. What is the level of energy consciousness of consumers (i.e. are individuals
aware of their level of use and the relationship to energy consumption and climate
change)?
4. What are consumers’ expectations in regards to what they can do with an energy
label?
5. What is the willingness to pay for an energy label? To what level does the option
of a free indication increase the commitment/willingness to get an energy label?
6. Do the findings of this survey indicate similar results for barriers to Dutch
consumers as those of the ECN, namely lack of trust of energy labels?
Environment and Resource Management
20
BACKGROUND
2.5
Sub-Questions
Sub-Question 1
Is there a significantly higher response by those who are requested to fill in sign-up
page for an energy label that is framed using a social normative technique than
those who receive one that is framed using the other three methods?
Many economists, politicians and policy makers rely on costly financial incentives or
developing expensive campaigns in order to mitigate climate change (Griskevicius
et al. 2008). However, in the aftermath of the economic crisis there is a persistent
reminder of cutbacks in all sectors including government, NGOs and businesses.
The housing market is also in crisis; thus, realtors have other priorities and sellers
want to accentuate only the positive qualities of their residences (Van Hooijdonk
2012). Thus, there are little extra funds to promote a program that has experienced
this level of resistance. In order to create value associated with the label, another
technique is suggested. Specifically, Griskevicius et al. (2008) state that the use of
social norms in information campaigns can improve the ability to motivate proenvironmental behaviour without the extra costs of providing financial incentives.
Social comparison raises awareness of others’ as well as the individual’s
consumption levels and may motivate consumers to get an energy label (Darby
2006). The behaviour test, a digital door hanger, is used to measure whether
employing social normative frame results in a relatively larger response and
intention of consumers to get an energy label. For further explanation, please see
the methodology section 4.3.
Sub-Question 2
Is there a difference in which factors motivate specific socio-demographic groups?
Profiling consumers to identify what factors motivate different societal groups is
critical for devising information campaigns. Typically, households that are larger in
size or have higher incomes use more energy (Steg & Vlek 2009). In studies
conducted about energy labels for appliances, most socio-demographic factors did
not show strong correlations (income, academic degree); rather those who had a
newer home, built after 2002, were more likely to choose high efficiency appliances
(Gaspar & Antunes 2011). In the case of energy labels, the hypothesis is that
individuals with an older house, households with more people or income will use
more energy, will be more interested in the energy label and have a higher
expressed willingness to pay (WTP). Renters are expected to be interested in the
indication test but express a low WTP for energy labels as they are supposed to be
provided by the landlord and will not perceive to have responsibility for improving the
dwelling. It is expected that those living in the countryside will have a lower interest
in the energy label as this will be similar to the findings of Brounen & Kok (2011b).
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
21
Sub-Question 3
What is the level of energy consciousness of consumers (i.e. are individuals aware
of their level of use and the relationship to energy consumption and climate
change)?
A question in the survey directly asks whether consumers associate their energy
use to environmental deterioration. This is used to measure the level of awareness
of the environmental situation related to energy and whether the decision to get an
energy label is motivated by environmental motivating factors. Furthermore, it gives
an indication of whether the respondent feels co-responsible for environmental
problems of resource depletion, climate change and for environmental problem in
general. According to Bamberg & Möser (2007) there are relatively no studies that
look at moral feelings of guilt as predictors of behaviour. This co-responsibility or
feeling of guilt could be a significant predictor of moral norm as well as attitude and
the ability to change; this underlines the significance of analyzing the impact of
‘moral’ emotions on pro-environmental intentions in future studies (Bamberg &
Möser 2007 23).
Sub-Question 4
What are consumers’ expectations in regards to what they can do with an energy
label?
The label is a means for realizing energy savings and not an end. The questions
brought up during interviews with stakeholders revealed that there is little interest by
consumers as they are not aware of what an energy label can do for them. Through
two multiple answer multiple choice questions it is observed in what situation(s)
individuals would consider using an energy label and what information they expect
to receive from one. These questions help provide perspective of the timing of the
label as well as the information that households value in order to conserve energy.
Sub-Question 5
What is the willingness to pay for an energy label? To what level does the option of
a free indication increase the commitment/willingness to get an energy label?
The current price tag is approximately €200, but this is dependent on the size and
type of house (Agentschap NL 2011b); this information is consistent with the a €200€230 starting price for labels with advice offered on energy providers’ websites
(Eneco 2012; Essent 2012; Nuon 2012). As only 15% of homes sold have an energy
label (CBS 2011d) and there is little impact for renters who do have labels (Van
Rijsbergen 2012), it appears that people do not value what the energy label offers.
In the survey there are questions that target the WTP for the energy label, which is
designed to provide insight in how one can avoid wasting energy and as result lower
his/her impact on the environment. The WTP question is also compared to the free
self-test in order to establish whether in the absence of costs, there is an increased
perceived interest in the concept of an energy label.
Environment and Resource Management
22
BACKGROUND
Sub-Question 6
Do the findings of this survey indicate similar results for barriers to Dutch consumers
as those of the ECN, namely lack of trust of energy labels?
After the initial peak in energy label use of 25% during the introduction period, the
number of homes is estimated to be slightly less than 15% in 2012 (Hoogelander).
This is the opposite of what is expected of the development of a sustainability label
(De Boer 2012). Lack of public trust may be an underlying reason for this decrease
in use. The ECN study found trust to be a main obstacle for Dutch consumers
(Tigchelaar et al. 2011a&b); Brounen & Kok (2011a) also indentified the lack of
reliability as a barrier for the energy label. This concept also was reconfirmed by
stakeholder groups Woonbond, and NVM as well as researchers De Boer and De
Best-Waldhober (2012). Two factors identified to contribute to the lack of trust are
related to the lack of funding for research of how to bring the energy label out to
consumers (De Boer 2012) and the public outcry following the consumer television
program Radar. Trust that the information is credible is one of the three precursors
for the usefulness of a label; trust in the energy label and the energy saving
information it can provide was deficient according to Radar. Consumers have also
stated that they had no guarantee of the validity of the label (Van Hooijdonk 2012).
This is also prevalent in the rental sector where there are many homes with labels,
but the label is not comparable to the tenants experience; the quality of the
efficiency improvement is not reviewed only whether or not it has been installed
(Van Rijsbergen 2012). Questions are taken from the ECN questionnaire and used
in the survey to identify whether consumers without energy labels have the same
degree of distrust in 2012 as those who had the label in ECN’s study.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
3
23
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The concept of pro-environmental behaviour, its origins, and how information can
promote it form the basis of the theoretical framework of this research. This chapter
discusses the theoretical framework for measuring pro-environmental behaviour and
how an information tool is used to motivate this. As described earlier, proenvironmental behaviour is defined as behaviours that are “undertaken with the
intention to change (normally, to benefit) the environment” (Stern 2000:408). There
are two types of pro-environmental behaviour pertaining to energy conservation:
curtailment and efficiency adaptation. They are distinguished and an explanation is
given about which one applies to energy labels. As behaviour is a result of a
complex flow of internal reasoning, assumptions and attitudes, these flows are
identified and discussed in which ways they pertain to the research question and
motivational frames. Then the four different motivational frames for using the
information tool for energy savings are discussed. Finally, as the goal of the
information policy tool is to promote energy conservation, the concept of an
information tool and its role in promoting pro-environmental behaviour is explained.
3.1
Pro-Environmental Energy Conservation Behaviour
There are two main behavioural types when considering energy conservation:
curtailment and adoption of energy efficient technologies or efficiency behaviour
(Stern & Gardner 1981; Gardner & Stern, 2002; Sütterlin et al. 2011). On the one
hand, curtailment behaviour is behaviour that needs to be carried out repetitively
and assumes a change in the consumer’s daily energy habits (Aarts & Dijksterhuis
2000; Marechal 2009; Schipper et al., 1989; Sütterlin et al. 2011). An example of
curtailment behaviour is turning of the lights every time an individual leaves the
room. This act needs to continually be repeated in order to maintain the
environmental benefits. On the other hand, the adoption of efficient technologies
often occur only once, “a one shot act””, and does not necessitate repetition
(Abrahamse et al. 2005; Stern & Gardner 1981; Sütterlin et al. 2011). An example of
adoption behaviour is replacing a traditional light bulb with a LED light. As long the
daily behaviour level remains consistent, energy savings will be realized. Efficiency
adoption behaviour often requires an initial investment where the benefits are
distributed over a longer term (Sütterlin et al. 2011). Consumers unfamiliar with the
higher upfront costs sometime experience difficulty in making an assessment of the
long term benefits; Tangari & Smith found that “perception of savings mediates the
relation between the interaction and attitude and purchase intentions” (2012:205).
Efficiency behaviour is sensitive to how reliable the consumer’s estimates of energy
savings of adapted measures are, which are often difficult to calculate as they
require a consistent daily behaviour before and after the measure has been taken
(Stern et al. 1987). A further limitation of technology adoption is that individuals need
not only accept them but to understand, purchase and use them in the correct way
(Steg & Vlek 2009). Nonetheless, individuals are usually more open to the latter
mode of energy conservation (Poortinga et al., 2003; Steg et al. 2006) and less
open to changes that require more diligent curtailment behaviour (Steg 2008).
The energy label does not require curtailment, but rather advises individuals of the
options available for adopting energy efficient measures for their homes. The basic
process is as follows: the consumer requests an energy label, an energy inspection
is completed, the consumer is given recommendations, then makes decisions on
Environment and Resource Management
24
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
which suggestions to follow in order to improve energy efficiency, pays and
implements the improvements and finally, consumes less energy for the same
activities while enjoying costs saving and/or improved comfort. As long as the
everyday behaviour remains constant, previously wasted energy will be conserved
through improved efficiency. Thus, no daily change is necessary to realize
conservation behaviours. It is true that curtailment behaviour would further conserve
energy, but this energy related behaviour is beyond the scope of this research and
the primary goal of the energy label.
3.2
Behavioural Antecedents
The origins of behavioural pattern are complex. A challenge is that although people
may care about the environment in general, this does not mean that they conserve
energy. People are often inconsistent in terms of their environmental behaviour;
Steg & Vlek (2009) found that even if people actively recycle or eat less meat, they
do not necessarily conserve more energy than the average Dutch household. Thus,
it is difficult to predict environmental behaviour and it is necessary to make proenvironmental behaviour salient to both individuals familiar with environmental
problems as well as to people who are not generally aware of environmental issues.
Moreover, it cannot be assumed that the correlation between one’s actions and the
environmental impacts are known. Thus, questions specific to energy savings are
important instead of using other environmentally favourable behaviour as a proxy for
energy conservation behaviour in order to determine if individuals display a
particular pro-environmental behaviour.
Researchers are working to develop a conceptual framework that explains the
multiple determinants of environmentally significant behaviour. Stern, an often-cited
expert on pro-environmental behaviour, states that “[e]nvironmentally significant
behavio[u]r is daunting, both in its variety and in the casual influences on it”
(2000:421). He further suggests that a theory generalizing environmentalism may
not be very useful because there is a variety of causal factors that may be
interrelated (Stern 2000). For example, the Attitude-Behaviour-Context (ABC)
theory, postulates that behaviour is an interaction between attitude and contextual
factors (Stern 2000). The results of the meta-analysis conducted by Bamberg &
Möser (2007) verify the concept that pro-environmental behaviour is a combination
of self-interest and pro-social motives and that an adequate understanding of proenvironmental behaviour has to take both motives into account. The Theory of
Planned Behaviour (TPB) is used to explain rational, self-focused cost-benefit
analysis (Ajzen 1991); while Norm-Activation Model (NAM) and Value-Belief-Norm
(VBN) are used to explain pro-social or altruistic motives using values (Bamberg &
Möser 2007; Steg & Vlek 2009; Stern 2000). Stern (2000) suggests that a synthesis
of different theories and relationships to explain environmentally significant
behaviour and that models that take into account a combination of attitude,
contextual factors (including social norms), perceived behavioural control (PBC) and
habit or routine are more acceptable means for explaining pro-environmental
behaviour. Steg & Vlek propose that Goal-Framing, which suggests that motivation
is often heterogeneous, provides “an integrative perspective on environmental
motivation” (2009:312). Steg & Vlek (2009) claim that TPB uses hedonic and gain
goal-frames while NAM and VBN concentrate on normative goal-frames. Thus, in
this paper the terms goals and values are interchangeable. Another theory, Focus
Theory of Normative Conduct, concentrates on the ability of social norms to predict
and alter environmentally significant behaviour; this theory explains behaviour best
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
25
when norms are salient (Cialdini et al. 2006). Table 3.1 on the following page
displays the paradigms and the key factors of the aforementioned theories. In
regards to energy labels specifically, De Boer (2012) finds that independent of the
motivation thereof, it is essential that consumers find energy savings valuable, that
they believe the information provided is credible and that they can do something
about it, otherwise there is no change in behaviour, which can also be referred to as
values, attitude, and PBC. Although there are a variety of theories for predicting and
explaining pro-environmental behavioural, there does appear to be agreement that
awareness, attitudes, and PBC, values, social norms and contextual forces are
relevant starting point for researching the motivational factors for getting an energy
label and engaging in efficiency behaviour.
Environment and Resource Management
26
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL
BEHAVIOURAL
THEORY
Theory of Planned
Behaviour (TPB)
PARADIGM
Behaviour and intention thereof is guided by a
rational balancing an individual’s attitude,
subjective norms, PBC and actual behavioural
control.
-Intention closest determinant for behaviour (Fieldings
et al. 2008)
-Contextual restraints important
-Reasoned process of weighing costs and benefits of
the relevant behaviour (in terms of time, money, effort,
social approval) (Ajzen 1991)
-Hedonistic model, “rational evaluation of behavioural
consequences” (Bamberg & Möser 2007:16)
-Successful in explaining behaviour such as buying
energy efficient light bulbs and high cost behaviour
(Steg & Vlek 2009)
Norm-Activation Model
(NAM)
Awareness of consequences leads to the moral
obligation to engage in environmentally
significant behaviour.
-Actions pro-socially (altruistically) motivated
(Stern 2000; Bamberg & Möser 2007)
Value-Belief-Norm
(VBN)
Values form beliefs and perceptions that activate
a sense of obligation to act, which results in
behaviour.
-Extension of NAM
-Values: biospheric, altruistic and egotistic
-Beliefs: ecological world view, adverse consequences
for valued objects and perceived ability to reduce
threats (Stern 2000)
-Socio-demographic variables act as opportunities and
constraints for behaviour
Good at explaining low cost behavioural changes
(Steg & Vlek 2009)
Goal-Framing Theory
Behaviour results from an interaction of different
goal frames may or may not be complementary.
-“Hedonic-Feel better right now” (a priori strongest)
-“Gain goal-frame-Guard and improve one’s
resources”
-“Normative-Act appropriately” (external social support
necessary to be activated)
-Background goals can either strengthen or weaken
these three goals sets based on compatibility (Steg &
Vlek 2009:312)
Attitude-BehaviourContext (ABC)
Behaviour is an interactive product of personalsphere attitudinal variables and contextual
factors.
KEY
FACTORS
Attitude
Awareness
Context
PBC
Values
(Gain-goal frame
Hedonic frame)
Awareness
Social norms
Values
(Normative-goal
frame)
Attitude
Awareness
Values
(Normative-goal
frame)
Values
(Hedonic goals
Gain-goal
frame
and Normative-goal
frame)
Attitude
Context
-Attitude-behaviour correlation is strongest when
contextual forces are strongly positive or negative.
Implies that the stronger the contextual factors, the
weaker the correlation is between attitudinal variables.
-Causal factors interact, thus not one source of
behaviour (Stern 2000)
Focus Theory of
Normative Conduct
Norms of what individual believes what other’s
do or what other’s believe ought to be done
incite an individual to exhibit “ socially
appropriate” behaviour.
-Norms are most influential on behaviour when they
are salient in the perceivers’ consciousness
-Formulations should underscore what “is” or “should
be done”” not what “ is not” or “should not” be done
-Two types: actions based on what one believes “is”
commonly done and actions based on what one
“ought” to do in society (Cialdini et al. 2006)
Table 3.1 Summary of theories on pro-environmental behaviour
Environment and Resource Management
Social norms
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
27
Problem awareness is one of the causal factors in motivating behaviour. It is defined
by Darby (2006: 2931) as “a state of being alert and knowledgeable”, often a result
of considering the consequences as possibilities of our actions. Steg finds that
individuals are often unaware of how much energy their behaviour requires (2008).
Problem awareness relates to internal attribution. Internal attribution refers to
whether the consumer relates the problem to their actions (Darby 2006; Steg & Vlek
2009). Many consumers are unaware that heating and cooling homes contributes to
climate change (Bord et al. 2000). Knowledge, both explicit and tacit, is found by
Lave (1993) and Schon (1983) to have a strong theoretical link to action. If
individuals are not aware of this, then environmental motivation for conserving
energy will not be activated (Darby 2006). Thus, awareness can activate an
individual to act. In the survey, respondents are asked whether an energy label of an
appliance has ever influenced their purchase decisions. The respondent is asked
whether they have an energy label and whether or not they are familiar with an
energy label. In a study done in 2008 by USP Marketing Consultancy BV, they found
that from August 2007 and January 2008, the awareness of the energy label
improve from 9% to 46% by homeowners and from 4% to 31% by renters. Although
individuals may be aware of the energy label, it is not clear if individuals know what
they can do with the label and what environmental problems it attempts to address.
Research by Brounen et al. (2011) suggests that people are not aware of their
energy consumption levels. To further demonstrate the awareness levels,
respondents are asked whether they associate their consumption with
environmental problems.
Attitude, according to Stern’s findings, has the “greatest predictive value for
behaviours that are not strongly constrained by context or personal capabilities”,
when behaviour is costly or challenging “contextual factors and personal capabilities
are likely to account for more of the variance” (2000:422); this stems from the ABC
theory. Attitudes about energy savings can be affected by individuals’ temporal
views (Tangari & Smith 2012). In order to value the savings an energy label
provides, one will likely need a long-term temporal frame. The costs for the energy
label and following the recommendations are usually up front. There are monetary
costs, as well time and comfort while the building improvement is being installed; the
savings and potential improvement in comfort are only realized afterwards. Presentoriented individuals expect short term benefits and are less likely to choose benefits
that will be realized in the distant future (Tangari & Smith 2012). Thus, it is important
to illustrate that consumers will not experience too much discomfort (short term) and
that they will experience long-term comfort gains (Steg & Vlek 2009). Otherwise,
households will likely think that they will be worse off for being green (Griskevicius et
al. 2010; Steg 2008). Attitudes contributed moderately significantly in energy related
studies done by Abrahamse & Steg (2009). In the survey, a closed question asks
how the respondents view energy conservation; whether they view it as a hassle, a
limitation to their freedom, or limiting their comfort level. Another aspect is trust; if
they do not believe that the information is very reliable than they are likely to have a
negative attitude towards using an energy label for energy conservation (De Boer
2012; Brounen & Kok 2011a). Respondents are asked their level of trust in different
sources in relation to gaining information on energy efficiency.
PBC refers to whether individuals feel as though they have the ability to perform an
action or make a change (Bamberg & Möser 2007). Contextual factors, such as
higher costs, high level of difficulty and lack of information reduce the perception of
being capable of realizing energy conservation (Steg 2008; Steg &Vlek 2009). TPB
uses PBC to describe how “individuals’ perceptions of contextual factors” influence
Environment and Resource Management
28
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
behaviour (Steg & Vlek 2009:312). Some socio-demographic factors such as age,
gender, education and wealth have been linked to forming the limits of one’s ability
to change and are possible indicator for personal capabilities for changing energy
related behaviour (Steg & Vlek 2009; Stern 2000). PBC contributed moderately
significantly in energy related studies done by Abrahamse & Steg (2009); in the
meta-analysis conducted by Bamberg & Möser (2007), PBC was found to explain
52% of the variance in pro-environmental behavioural intentions. The perception
that one is able to reduce his/her energy consumption is highly related to the
intention to do so (Steg & Vlek 2009). Therefore, it is relevant to look at whether
respondent’s believe that they have the ability to save a marginal amount of energy
(5%) or a more substantial amount of energy (20%) and whether they know how to
make these changes.
Values are defined as “desirable transsituational goals, varying in importance, that
serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other social entity” (Schwartz
1994:21). There are four factors implicit in this definition: “they serve the interests of
some social entity”, “they can motivate action-giving it direction and emotional
intensity”, “they function as standards for judging and justifying action, and they are
acquired both through socialization to dominant group values and through the
unique learning experiences of individuals” (Schwartz 1994:21). For this study in
particular, it is relevant that values are a source of motivation for pro-environmental
behaviour and that they contribute to different locus of attention. According to the
VBN theory, values relevant to environmentally significant behaviour are biospheric,
altruistic or egotistical (Stern 2000). Biospheric values focus on the wellbeing of the
environment and biosphere, while altruistic values focus “on the welfare of other
people” and egotistical values focus on the individual self. (De Groot & Steg
2010:369). These are comparable to the Goal-Framing theory where hedonistic
goals are to feel better now, the gain goal-frame that focuses on expanding one’s
resource and normative goals of acting appropriately in accordance with dominant
society (Steg & Vlek 2009). Hedonistic and gain goal concentrate on actions that
improve one’s current condition while the latter has a more altruistic or biospheric
focus. The summation of values and goals facilitates the formulation of the
motivational frames.
Social norms are an underestimated tool in the path to energy conservation; people
do not believe that they work or that they are influenced by them, but Cialdini &
Schultz argue that they appear to be the most effective tool in decreasing
consumption (2004). Social norms are defined as an action that occurs as a result of
feelings of guilt stemming from a perceived disparity between one’s own behaviour
and that of others (Baumeister 1998). There are two main types of social norms:
injunctive and descriptive (Steg & Vlek 2009). Injunctive norms refer to people’s
perception of what behaviours are generally accepted while descriptive norms refer
to people’s perception of what behaviours most others actually do (Cialdini et al.
1990; Steg & Vlek 2009); there is much evidence that this occurs from both survey
studies and laboratory experiments (Thøgersen 2008). Steg found that “normative
concerns are more robust than cost or hedonic reasons” (2008: 4450). Cialdini and
Schultz have found that “normative beliefs are correlated with behaviour” and that
“normative messages can cause a change in behaviour” (2004: 6). According to the
Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, norms are most influential on behaviour when
they are salient in the perceivers’ consciousness (Cialdini et al. 2006). Moreover,
according to this theory, it is critical to craft normative messages in a way that
causes the audience to focus on and normalizing what ‘ought to be done’ instead of
normalizing undesirable behaviour (Cialdini et al. 2006); in other words undesirable
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
29
behaviour should be marginalized. Because descriptive social norms are considered
an underemployed tool for motivating environmentally significant behaviour, this
study uses descriptive norms in the behavioural experiment in the attempt to
observe whether there is a significantly higher intention of conserving energy.
Contextual factors can influence behaviour in four ways: by directly bring about
behaviour, by supporting and responding to attitude or values, by negating and
limiting motivational factors, and, in relation to Goal-framing theory, establishing
which motivational goal frames or values most strongly encourages behaviour (Steg
& Vlek 2009). TPB and ABC theories recognize the role that contextual factors play
in motivating or impeding behaviour. This is discussed in further detail in the
following section.
3.3
Motivational Frames
As discussed in the previous section, behaviour is best explained by theories that
take into account both self-interest and concerns for others as explanations for
environmentally significant behaviour (Bamberg & Möser 2007). Many studies use
either TPB or NAM to explain environmentally significant behaviour (Abrahamse &
Steg 2009). According to Steg & Vlek the literature indicates that “antecedents of
environmental behaviour” are not mutually exclusive (2009:311); thus, it is advisable
to combine theories to explain behaviour. Originating from these different theoretical
frameworks on precedents to environmentally significant behaviour, one can identify
four main motivational propositions identified for using the energy label:
environmental concern, stemming from pro-social theories NAM, VBN and GoalFraming; economic motivation from TPB and Goal-Framing; social norms, derived
from the NAM, VBN and the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, and complying with
contextual requirements, originating from ABC and TPB theories. Social
responsibility is not specifically examined in this research as it is implicit in the longterm temporal frame of environmental concern.
Environmental concern assumes that some people chose to conserve energy
because they care about the present and future welfare of the planet and other
people. In the case of a short term temporal frame the concern may be in regards to
resource depletion as that is more visible and temporally close. A long term
temporal frame relates more to climate change with an uncertainty of what and
when the effects of climate change will be felt; moreover, there is the prevailing
assumption that future generations will have to deal with the consequences of
climate change. Environmental conservation can signal a consumer’s WTP for an
energy label or accepting costs for improvements (Griskevicius et al 2010). To
motivate individuals concerned about the environment, Griskevicius et al. (2010)
suggest that it is important to provide information to make them aware of the
consequence of their actions on the physical and social environment (Owens 2000).
The literature suggests that this group is more willing to act once they become
aware of an issue because they assume responsibility as well as a personal moral
obligation to do something (Steg & Vlek 2009). Thus, the survey tests the level of
awareness of how one’s energy consumption contributes to environmental problems
and how much they are WTP to get information on how to change it. It cannot be
assumed, however, that the target audience of the energy labels for residential
buildings will be triggered by environmental concern. This is because people who
care about the environment do not necessarily act to conserve energy as identified
in the section on pro-environmental behaviour. Another cause of inconsistent
Environment and Resource Management
30
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
behaviour is the rebound effect (Abrahamse & Steg 2011; De Boer 2012; Steg &
Vlek 2009).
Economic concern is another guiding force of energy conservation. This rational
consumer’s behaviour is explained by TPB, which assumes that behaviour “is a
result of a reasoned process of weighing costs and benefits of the relevant
behaviour (in terms of time, money, effort, social approval)” (Abrahamse & Steg
2009:712). To motivate this group, the literature suggests making green products
cheaper, more efficient and offering financial incentives such as subsidies
(Griskevicius et al. 2010; Matsukawa et al. 2000; Van Vugt et al. 1995).
Nonetheless, there are limits in terms how cheap home efficiency improvements can
be made. Moreover, households’ economic concern may be short-sighted and in the
long-term not economically rational. According Brounen et al. (2011) consumers
have a low energy literacy, or awareness and understanding of their consumption,
which makes it difficult for households to perceive the economic benefits of
improving energy efficiency in their homes. Another possibility is to change the
temporal framing of savings and make the long term savings salient (Tangari &
Smith 2012). There are two main personal advantages attached to efficiency gains
behaviour: increased comfort and monetary savings (Abrahamse & Steg 2009).
Tangari & Smith (2012) suggest that it is more effective to frame a small amount of
savings that is temporally near than a large amount of saving that is for the distant
future. This may increase a person’s perception that s/he has the ability to change
and improve his/her attitude towards energy savings. One weakness about these
egoistic values is that they are short lived if conditions changes or benefits are
reduced; thus, De Groot & Steg (2009) recommend that they should be supported
by environmental and altruistic values.
Normative statements are most effective when the situation is uncertain and when
the recipient of the message can identify with the social group that his/her behaviour
is being compared to (Cialdini & Goldstein 2004; Griskevicius et al. 2008). Social
norms affect our behaviour because we often face uncertainty on how to act and
other people’s behaviour presents important clues and guidance. In times of
uncertainty, people look to others for cues on how to act; if one believes that the
other people are similar to them this has a stronger power to influence their
behaviour (Griskevicius et al. 2008). Future energy prices and climate change are
both uncertain in terms of the type and timing of future consequences. A benefit or
normative framing is that both the economic and the environmental driven groups
are susceptible to social approval; the former because of status within the group and
social approval (Abrahamse & Steg 2009; Griskevicius et al. 2010) and the latter
because of the feeling of moral obligation (Steg & Vlek 2009). Thus this motivational
frame, if effective, may be useful in attracting a large audience with lower costs than
an egotistical frame and be more robust against contextual changes. Apart from
providing insight on what is morally right, it also can provide information on whether
it is easier or beneficial to comply than to resist conforming (Bamberg & Möser
2007). Consumption patterns and thereby energy conservation intentions can be
affected by subjective social norms (De Boer 2003; Sütterlin et al. 2011; Thøgersen
2008).
A fourth motivation is compliance to contextual situations, specifically legal
regulations. Contextual factors can facilitate or hamper pro-environmental behaviour
(Steg & Vlek 2009). If constraints stemming from infrastructure, pricing, product
characteristics and availability are severe, motivational factors are outweighed
(Ibid.). In the past, there were not many signals that one should comply with getting
an energy label and there were no sanctions in place. Moreover, intermediaries did
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
31
not actively promote the energy label and in some cases informed individuals not to
get them (Radar 2007; Radar 2008; VEH 2010). Furthermore, the price that
individuals are not used to paying for an informational product they do not
understand can serve as a barrier. As of January 1st 2013, energy labels will not
only be mandatory, there will also be penalties for non compliance. The question is
whether only by this kind of sanctioning pressures individuals will consider using
energy labels. This motivational frame, as well as the other three, is measured
through the door hanger experiment as well as questions in the survey.
3.4
Information as an Intervention Tool
After discussing behavioural flows and motivational frames, the question remains
how they specifically relate to energy labels stimulating efficiency adoption
behaviour. One commonly used technique is through the provision of information
(Stern 1992). Energy labels are a form of information and give an indication of how
effective the building uses energy. Steg & Vlek define informational strategies as
policy “aimed at changing perceptions, motivations, knowledge, and norms, without
actually changing the external context in which choices are made (2009:313). The
assumption of providing information is that new knowledge changes attitudes which
in turn influence behaviour (Ibid.). Information about energy conservation
opportunities may bring about changes in behaviour as consumers are more aware
of the different options they have (Abrahamse et al. 2005). However, new
knowledge does not always ensure behaviour changes in terms of energy
conservation (Abrahamse et al. 2007). There are three critical factors to consider in
regards to using information: how the message is framed, the consumer’s
perception of the distribution of costs and benefits and whether or not the target
audience and stakeholders trust the source and methodology of information.
In the Netherlands, governmental information campaigns “assume that people are
persuaded more by arguments based on egoistic considerations” and design their
campaigns to appeal to this type of audience (De Groot & Steg 2009:64). However,
egotistical motivation also gives individuals a short term focus for the behavioural
change that will often cease when the personal benefits become low or the costs
increase (Ibid.). Furthermore, De Groot and Steg (2009) claim that these campaigns
often fail because they do not appeal to other values such as ecocentric/biospheric
ones.
De Groot & Steg (2009) suggest two strategies to make information campaigns
more robust: make other values more salient and reduce the conflict between
egoistic goals and other values. In the first strategy, in the case of energy labels,
labels can be promoted not only as an information tool to save money, but as a way
to be a productive member of society and protect the environment, which are longer
term and more consistent goals (Ibid.). Moreover, information can show how an
individual can act on their altruistic or biospheric values (Ibid.). At the same time, not
any type of pro-environmental message succeeds; campaigns that focus on
encouraging pro-environmental behaviour appear more effective and acceptable to
their audiences than decreasing the “attractiveness of environmentally harmful
behaviour” (Steg et al. 2006). Appealing only to environmental values may not be
enough, however, to motivate consumers to conserve energy. For the second
strategy, informational campaigns could show that economic and personal benefits
are not necessarily in opposition with pro-social and biospheric values; individuals
may not be aware that the label provides both types of benefits because of their
short-term focus for calculating costs and benefits. People tend to be reluctant to
Environment and Resource Management
32
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
adjust their behaviour because there are often sacrifices involved and because of
the existence of an ’energy efficiency gap’; an energy efficiency gap proposes that
consumers are not able to assess the short terms investment costs and discomfort
with the long term benefits (Griskevicius, et al. 2010; Steg 2008). For example,
marketers had a difficult time convincing people of the benefits of a €7 light bulb
when only a €0.50 less efficient light bulb previously existed (Tangari & Smith 2012).
While the initial costs of €7 was significantly more than that of the €0.50 light bulb, in
the long term, a consumer would save money by consuming energy more efficiently.
Traditionally, people were accustomed to spending very little initially on a light bulb
but over the long term, using a product that did not efficiently utilize the energy they
were paying for. The new model of lighting was difficult to accept even though it was
for the consumer’s benefit because the costs and benefits were distributed over a
time frame that there were not used to (Ibid.).
This problem applies to energy labels. Prior to energy labels, there were no salient
initial costs for measuring energy efficiency. Rather, there exists a long-term less
noticeable burden to the consumer through inefficient energy consumption. This is
reflected in the energy bill, which is difficult for most consumers to deduce the origin
of the costs to problems of inefficiency. With an energy label and technology
adoption, there are initial costs that the households are not familiar with: the cost of
the energy label, approximately €200, and the costs of implementing energy efficient
features such as insulation, solar panels, and new heating systems. Even with the
free indication label, the costs of implementations still remain. In exchange for these
upfront costs there are the long-term personal benefit such as monthly cost
reduction and improved comfort (in the case of most improvements). By making
these long-term economical benefits explicit when a consumer is purchasing or
renovating a house, consumers can make “more economically rational” decisions in
terms of energy (Stern et al. 1987:349). The lack of interest in energy labels for
residential buildings to date seems to indicate that the benefits are not salient while
the upfront costs act as barriers. This hypothesis is tested in the survey.
Finally, there is the perception of the label itself. Individuals need to find a
sustainability label credible if it is to have impact. This relates back to the basic
principles: that individuals must value energy savings that they feel that the
information is credible, and that they feel that they can do something about it. The
latter two items are specifically linked to the label itself. Trustworthiness has been
identified as a problem, which bears critical limitations for the effectiveness of a label
(De Best-Waldhober 2012; De Boer 2003). Without trust there is also the lack of
clarity of what one can do with a label. The interviews with key stakeholders function
to further describe this phenomenon. Therefore, the survey analyzes whether
people trust the energy label as a source of information and what they expect to
gain from using one.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
4
33
METHODOLOGY
The methodology consists of four main parts: a literature review that provides the
basis of the theoretical framework, interviews with stakeholders, a behavioural
intervention referred to as a digital door hanger and a consumer online survey. The
literature review, discussed in the Section 2.3 and the Chapter 4, is used to assess
the existing research pertaining to topics of energy labels, consumer behaviour,
norms and provide a theoretical basis from which the research questions can
scientifically be approached. Interviews with expert stakeholders were conducted to
better understand background contextual factors. The digital door hanger is a
means of directly measuring a client’s intention to get an online energy label
indication based on their response to different motivational frames. Six days later
and with no explicit referral to the digital door hanger, a survey was sent out to the
entire sample. The survey, along with other relevant consumer data provided by
Greenchoice, forms the base for analysis of consumers’ perceptions of obstacles
and enabling factors and is discussed further in the Chapter 5. Figure 4.1 illustrates
the flow chart of the methodology.
1. Literature Review
2. Key Informant
Interviews
3. Behavioural
Experiment
4. Survey
Interview Researchers
Literature review
Literature Review
Literature Review
Awareness of stakeholders and
relevant research
Interviews with researchers
Pilot draft following template
Pilot Survey
Design behavioural experiment
and survey
Stakeholder interviews
Amend Content
Amend Survey
Information on relevant
research and contextual factors
Email invitations for
experiment
Email invitations sent out
Collect data for six days until
survey sent out
Online survey
Data analysis
Figure 4.1 Methodology flow
4.1
Interviews
Interviews were conducted in person, by email and telephone with both researchers
in relevant fields as well as professionals who play a role in the consumer’s
perception of the energy label. The works of Patton (1990) inspired the wording and
format of the interview questions. The interviews with researchers provided
information on theoretical framework as well as providing basic understanding of the
contextual background. Marjolein Best-Waldhober, contact person for the ECN’s
research on energy labels and Joop de Boer, researcher at the IVM who has
conducted studies on sustainability labels were contacted. De Best-Waldhober was
interviewed to get a better understanding of the implications of the ECN’s findings.
Information collected during the interview contributed to the approach of this project
Environment and Resource Management
34
METHODOLOGY
in two critical ways. First, she highlighted the key finding of the research for the
Netherlands: there is a lack of trust in the energy label. As a result, there are two
questions in the survey that are taken from the ECN questionnaire in order to
compare whether individuals without an energy label have the same level of distrust
as those with the label. Second, she recommended social norms and research by
Robert Cialdini and Linda Steg as a starting point for further research. This
contributed to the approach of the digital door hangers and testing whether social
norms are motivating factors for individuals to make improvements to their homes.
Joop de Boer provided background information on the psychology and development
of a sustainability label. The expert stakeholder interviews provided critical
qualitative information on what has led to the lack of interest and acceptance of the
label, what they have perceived from households, how they perceive the impending
sanctions and what their role is in the development process of the label. More
information on the stakeholder interviews is provided in Data Analysis Section 5.1.
4.2
Participants of the Behavioural Experiment and Online Survey
The digital door hanger invitations and survey were designed for a Dutch speaking
audience. This is consistent with the client profile for Greenchoice as all of the
information on their website is provided in Dutch. The participants in this study are
accessed through Greenchoice’s client database. A limitation of this study is that it is
limited to households of a single energy provider, but as Table 4.1 illustrates, they
demonstrate characteristics similar to the Dutch population. From a potential
population of approximately 300,000 possible candidates, 4,000 clients were
randomly selected. This group was subdivided into five groups, four of which were
invited to participate in the online behavioural experiment and one that did not and
served as a control. The average age was between 41-50 compared to the national
average of 41.1 (Central Intelligence Agency 2012). The range is 20 and older. The
average Dutch household size is 2.2 in 2011 while the average household size of
participants is 2.66 (CBS 2011c). Table 4.1 is a comparison of the samples’
demographics compared to that of the Dutch national average.
Gas consumption
Sample Average
Dutch Average
1904.6
1600
2012)
(Milieu
Centraal
1850 (CBS 2012c)
Electricity consumption
3523.24
3500
Household size
2.66*
2.20
Age
41-50*
41.10
4.40 (Scale 1-6)*
Table 4.1Comparison of sample averages with Dutch average
* Only calculated for those who participated in survey N=611
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
35
The majority of participants were homeowners please see Figure 4.2. Awareness of
the energy label was higher than the 70% of ECN’s survey (Adjei et al. 2011); 82%
of the population was aware whether or not they had a label.
Living Situation of
Respondents (N=606)
13,4%
Renters
Homeowners
86,6%
Figure 4.2 Living situation of respondents
The majority of respondents were involved in making decisions about energy in their
households: 27.1% were solely responsible, 71.8% were jointly responsible and
1.1% was not involved in decision making; thus, the portion of the audience that can
make changes was reached. Greenchoice’s clients are spread throughout the
Netherlands; the sample displays a diverse range of housing characteristics. Please
refer to figure below for information on the location, housing type, period and length
of stay in the house of the sample; some figures may not add up to 100% because
of rounding.
Figure 4.3 House related demographics
Environment and Resource Management
36
METHODOLOGY
4.3
Digital Door Hanger Behavioural Experiment
The online indication energy label has not been designed yet. Although it is currently
impossible to measure actual behaviour related to filling in the self-test and taking
action, it is possible to observe a behavioural intention to complete the self test through
a small intervention. The aim is to determine whether there is an observable difference
in response among the different formulations of messages. The technique was inspired
by the social normative research conducted by Cialdini, Griskevicius, Goldstein and
other researchers: please refer to Cialdini et al. 1990, Cialdini & Schultz 2004, Cialdini
et al. 2006, Goldstein et al. 2008 and Griskevicius et al. 2008 for more information. For
example, in one of the experiments conducted by Cialdini & Schultz (2004), five different
sets of door hangers were sent out to residents to conserve energy by switching to fans
instead of using air conditioning. The only difference among door hangers was the
reason or motivation for conserving energy: to save money, to be socially responsible,
because their neighbours were doing it, because it was good for the environment and
because of the factual information they were provided with.
For the experiment, a digital door hanger is sent out to four groups, each with size of
N=792. A digital door hanger, like a door hanger found in hotels that let personnel
know whether they can clean the room or not, provides information to people without
directly speaking to them. In this case, it is an email that provides clients with
information about the energy label and a link to sign-up for a contact list that will
make sure they are informed by email when the energy label tool is ready.
Participants required the same amount of effort to respond to the door hanger: open
the invitation email, read a short text, and then click on the link to sign-up for the VIP
waitlist. The only difference participants encountered was the conveyed
reason/motivation for conserving energy through filling in an energy label. The
following appeals were emphasized: (1) in order to improve the environment
(biospheric), (2) in order to save money and improve comfort (egocentric),(3) in
order to behave similarly to other Greenchoice customers (social normative) and (4)
in order to provide information about saving energy help the environment (control
group) (Griskevicius et al. 2008). The control group had the same basic information
about saving energy as the other three groups without being related to a secondary
goal of energy conservation. The first line of the door hanger is displayed in Table
4.2, for the complete version of each of the digital door hanger letters, please refer
to Appendix B. An example of the sign-up sheet is provided in Appendix C.
ENVIRONMENT
•Protect the environment by conserving energy
•(Bescherm het milieu door energie te besparen)
SELF-INTEREST
•Save money by conserving energy
•(Bespaar geld door zuiniger om te gaan met
energie)
SOCIAL NORMS
•Join your neighbours in conserving energy
•(Vergelijk uw energieverbruik met uw buren)
INFORMATION ONLY
•Energy conservation
•(Energiebesparing)
Table 4.2 Motivational frames of the digital door hangers
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
37
If they respond to a motivational frame, that demonstrates intentions, it is more likely
that they will actually fill in the self test when it is ready. The hypothesis is that the
invitation that is framed using descriptive social normative will have more reactions
than the other message formulations. Through personal communication with Cialdini
about the experiment, he advised that in order to adequately test the four messages
types, it is necessary to present those messages at the outset of your
communication in order to avoid that their impact being diluted or even missed
entirely (2012). The digital door hanger was sent out six days before the survey was
released. This is partially to lower the perception that the intervention is related to
the survey as well as lower the effect the door hanger has on the individual’s
answers, give people enough time to check their email and sign-up for the label
before they receive the survey. Where receiving the door hanger may influence
respondents’ answers in the survey, the situation of filling in the door hanger
following the survey was to be avoided as this would not clearly show whether the
frame of the message influenced the respondent to sign-up for an energy label.
Thus, only responses to the digital door hanger received before the survey was sent
out were included in the analysis.
4.4
Online Survey
Surveys are useful tools for gaining understanding of behaviours so that information
can be suitably designed to fit the purpose (Stern et al. 1987). Furthermore they are
an effective strategy for learning how sources obtain their information (Ibid.). The
results of the survey are not ipso facto, but do provide descriptive information that
offers a basis for understanding the relationship between two or more factors
(Oppenheim 2005; Stern et al. 1987). The purpose of this survey is to observe which
factors motivate consumers to consider an energy label. Some aspects are
straightforward to measure such as consumer awareness. Behaviour however, is
difficult to measure because, as previously mentioned, there are more factors that
influence a consumer’s decisions besides the label itself (Banerjee & Solomon
2003). The questionnaire is paired with actual energy consumption data in order to
more accurately measure behaviour and get an indication of individuals’ stated and
actual preferences.
4.4.1
Design
The survey is designed using the software Survey Monkey. All of the four different
door hanger groups and the control group received the same invitation and survey
questions. In the survey there are three mandatory questions: whether or not an
individual has an energy label; in the case that individuals do have an energy label,
how many measures they have undertaken to improve efficiency; and to what level
they value energy conservation. Following the question of whether an individual has
an energy label, they are reverted to one set of questions if “yes” is answered and
another set of questions if they answer “no” or “I don’t know” is answered. After
filling the questions specific to their situations, both groups continue the same
survey. The assumption is that the majority of the individuals who fill in the survey
will not have an energy label.
Each question attempts to measure one or more aspects of the research question;
this is in accordance with making a purposeful survey (Bradburn et al. 2004). A five
point Likert scale is used to measure the extent to which consumers agreed with the
given statements. The Likert scale measures two dimensions, the direction of one’s
Environment and Resource Management
38
METHODOLOGY
attitude or opinions, negative or positive, and the intensity of that opinion, strongly
agree versus agree (Albaum 1997). The majority of the statements are formatted
with strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly degree. There are also single
answer and multiple answer multiple choice questions. The demographic questions
pertain to the following aspects: gender, age, education level, income level, how
many people they live with, whether they own or rent their home, what kind of home
they have, whether they live in a city, a town or they country side. Multiple answer
multiple choice include questions where more than one answer is appropriate, for
example in the case about what situations an individual would consider getting an
energy label or what sources of information an individual would consider for getting
more information on energy efficiency.
To determine WTP, one question asks what individuals would be willing to pay for a
label that is mandatory, gives insight on their energy use and show them what they
can do to have a more energy efficient home. Because most individuals are not
familiar with the costs of an energy label a payment card was created, see Figure
4.4.
Figure 4.4 WTP payment card
The set-up of the card is based on research analyzed and conducted by Rowe et al.,
which posits that the “accuracy with which respondents can estimate values is
proportional to the value” and “ ‘just-noticeable’ differences” (1996:179). In other
words, it assumes that peoples’ ability to perceive differences between two variables
decreases as the values get larger. For example, an individual perceives a greater
difference between €10 and € 15 than €250 and €255. As a result, the payment card
uses an exponential scale. The equation used is based on Weber’s law for just
noticeable differences where Bn is the bid value and k is the positive constant, N=20
(Rowe et al. 1996).
Bn=B1 x (1+k)n-1
(1)
It was difficult to set a center value. However, the research from Rowe et al.
(1996:184) “does not support the existence of range and centering biases in
payment cards” when a truncation problem, or cut-off value, does not exist. As the
highest value on the payment card was five times that of the current market price,
truncation should not be an issue. As Survey Monkey had some weaknesses in
dealing with decimal points, individuals were requested to fill in whole numbers. To
avoid confusion and be consistent, there were no decimal point in the payment card.
Some of the questions have been taken from the questionnaire provided by ECN,
particularly sub-question D4 and D6 of ECN’s survey (Adjei et al. 2012). This is
done in order to enable comparability (Bradburn et al. 2004). Although the questions
were kept as similar to the original ECN questions on trust as possible, there were
some changes made. First, the order of the two trust questions was changed to flow
better in the smaller survey. For the question asking what sources of information
they would use to gain information on improving energy efficiency, “buren” or
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
39
“neighbours” was added because it is in the following question about trust, is distinct
from family and friends and this research is particularly interested on the impact of
social forces for promoting environmentally significant behaviour. Also, “makelaar”
or “realtor” was added because they are an important intermediary for promotion of
energy labels and have in the past often advised clients not to get one. Also, “weet
ik niet” or “I don’t know” was left out because this question is not mandatory and
they can leave the question blank if they do not know or write a comment if they
would like in the field “other”. Furthermore, in the ECN’s survey the naming of the
fields was inconsistent. It would have been preferable that both questions listed the
same options; but because this question was compared to the former research, as
few changes as possible were made. One change, for example, “bouwmarkt” is
written in the first question of the ECN survey and “Doe het zelf winkel” in the
second. So, “Doe het zelf winkel” is added to “bouwmarkt” so that respondent can
think of small scale hardware stores and not just large chains and improve
consistency. In following question about the trust in the source of information,
“helemaal niet belangrijk” or “completely unimportant” was changed to “helemaal
niet betrouwbaar” or “completely untrustworthy” as “completely unimportant” does
not answer the question that is being asked and can be confusing for the
respondent. Furthermore “completely do not trust” is how the phrase is worded in
the English version of the survey provided by the ECN (Adjei et al. 2012:298). Other
questions were inspired by survey questions from other research.
4.4.2
Process
Before the survey was launched, the survey questions were reviewed by academics
at the IVM, native Dutch speaker and members of Greenchoice. Then, the
questionnaire was tested on an audience consisting of twelve individuals. Both the
reviews and the pre-tests lead to modifications in order to improve readability and
strengthen the link to the research questions. To view the invitation email, please
refer to Appendix D and for the questions asked in the final survey, please refer to
Appendix E. Finally, in May and June 2012, the questionnaire was distributed online
to clients of Greenchoice who were initially invited to the energy label wait list as
well as one control group who did not receive the door hanger.
4.4.3
Response
Households were asked to participate in a study aimed at identifying motivations
barriers and the use of norms in regards to the energy label. An example of the
invitation email that was sent to all respondents is available in Appendix D.
Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and there were no monetary
benefits for filling in the survey. As a result, individuals interested in the energy label
or who have the habit of filling in questionnaires respond were most likely respond.
In this case, self selection results and potentially valuable information of why people
are not interested in energy label is not provided. Of the 4000 individuals invited to
fill in the survey, 611 participants started the survey. Of these 611 individuals,
approximately 88% went through the entire survey until the end. Although
respondents had sixteen days to fill in the survey, most of the response came within
the first two days. The response rate for the survey was approximately 15.3% of the
total sample, which is higher than the anticipated response rate of 10%. The time
commitment was approximately (10-15) minutes.
Environment and Resource Management
40
DATA ANALYSIS
5
DATA ANALYSIS
In this chapter, the results of the stakeholder interviews are reviewed first in section
6.1. After looking at the contextual factors presented in the interviews, the focus
shifts to an analysis of the behavioural experiment and the survey results. In section
6.2 the representativeness of the household sample of the Dutch population is
tested. Then in the following sections each of the six sub-questions, which in part
address the main research question, are explored. Finally, in last section, the results
for the main research question are presented.
5.1
Interviews
Four influential parties on households were identified in the section 2.2: Agentschap
NL, NVM, VEH, and Woonbond. Interviews with members of these organizations
took place in May and June, 2012. From Agentschap NL, Kees Jan Hoogelander
who has been involved in developing the methodology for the energy label was
interviewed. Gratia van Hooijdonk is a policy advisor specialized in governmental
environmental policy and the energy label within the NVM. Sophie Welschen is a
lawyer specialist for VEH. Onno van Rijsbergen is employed by Woonbond and has
experience as an advisor for environmentally conscious construction and specializes
in housing quality and the indoor environment (Woonbond 2012). Along with
interviews, Agentschap NL, NVM and VEH provided additional literature and links to
online sources to answer the questions. The parties were asked for their perspective
on the following: what obstacles the energy label faced in the past, what the current
situation of the label is, how the sanctions of January 1, 2013 will change factors,
what the future obstacles are, what the perspective of the label is and what the
organization’s role is in the development of the label. The questions asked to each
party can be reviewed in Appendix F. The following sub-sections give an overview of
their responses to these questions as well as a conclusion section of the general
findings.
Past Obstacles
Although the energy label has been legally mandatory since 2008, the agreement by
the four parties is that is has been largely ignored. Hoogelander, from Agentschap
NL, noted that there was little support, different market parties did not pick up on the
energy label and it was not transparent for the consumer what the added benefit of
the label were. Furthermore, the methodology had problems, which sometimes led
to discrepancies in label scores. According to Van Hooijdonk of the NVM, the two
episodes of the Radar program in 2007 and 2008 put into question the reliability of
the label. After the airing of Radar the label quickly received a bad name and
requests for energy labels decreased. It was unclear what the guarantees were that
the labels were correct. VEH was critical about the label because they found its
quality insufficient (VEH 2010); thus, VEH advised consumers not to get an energy
label (Welschen). On the website by the question “Is the label necessary when the
selling a house?” the answer provided is that the seller and buyer can agree to
refrain from getting a label, see Appendix G. As sanctions were not in place, it is
easy for homeowners to avoid getting a label (Welschen; Van Rijsbergen). For
renters, it is more important that a house is comfortable, not drafty with not too high
energy costs than being environmentally sustainable (Van Rijsbergen). Moreover,
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
41
renters are reluctant to invest in a house that is not theirs even though they can
have a financial gain in the form of lower energy costs (Duijnmayer 2011a).
Current Situation
Hoogelander states that Agentschap NL is on a good path as there have been many
improvements in the quality of the energy label. In order to improve the quality of the
energy label providers, they must recertify every five years. The software has been
improved with checks and balances to control for mistakes and the data base is well
managed. In order to improve quality assurances, transparency has been increased
(Rijksoverheid 2011). From a study completed by the former ministry for the
environment (Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM)) in
2009, 61% of the labels given out were found to be incorrect (Rijksoverheid 2011).
In 2010, the label was improved and tailored to the type of house and at the same
time, the companies that give out the label were more stringently inspected and
required more initial and long-term training (Ibid.); in 2010, 5 of the 30 houses or
16% of the tested houses had an inconsistent label (Ibid.). The ministry facilitated
another follow-up study in 2011 to test whether the reliability of the label had further
improved since 2009 and 2010. In 2011, 5 of the 48, or 10%, of the research house
had a deviation of greater than 8%. This is a significant improvement compared to
the first study’s result of 61% deviation (Ibid.). The inconsistencies often occur when
a house is given a “good” C label instead of a “poor” B label because of incorrect
input of doors instead of windows or the type of glazing or incorrect measurement
amount of surface area (Ibid.). The Certificerende Instellingen (CI’s) (certifying
institutions) did a further study in September 2010-April 2011 of 381 houses and
found that 30 houses, or 8% of the houses, had discrepancies (Rijksoverheid 2011).
From these studies it is clear that the quality and consistency of the label is
improving.
NVM, VEH and Woonbond recognize that the methodology has improved. VEH is
satisfied with improvements in the methodology that they advised the government to
change but intends to remain critical of the methodology (VEH 2010). For example,
the initial label was also not consumer friendly; it used MJ, with which the consumer
is not familiar, instead of kWh and cubic meters for gas, (Hylkema 2009). Another
significant change occurred on July 1, 2011; the energy label score began to
influence the maximum rent that a renter can request through the Dutch rental point
system. Hoogelander states that the label currently has little influence on renters’
choice, but in the coming years the point system can make the label more influential.
Van Rijsbergen from Woonbond comments that there is not direct influence of the
label on renters’ decisions. The prices are not influenced by the label and the energy
label measures whether an energy saving technology has been installed and not the
quality of the installation. For example, insulation is often not done well, but the label
only calculates whether or not it is present, not how well it is installed. Renters are
unsatisfied that the energy label does not correspond with what they experience; for
example, they wonder why their house has a D label when they still experience draft
(Van Rijsbergen). Hoogelander does not know why living quality and label do not
correspond in these specific examples but states that renters can go to the wellestablished Huurcomissie (rental commission) to register a complaint about the label
and review the point system.
NVM, VEH and Woonbond state that their household stakeholders demonstrate little
interest in the label. Van Hooijdonk and Welschen suspect that most owners are
aware of the label. Renters are becoming more aware of the label in general, but
they often do not know what their own label is. Van Hooijdonk, NVM, notes that one
Environment and Resource Management
42
DATA ANALYSIS
can save energy without having the label. Moreover, a house with a label is not a
deciding factor as houses are so diverse and unique. Only if the same house on the
same street had a better label than the other, then maybe that would enter into the
decision more. Furthermore, as there are currently no sanctions in place, people can
easily get around having a label (Welschen). NVM is unsatisfied with the current
situation because it is legally required and the buyer has the right to an energy label;
sellers meanwhile feel that there are repercussions if they ask for a label. Buyers do
value the information provided by an energy label but sellers only want to show the
positive attributes. NVM receives few questions from sellers and buyers over the
energy label (Van Hooijdonk). A few NVM realtors want to know more about the
quality and reliability of the energy label as well as how the advice can be
interpreted because every home is unique.
Sanctions
There is some discussion about the upcoming sanctions. According to article 27 of
the adjusted EPBD guidelines, penalties must be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive (BZK 2011). Proportionality refers to the balance between the means that
the tool employs and the goal of the label itself (Ibid.). Also, the energy label
document must be present during the process of purchasing a home and required
by the notary agent to complete the process (Ibid.). The ministry finds that there is
no question of excessive individual burden as it is not difficult to get an energy label,
overly expensive, nor is the waiting time for a label long (Ibid.). The notary can
prepare the documents for transferring property and all other preparations can be
made; however, the document cannot be finalized and executed until there is an
energy label (Ibid.), which is essential to finalize a sale (Hoogelander); thus, there
are less administrative requirements because there is less need to monitor whether
or not the label has become part of a selling transaction (BZK 2011).
NVM prefers stimulating people rather than penalizing them and find the measures
effective, necessary to break the deadlock, but out of proportion. It is currently
difficult to talk with the client about the label because there are no sanctions and the
seller, who is responsible for having the label, is concerned about the associated
risks of being transparent. At the same time, the realtor has other priorities and must
go with the seller’s decision. With penalties, realtors will have a reason to push
individuals to get a label. However, Van Hooijdonk from the NVM and VEH
expressed concern as there are many individuals involved in the process of selling a
house and the sanction will likely cause a negative chain reaction that will cost
money and back-up the process (VEH 2011). VEH finds it too early to put sanctions
and that the sanctions are not in balance. In a letter to the minister about this, they
stated that after the false start, quality should first be proven to regain the trust in the
label (Ibid.). VEH suggests the alternative of testing a sample of population to see
whether the energy label was in place and when it is missing give fines (Ibid.).
However, the Ministry of Internal Affairs states that although administrative fines in
general can be effective, dissuasive and proportional, in the case of energy labels it
is exceptionally challenging to administer according to these criterion (BZK 2011).
First, the transfer has to be complete in order to fine an individual for not having it.
Then, the fine has to be high enough to prevent people from choosing a fine over a
label, but at the same time be in balance with the severity of the violation (Ibid.).
Furthermore, there are too many houses purchased annually so that it is impossible
and expensive to monitor all transactions (Ibid.). Once the transaction is complete it
is difficult to find the former owner (Ibid.). In contrast, the planned sanction requires
less administration, monitoring and enforcement (Ibid.). For renters however, Van
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
43
Rijsbergen of Woonbond states that the sanctions in place will not affect the rental
market as energy labels are already largely in place.
Future Obstacles
The label still faces many challenges. For example, Van Hooijdonk identified a
practical issue: it costs money and is required by the seller who has little interest but
the buyer is the one who can benefit the most from the information. Moreover, the
label is currently not a priority for realtors as they are experiencing a housing market
crisis. At the same time, banks are hesitant about giving out mortgages and are
offering fewer funds than in the past. Unlike appliances, homes are too complicated
and decisions about residences are often based on other characteristics such as
location and the feeling it creates and not on a bad label (Van Hooijdonk;
Welschen).Thus, consumers likely place too little value on the label. According to
Van Rijsbergen, renters experience a big gap between the label their house has and
the amount of comfort they experience and as a result the changes will not affect
their choices. In principle, Hoogelander states that there are not too many obstacles
for the energy label; the most important remaining challenge is enforcing sanctions.
Perceived Benefits
The perception of the gains the energy label offer were not shared by the four
stakeholder groups. Hoogelander finds that the label provides insight into projected
energy costs. He asserts that this is important as energy costs are projected to grow
more than other living costs and become a larger share of total living costs. Lower
income households are more sensitive to this change as already a larger
percentage of their income goes to living expenses. Thus, Hoogelander believes
that the label should become an inherent part of the real estate process counter
growing energy costs. Woonbond is positive about the label, but because there are
too many faults in how it is executed Van Rijsbergen sees little implications for
renters. VEH (2011) states in their opinion letter that while they recognize that
improvements have been made, they will remain critical observers of the label. Van
Hooijdonk notes that two of the benefits of the energy label are that the buyer can
gain insight into the energy efficiency of a house and be aware of small changes
that can substantially improve heating efficiency.
Role in Energy Label
All four parties indicated that they will have an active role in further developing the
energy label. Along with continually working on improving and universalizing the
methodology, Agentschap NL is also working on making the benefits of the label
more transparent for consumers (Hoogelander). For example, under the Nationale
Hypotheek Garantie (NHG) (National Mortgage Guarantee), which insures
mortgages till €350, 000, buyers can receive an €8000 in mortgage above the limits
of their income for an A-label (Stichting Waarborgfonds Eigen Woning 2012);
however, at present, banks are very careful with how much they are willing to give
out (Hoogelander). To improve visibility, all of the advertisements for houses, in print
or online by Funda, will require an energy label present (Hoogelander). NVM, VEH
and Woonbond indicated that they are working together with Agentschap NL to
improve the methodology of the label. Hoogelander, from Agentschap NL, sees the
role of keeping in contact with the different stakeholder parties to inform them on
time about upcoming changes. NVM is educating its membership about the label
and energy savings and is seeing a positive improvement of how the energy label is
perceived. During the training, most realtors were initially negative about the label,
Environment and Resource Management
44
DATA ANALYSIS
but after the training tend to have a positive view and appreciation of the label. Also
realtors are being taught to be receptive to signals that consumers are interested in
an energy label. NVM tried a pilot program to include energy label information in
brochure, but met with resistance from sellers, and are as a result, waiting for
sanctions to be in place. VEH will remain a consumer watch dog for the energy
label. They have tested the changes and though VEH does see that definite
improvements have been made, they are not always satisfied with the quality of the
label (Welschen). Woonbond is actively helping to shape the label but states that the
energy labels plays a limited role in renters’ decisions as there is a lack of
connection between what the energy label is and what the renter experiences.
Summary
The interviews provide insight into some of the obstacles consumers encounter:
there is not a demand for the labels received by the stakeholders and thus, there is
not much information communicated about the past and current changes in the
energy label. Table 5.1 illustrates a summary of the respondents’ replies to the past,
current and future status of the energy label. From the interviews, there seems to be
a general agreement that the initial quality of the methodology for assessing houses
was insufficient. In the current situation, in the housing market, there is little
expressed interest by either sellers or buyers in the energy label while renters find
the label has little impact on their housing costs and living comfort. For sanctions, on
the one hand, they are seen as necessary by Agentschap NL and NVM in order to
overcome the impasse. On the other hand, sanctions seem to have few implications
to renters and meet with opposition from VEH. As for future obstacles, Agentschap
NL views enforcement as the most difficult challenge, while other stakeholder
groups find generating interest in the label and making the added value of the
energy label clear more challenging. All of the parties indicated a desire to
participate in ongoing discussions and development of the energy label, though
some parties are uncertain about what the benefits to consumers will be.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
AGENTSCHAP NL
NVM
VEH
WOONBOND
Official executor of the
energy label
Dutch Realtors
Association
Renters consumer
organization
Past
Obstacles
-Methodology found not
to be good
-Added value to
consumer was unclear
-Bad name
-No sanctions
-Largely ignored
-Reliability
questionable
-No interest from
buyers
Homeowners
consumer
organization
-Label had poor
quality, reliability
questionable
-Advised consumers
not to get label
-Not consumer
friendly layout
Current
-Owners: Less than 15%
house sold have label
-Renters: Label present
but has currently little
influence on housing
-Further improving
training and monitoring
of energy label providers
- Universalizing
calculations and
improving transparency
-Sellers and Buyers
do not ask questions
-Buyer is the dupe
-Label not deciding
factor in buying house
-Increase in number
of labels
-Methodology has
improved
-Little interest in
label
-Easy to get around
label
-Expect that people
are familiar with it
-Methodology
improved
-Lots of discussion
-More general
awareness, but do
not know what their
label is or what it
does
Sanctions
-Are simple and clear, if
a person does not have
a label the notary cannot
sign the contract.
- Label score influences
the maximum rent that a
renter can request.
-Prefer regulations
that promote the label
rather than sanctions
-Sanctions seen as
effective and
necessary
-Sanctions out of
proportion, all parties
effected and causes a
chain reaction
-Too early
-Not proportional
-Too harsh
-Negative chain
reaction on all
parties involved in
the process
-No effect on rental
market but will
influence the
housing market
Obstacles
-Not many
-Energy label on the
right track
-Label needs to be
bigger part of rental
pricing.
-Enforcement is
challenging
-People buy house
not because of label
-No direct influence
on choice
-Rental prices are
not changed
-Label looks at
quantity not quality
View of
energy label
-More mortgage for Alabel
-Economic value for
energy efficiency
-advertisements
-Sellers and realtors
not ready
-Seller scared of
repercussions
-Required by seller
but buyer has
benefits
-Can save energy
without a label
-Other priorities for
realtor
-Buyers benefit from
insight
-Small investment
could result in
changing a D-> B
-Methodology better
but not perfect
Role in
development
-Facilitate research
-Participate in EU
development of EPBD
-Keep stakeholders
informed
- Further reforming and
developing label
-Educate membership
about label and
energy savings
-Work with and
consult government
agencies
-Facilitate research
-Critically analyze
methodology
-Protect consumers
- Positive about
concept,
reasonable
methodology, but in
practice the label is
still faulty
-Actively participate
in development and
shaping the
methodology
45
-Label present, but
inconsistent with
user’s experience
-No sanctions
Table 5.1 Summary of stakeholder interviews
Environment and Resource Management
46
DATA ANALYSIS
5.2
Comparison of Sample with the National Average
In order to get an idea of the representativeness of the sample, the gas and
electricity consumption levels were compared to the Dutch national average. The
mean for gas and electricity for the sample and the different participants are
displayed in Figure 5.1. There was not a significant difference detected, 0.30
(p>0.10), using two tail significance test for average electricity consumption
between the sample, N=4000 and the Dutch average; for the sample that
participated in the behavioural experiment and/or the survey there was not a
significant difference detected at the .95 confidence level, N=791. For gas, two
averages were used, 1600 m3 from Milieu Centraal and 1850m3 from CBS. An
accurate average for gas is more difficult to calculate than electricity as heating use
is dependent on seasonal factors that can vary from year to year. Both the average
for the sample and the respondents was significant at the .95 confidence level using
either the average provided by Milieu Centraal or CBS. Although gas consumption
of the sample is significantly different to that of the national average, it does not
indicate that the sample from a renewable energy supplier is more “green” or
efficient by having lower gas consumption because the sample has a higher mean.
Thus, the sample is reflective of the group targeted to lower energy (gas)
consumption.
Figure 5.1 Average gas and electricity consumption
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
5.3
47
Sub- Question 1: Social Norm Framework
Is there a significantly higher response by those who are requested to fill in sign-up
page for an energy label that is framed using a social normative technique than
those who receive one that is framed using the other three methods?
A chi-test was used to compare the number of people who stated “yes” to signing up
for the label as a result of receiving the digital door hanger see Table 5.2. In the
case of this analysis a “no” count is not an unexpected result as the anticipation is
that everyone who decides to fill-in the sign-up sheet will state “yes” they want to
know about the energy label first. Social norms had a significantly higher response
than environmentally framed messages and a comparable response rate to
egocentrically framed messages. The neutral framed information message received
more response than any other category and has significantly than social norms.
Although social norms did not have the highest count, it had the highest count of any
of the “framed” messages.
Group * Energy label Cross tabulation
Cross tabulation for Door hanger groups and
Intent to get an energy label
Energy label
No
Yes
4
76
Count
Self-Interest
Expected Count
Std. Residual
Count
Environment
Group
Total
.0
7
55
62
59.0
62.0
Std. Residual
2.3
-.5
5
102
107
Expected Count
5.1
101.9
107.0
Std. Residual
-.1
.0
0
84
84
84.0
Expected Count
4.0
80.0
Std. Residual
Count
-2.0
16
.5
317
333
Expected Count
16.0
317.0
333.0
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
.1
80
80.0
3.0
Count
Neighbours
76.2
Expected Count
Count
Information
3.8
Total
9.952a
12.482
333
Df
3
3
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
.019
.006
a. 3 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.98.
Table 5.2 Chi-test for door hanger behavioural experiment
Environment and Resource Management
48
DATA ANALYSIS
5.4
Sub-Question 2: Socio-Demographic Groups
Is there a difference in which factors motivate specific socio-demographic groups?
There are a few socio-demographic variables that are motivated by different factors.
Age is a significant predictor of valuing energy label; the older the respondent the
higher WTP for an energy label is expressed, see section 5.9 for more details.
Individuals living in the countryside have a higher average level of consumption, but
a lower WTP for an energy label than those living in a town. Renters have a lower
mean for WTP that is significant (p<.05) and a lower interest in the Greenchoice
indication label, but this is not significant see Table 5.3.
Housing Situation
N
Renter
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
66
57.47
175.461
21.598
458
76.56
107.710
5.033
67
3.79
1.274
.156
466
4.03
1.041
.048
WTP
Homeowner
Renter
GC indication
Homeowner
Independent samples test
Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances
F
Sig.
t-test for Equality of Means
t
Df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower
Equal variances
assumed
.719
.397
Upper
-1.226
522
.221
-19.091
15.573
-49.685
11.502
-.861
72.221
.392
-19.091
22.176
-63.297
25.114
-1.737
531
.083
-.243
.140
-.519
.032
-1.493
79.170
.139
-.243
.163
-.568
.081
WTP
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
assumed
7.260
.007
GC indication
Equal variances not
assumed
Table 5.3 WTP comparison between renters and homeowners
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
5.5
49
Sub-Question 3: Level of Energy Consciousness
What is the level of energy consciousness of consumers (i.e. are individuals aware
of their level of use and the relationship to energy consumption and climate
change)?
In the survey, participants are asked using a five point Likert scale how responsible
they feel for resource depletion, climate change, general environmental problems
and whether they believe that they use energy efficiently. The means 3.85, 3.59,
3.66 and 3.80, respectively indicate a more than neutral feeling of responsibility.
There is a high, between 0.813 and 0.847, positive significant (p<.05) correlation
among the three types of responsibility. Thus, the more responsible individuals feel
for resource depletion the more responsible they also feel for contributing to climate
change. There is also a moderate, between 0.261 and 0.291, positive significant
correlation (p<.05), between believing one uses energy efficiently and the
responsibility one feels for personal energy consumption, please refer to Appendix H
for more detailed information in the correlation table. There is also a low to
moderate, 0.160-0.270, positive significant correlation between the three
environmental responsibility variables and the perceived ability to lower future
energy consumption, and a moderate, 0.470-0.523, positive significant correlation
(p<.05) of using the label to abate CO2 emissions and improve the environment.
These results indicate that the more one claims responsibility for environmental
degradation, the more they believe they can lower their consumptions and the more
willing they are to conserve energy in the future. However, there is no significant
correlation between the level of environmental responsibility respondents assume
and their actual or perceived gas consumption levels as well as their perceived label
score (i.e. the efficiency of their house). For electricity consumption there is a small
negative correlation significant at the .90 level. This indicates that the awareness of
one’s contribution may be indicative of the intent for future conservation goals, but
not of their awareness of their current consumption. Furthermore, there is a small
significant negative correlation between the perception that one is using energy
efficiently and the perceived label score, -0.138, and actual gas use, -0.122. Thus,
the more efficient people believe they use energy, the lower their perceived label
score and the lower his/her gas consumption. This indicates that the perception of
energy consciousness does not correspond with having a house that is perceived to
be efficient. Furthermore, it shows that the perception of being efficient has a more
significant relationship to gas consumption than perceived responsibility for
environmental problems.
Environment and Resource Management
50
DATA ANALYSIS
5.6
Sub-Question 4: Consumers’ Expectations
What are consumers’ expectations in regards to what they can do with an energy
label?
Within the survey, two questions gave an indication of what consumers expect from
an energy label: the situation in which they would consider getting a label and what
information they find important in the energy label. In both questions, respondents
could choose as many options as they wanted to or none at all. Figure 5.2 illustrates
the situations where people would consider an energy label. Fourteen people
explicitly expressed that in no situation they would consider getting an energy label.
Approximately twenty of the 573 people sample did not fill in any box and did not
leave comments for the question indicating that they are not considering using the
energy label in any of the situations mentioned in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 Situations where people would consider getting an energy label
In the contexts of the energy label being mandatory and selling a house,
respondents demonstrated the most interest in the energy label. The situation that
had the most response is an energy label being mandatory. This reflects that
individuals see little added-value of the energy label as less respondents would
consider an energy label for when they improve the energy efficiency in their homes,
deal with future energy price increases, buy or rent. In other words, the focus is on
having the label and not what the household can do with the label. That 43.5%
respondents stated that they would consider a label when selling a house is
incongruent with the current situation where the majority of sellers; currently,
approximately 85% of sellers forego providing an energy label. It is peculiar that less
respondents considered the energy label when buying as the buyer usually
experiences more benefits from the information of the label than the seller (Van
Hooijdonk; Brounen et al. 2011). In the situations of renting or renting out a house,
there was little interest demonstrated in the label. There were fewer renters than
owners who participated in the survey, but only 33% of the respondents who
identified themselves as renters would consider an energy label when renting.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
51
Owners also demonstrated interest in the label if they were renting; of the total
response for this category, 27 were renters and were 29 owners. In the situation that
friends, family and/or neighbours find the label useful and recommend it, only 7.9%
of respondents stated they would consider getting in energy label. However, in the
experiment with the door hangers, people had a relatively high response to the
motivational frame of neighbours and social norms; it was comparable to the selfinterest frame and significantly higher than the environmental frame. This
demonstrates that there is a discrepancy between how much people believe others
influence their choices and how much they actually do. From these result, there
does not seem to exist a preference to getting the label in situations where there is
benefit to the user, but rather as a response to legal obligation.
In regards to the second question, what information households expect the energy
label to provide (find important), at least 30% of the sample expected any of the
listed variables to be present, please refer to Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3 Information that households expect the energy label to provide
The two criteria “energy save by change” and “subsidies” were identified by the most
respondents as information they found important in an energy label. From this
information, one can conclude that most individuals want to know what kind of
differences the change they makes has on the energy they consume and what kind
of assistance they can get in order to performing a measure. The next three most
popular types of information that individuals expect have to do with economical
awareness: knowing how much future energy bill would be lowered, how long the
payback time is and how much money would be saved by change. The respondents
are less interested in knowing about their current consumption levels, how much
CO2 they reduce, how the label and changes will affect their property value and
which organizations are available to perform different improvement measures. From
these results, it appears that in regards to the energy label, people generally expect
information about the amount of energy save, about certain economical factors that
Environment and Resource Management
52
DATA ANALYSIS
provide insight on the financial benefits they can receive and about the temporal
scale of their commitment.
This information has two implications for motivating factors. First, in terms of
financial benefits or self-interest, respondents expressed more interest in knowing
about subsidies or financial incentives and knowing about the monthly and total
savings than knowing about how much investments cost or opportunities to improve
property value. So, highlighting the former economic information would be viewed
important by more respondents than the latter. Second, in order to trigger
environmental motivation factors, more people want to know about the energy they
are saving more than the CO2 emissions they are reducing.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
5.7
53
Sub-Question 5: WTP
What is the willingness to pay for an energy label? To what level does the option of
a free indication increase the commitment/willingness to get an energy label?
In the survey respondents were asked what their WTP was for receiving insight in
their house’s energy consumption and what improvements could be made to
conserve energy. The current market price for the energy label is approximately
€200. The mean WTP from the sample is €74.11, N=526. This is 73% lower than
the current market price. Figure 5.4 displays the distribution of what percent of the
sample would be willing to pay for a given price. The highest expressed WTP is
€1000; four individuals expressed a WTP for this amount. Between €700 and €1000,
the percentage of the sample willing to pay is 0.76%, this is not included in this
figure, but is included in the calculations. At the current market price for the energy
label, €200, only 7.79% of the sample is willing to pay. An even more decisive
evidence of a low WTP for the energy label is that almost 40% of the sample is not
willing to pay to €25 and 28.7% of the sample expressed zero WTP. The WTP is not
conform to market prices and indicates that people value the energy label less than
what suppliers’ deem it to be worth.
Figure 5.4 Percentage of sample willing to pay for a given price
The hypothesis was that the more people were willing to pay for a label, the more useful
they would find a free online indication table. As the data does not have a normal
distribution, Spearman’s rho was used to test for correlation. There is a small, 0.182,
positive correlation significant at the .95 level N=517. Both the one-tailed test, used
because of the hypothesis, as well as the two-tailed test yielded the same results.
In regards to the question whether more people would be willing to get information from
a label if it was a free indication, the data indicates that this is the case. Only 7.79% of
the population was willing to pay the current price for an energy label, while 76.5% of the
sample stated that they find an indication label useful or very useful N=536, see Figure
Environment and Resource Management
54
DATA ANALYSIS
5.5. Thus, approximately 70% more people show interest in an indication label than
paying market value for an official label.
Percentage of Sample that Finds a Free Indication Label
Useful (N=536)
Zeer nuttig
38%
Nuttig
38%
Neutraal
14%
Niet nuttig
9%
Helemaal niet nuttig
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Figure 5.5 Percentage of sample that finds a free indication label useful
Environment and Resource Management
45%
50%
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
5.8
55
Sub-Question 6: Comparison with ECN on Trust
Do the findings of this survey indicate similar results for barriers to Dutch consumers
as those of the ECN, namely lack of trust of energy labels?
In order to examine this question, two questions from the ECN survey were used for
comparison: what information sources individuals would use to get information about
energy efficiency and what is the level of trust they express for the different
information sources. The results of the former question are presented in Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6 Sources of information consulted for improving energy efficiency
The main source of information that people revert to for energy saving is the internet
followed by suppliers of energy saving products and services and energy suppliers.
Realtors are considered the least often as a source for information on energy
conservation even though they are usually involved in the transaction of buying and
selling a house. The energy label ranks 9th for being considered as a source of
information, but scores less than 5% worse than environmental organizations,
government websites, local professionals, or trades people, and hardware stores.
The information sources consulted for energy efficiency from this sample,
Greenchoice (GC), and the ECN’s sample are compared in Figure 5.7. With the
exception of government websites, the GC sample shows a higher percentage of
considering consulting each of the sources for information on energy savings. The
survey is provided by the energy supplier, which may explain the higher rating for
the supplier found in this survey than in the ECN’s.
Environment and Resource Management
56
DATA ANALYSIS
Figure 5.7 Comparison between the GC and ECN samples on the information sources
consulted on energy efficiency (Adjei et al. 2012)
For the question on trust, the results are featured in Figure 5.8. The energy label
scored second highest on trust, while energy suppliers performed lower than the
internet as an information source for energy efficiency. The level of absolute distrust
in the energy label is not noticeably higher than any of the other sources of
information in Figure 5.8.
Figure 5.8 Trustworthiness of information providers for energy efficiency
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
57
According to ECN’s survey, there was a low level of trust in the Netherlands; 11.7%
did not trust the energy label at all, 19.2% had no trust, 38.1% had neither distrust
nor trust, 25.8% had trust, and 5.1% had complete trust (Adjei et al. 2012). The
ECN’s findings for the energy label are compared with the results of this study in
Figure 5.9. The energy label shows improvements in the level of trust by
households. Completely untrustworthy and untrustworthy account for 12.5% of
respondents while in the ECN’s results that figure was 30.9%. Furthermore, 43.9%
of respondents in this study find the energy label trustworthy compared to 24% in
the ECN study.
Comparison of the Level of Trust for the Energy Label
Between GC and ECN
50,0%
43,9%
Percentage of sample
45,0%
36,7% 38,1%
40,0%
35,0%
30,0%
25,8%
25,0%
19,2%
20,0%
15,0%
11,7%
10,0%
5,0%
9,7%
7,0%
2,8%
5,1%
0,0%
Completely Untrustworthy
untrustworthy
GC N=545
Neutral
Trustworthy
Completely
trustworthy
ECN N=530
Figure 5.9 Comparison of the level of trust for the energy label between GC and ECN
(Adjei et al. 2012)
The mean level of trust is higher in the GC sample compared to the ECN sample. A
t-test was conducted to compare the means to determine whether this outcome was
significant. The t-test showed that the differences is significant at .95 level, 0.000
between the mean of the GC sample with that of ECN, please refer to Table 5.4 on
the following page. The results indicate that the improvement in the level of trust is
significant.
Environment and Resource Management
58
DATA ANALYSIS
Table 5.4 GC and ECN means for trust and t-test
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
5.9
59
Research Question: Motivating Factors
What is the role of the following factors in motivating consumers to obtain an energy
label: ecocentric (environmental), economic (egotistical: financial and comfort)
normative (based on descriptive social norms) and legal obligation (contextual)?
First, five linear regressions for WTP were created based on socio-demographic
variables (1), actual energy consumption and house variables (2), factors that
individuals would like to improve (3), perception of trust in information providers (4),
and a combination of factors that are significantly related to WTP (5). For these
tests, five outliers were removed (1= €700, 4=€1000).
WTP 1
-40.040
(-1.193)
WTP 2
-6.817
(-.163)
WTP 3
-71.503
(-1.235)
WTP 4
-134.940**
(-3.062)
WTP 5
-118.493**
(-2.302)
Gender
2.331
(.212)
1.503
(.908)
6.038
(.536)
11.923
(1.073)
6.387
(.500)
Age
14.719**
(3.528)
19.853**
(3.820)
13.675**
(3.066)
13.696**
(3.214)
21.652**
(4.464)
Household size
4.299
(1.023)
7.764
(1.525)
4.991
(1.153)
2.308
(.553)
5.534
(1.158)
Income
5.571
(1.420)
5.267
(1.091)
4.422
(1.088)
7.346*
(1.876)
5.565
(.221)
Education
1.265
(.413)
-.893
(-.237)
.728
(1.088)
-2.057
(-.643)
-.007
(-.002)
(Constant)
How long stay in house
-11.379**
(-3.406)
Period of house
-1.641
(-.237)
Annual gas consumption
.012
(1.545)
Annual electricity
consumption
-.005
(-1.080)
-9.463**
(-2.849)
Make house more
comfortable
1.835
(.283)
Less sensitive to price
increase
4.882
(.635)
Lower costs
-8.035
(-.922)
Improve environment
8.431
(.979)
Lessen CO2 emissions
2.304
(.292)
Trust in media ads
.093
(1.390)
Trust in realtor
-.111
(-.018)
11.920**
(1.855)
Trust in environmental
organizations
Trust in TV and radio
-8.722
(-1.206)
Trust in energy label
10.77*
(1.855)
20.124**
(3.126)
Trust in government
9.532
(1.471)
5.280
(.763)
.103
.123
R2
0.047
0.098
.057
Table 5.5 WTP Regression analysis N=521 (*=p<.10, **=p<.05)
WTP 4 and WTP 5 are able to explain more than 10% of the variation in WTP.
There are a few significant predictors of WTP. First, of the socio-demographic
variables age is significantly positively related (p<.05); thus the older one is, the
greater WTP one displays for an energy label. As for house variable, the longer
individuals are planning to stay in their home, the less WTP they exhibit for an
Environment and Resource Management
60
DATA ANALYSIS
energy label. This is unexpected as the longer an individual stays, the larger return
on their investment they receive. Neither actual behaviour, electricity and gas
consumption, nor the intention to save money nor improve the environment explains
the variance in WTP at significant level (p>.10).
In order to determine whether the motivational frames influence the average WTP,
an ANOVA test was conducted, see Table 5.6. The difference among the groups is
significant at the (p<.10) level.
WTP Comparison Between and Within
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Door Hanger Groups
Between Groups
(Combined)
121746.661
4
30436.665
Within Groups
7205699.377
521
13830.517
Total
7327446.038
525
2.201
.068
Table 5.6 ANOVA table of the comparison among door hanger groups
Below is a comparison of means table. The environmental group expressed the
highest WTP, €105.38, while the self-interest group expressed the lowest WTP,
€60.11. Both the self-interest group and the information group have lower average
WTP than the control group that did not receive any messages, while the social
frames message is slightly above the control group.
Group
Self-Interest
Environment
Information
Neighbours
Control
Total
Mean
60.11
105.38
65.96
74.34
69.99
74.11
N
108
93
116
94
115
526
Std. Deviation
108.383
166.502
85.442
123.063
100.451
118.140
Std. Error of Mean
10.429
17.265
7.933
12.693
9.367
5.151
Skewness
6.365
3.726
2.634
5.191
3.238
4.625
Kurtosis
53.172
17.098
10.104
35.486
15.298
29.876
Table 5.7 Comparison of means among the different door hanger messages
In the open question for why people stated a certain WTP, 60 people cited that
because the label is legally required they expect the label to either be subsidized or
pay little for it. Others stated that they were not willing to pay: 62 saw no added
value in having a label, 37 cited high costs as a reason for small WTP, thirteen cited
lack of trust, while eleven others had no idea why they stated a particular value for
WTP. The neutral response given by 122 individuals was that their WTP was based
on what they considered a fair price for the energy label provider’s work. This does
not necessarily indicate that they are aware of the benefits of the energy label, but it
does suggest that these individuals are aware of the costs involved in making a
label. Two positive reasons were cited for motivating WTP: 57 individuals value the
information the label could provide while 35 were motivated by the potential of
saving money.
As a result of the WTP analysis as well as the analyses of the sub-questions, the
role of the four factors in motivating behaviour can be addressed. Environmental
concern plays a limited role in motivating; in individuals who claim a higher
awareness there is not an observed indication that they are consuming less energy
than individuals with less awareness. Although many respondents stated that they
feel co-responsible for resource depletion, climate change and the general
environment, none of these were significantly related to their WTP to get insight
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
61
through the energy label in order to reduce energy consumption and environmental
degradation. What environmental motivation does seem to indicate is a future
willingness to conserve energy. Thus, personal claims to environmental concern are
not predictive of energy conserving behaviour. Nonetheless, the group that received
the environmentally framed door hanger did have a higher average WTP than any of
the other samples. This may suggest that individuals motivated to use the energy
label because of its claims to help improve the environment may be more willing to
pay than those approached using other motivational frames. Meanwhile, self-interest
factors had higher results in the door hanger test than environmental factors, but, the
self-interest door hanger group exhibited the lowest WTP. Evidence for self-interest are
people citing in their WTP response a desire to save money as a reason for getting a
label. Furthermore, individuals are interested in using the label to improve living comfort.
However, self-interest does not always occur rationally. For example, individuals have a
lower WTP if they expect that they will stay longer in a particular house even though
they would be the ones enjoying the benefit longer. Socials norms do contribute to
motivating individuals. The door hangers showed a relatively high response rate without
offering the promise of economic or ecocentric benefits. However, in the question about
the situation in which they would consider a label, individuals did not believe that others’
recommendations would influence them to get a label. This demonstrates that there is a
discrepancy between how much one perceives others influence his/her decision and
how much one is actually influenced by others. Legal obligations set the minimum level
of compliance, but do little to motivate people. When asked what situations individuals
would consider getting an energy label, the largest number of respondents choose if the
label was regulated. This suggests that they do not see the associated benefits; this is
illustrated by the figure that 28.7% of the sample expressed no WTP for the label and
less than 50% of the sample was willing to pay more than €50. Moreover, individuals
who focused on the fact that the energy label is mandatory showed little WTP. At the
same time, the comparison of the GC and ECN tests, along with the stakeholder
interviews, indicate that lack of trust may be less of a barrier now in comparison to when
ECN performed the study. Along with the increased support and visibility offered by
stakeholder groups, contextual factors appear to be less of an obstacle for consumers.
Environment and Resource Management
62
CONCLUSION
6
CONCLUSION
In this chapter the implications of the results are observed in the discussion section.
Then the limitations of the methodology and the application of these findings are
addressed. This is followed by recommendations and the chapter is closed with
recommendations for further research.
6.1
Discussion
The aim of this study was to analyze the role different factors play in motivating energy
conservation through energy labels. The results of this study show that there is no silver
bullet to explain motivational factors and barriers. Nonetheless, it does provide new
insights into the current situation and adds to the current dialogue on energy labels.
First, this study demonstrates the influence of how a message is framed can affect the
level of response. In the experiment, information may have performed the best because
it was neutral, while the messages regarding the label in the past have typically had a
negative connotation. Thus, people were able to base their decision to get a label based
on facts. Furthermore, people do not possess much information on energy and the
neutral framing of the message may have improved the credibility of the message.
Nonetheless, social norms can still have a role to play in motivating people to get an
energy label as it had a relatively high response rate in the experiment. At the same
time, although the goal is to promote environmental outcomes, this study indicates that it
will be more difficult to motivate individuals to get a label using only the frame of
environmental concern because there was significantly less response to this
motivational frame as compared to using one of the other frames.
Second, although the level of trust seems to have improved, there is still a high level of
resistance to paying for an energy label, indicated by the 28.7% who exhibited zero
WTP and the higher response of getting a label because it is mandatory and not
because of perceived associated benefits. Furthermore, many individuals in the survey
believe that it is the government’s responsibility to get a label because it is legally
required while relatively few individuals cited doing so as a result of valuing the
information provided. If the energy label, however, is emphasized as part of the process
and the label score as a starting point for households, this provides added value to the
individuals because the individual can do something with the information. Respondents
cited that they want an energy label to inform them how much energy they can save by
making a change and how those changes will bring about financial benefits.
Third, the mean value for the awareness and responsibility of awareness was more than
neutral. However, there was little evidence of this in their consumption patterns in the
correlation analysis. Respondents claim to associate their consumption with
environmental problems, but there is only a significant relationship to what they
believe they will do in the future, not with what they are doing in the present. Thus,
people do not display actual awareness about their level of gas consumption; this
includes environmentally oriented groups. This indicates that individuals still require
clarity about their energy use. Moreover, this may contribute to a barrier for valuing the
information of an energy label because they do not know that their consumption levels
are not in line with their perceived consumption levels.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
6.2
63
Limitations
There are some limitations as a direct result of the methodology and the application
of the results. One unavoidable limitation of surveys is that it is a self report; thus,
conscious or unconscious report bias may lead to an inaccurate report of actual
behaviour because participants want to give socially acceptable answers or have
difficulty assessing past or future behaviour (Gatersleben et al. 2002); this limits the
ability of survey to predict behaviour (Stern et al. 1987). Another limitation of the
survey is that because the survey is done through their energy supplier, potential
participants may decide not to participate because they do not want to share
information that they find sensitive with their energy provider. The door hanger
behavioural experiment adds some empirical evidence, but is unable to monitor
behaviour after getting an energy label. This leaves questions on how much energy
will be saved as a result of energy labels open. Thus, this research relies on the
proxy of intention to predict future behaviour. In studies by Bamberg & Möser
(2007), Hines et al. (1986) and Golliwitzer (1999) suggest that intention can only
explain some of the variance in pro-environmental behaviour, approximately 2030%. There are also limitations of what conclusions can be used to ascribe to the
current situation in other European countries because the contextual information is
particular to the Netherlands and it has not been determined whether the energy
label has experienced the same type of false start or level of resistance elsewhere.
6.3
Recommendations
There are four main recommendations originating from the results: improving the
saliency of gas consumption, improving awareness among buyers and renters,
emphasizing the energy label as a tool that households can do something with and
considering the motivational frame used. Awareness levels between what one’s
consumption levels are and how these levels are perceived did not correspond.
Thus, energy use needs to become more specified so that people have the ability to
calculate which actions or sources are responsible for unnecessary energy
consumption. With this improved awareness, it would be more obvious what kind of
savings the label can provide. Renters and buyers can also benefit from improved
awareness of the label. Buyers are not aware of their rights to have an energy label
and renters can benefit the most from the energy labels currently available. This
study has demonstrated that there is little awareness, interest nor application of the
label found. However, by making the rights of buyers and renters clear, explaining
how they are affected by the upcoming sanctions and describing what the benefits
are, there could be an increase the awareness, demand and application of labels.
Furthermore, as the energy label is a means of promoting energy conservation, to
make it more effective, the focus should be put on what the energy label can mean
for households and not the score. It is critical then that the label score is not
perceived as a final result, but as part of a process. Focusing on the label score
makes it too black and white or “good” and “bad”, which creates resistance and little
added value for households as demonstrated in this study. With the focus, however,
on what the energy label can do, people do not need to feel punished for having a
bad label but empowered on how they can change their circumstances. As for the
motivational frame, the door hanger behavioural experiment illustrates the
importance of carefully choosing motivational frames for environmental messages;
when using only an environmentally framed message, the response rate was
significantly lower than any other frame. The literature suggests that in order to
make messages robust they should not only include self-interest frames. From this
Environment and Resource Management
64
CONCLUSION
study, it demonstrates that giving neutral information or adding descriptive normative
messages could be an improvement to self-interest dominated messages. These
four suggestions can improve the effectiveness of energy labels in lowering energy
consumption.
6.4
Further research
The energy label is just one tool that provides awareness, but combining it with
other informational tools, such as the smart meter could provide even more added
value. As consumers’ awareness levels of the source of energy consumption is still
vague, a behavioural study of household use of smart meters and whether those
with smart meters are more aware of their house’s inefficiency, have more interest in
energy labels and value the information that the energy labels provides would be
relevant. This study would show how the coupling of information from different
sources can improve the perceived usefulness of energy labels and value of energy
savings. A second area of further research is social norms. People are aware of the
power of social media, but there has been limited application to environmental
issues. More studies on social norms and how they can be used to promote energy
conservation can provide a more affordable alternative to the commonly used tools
of subsidies and other financial incentives. A third topic is looking specifically into
the situation of renters. As they already have the label, using energy consumption
data, it can be tested whether or not the energy label does result in lower
consumption levels. A fourth area of research is more empirical studies. One crucial
weak point in the current is literature is the lack of empirical data. This study does
include a behavioural experiment of the initial steps to getting an energy label.
Nonetheless more empirical research will help in determining causality of factors
that motivate environmentally significant behaviour. An energy label or other tools to
encourage efficiency adaptation require a large time frame whereas curtailment
behaviour can almost immediately be put in place. An empirical study would shed
light on how many people get an official label after having an indication label, how
many actually do something with the knowledge, which efficiency adaptations are
chosen, when these are likely to occur, what the level of energy savings they
experience are, and whether the rebound effect occurs after improving energy
efficiency. With a better understanding of causality, researchers can better predict
pro-environmental behaviour.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
7
65
REFERENCES
Aarts, H. & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000).The automatic activation of goal-directed
behaviour: the case of travel habit. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 (1), 75–
82.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, Ch., Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of
intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 25, 273-291.
Abrahamse, W., Steg L. Vlek, C. & RothengatterT. (2007)The effect of tailored
information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energyrelated behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental
Psychology. 27, 265-276.
Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2009). How do socio-demographic and psychological
factors relate to households' direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of
Economic Psychology, 30, 711-720.
Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L (2011). Factors Related to Household Energy Use and
Intention to Reduce It: The Role of Psychological and Socio-Demographic Variables.
Human Ecology Review 18 (1), 30-40.
Adjei, A., Hamilton, L. & Roys, M. (2012). Deliverable 5.2 A study of homeowners’
energy efficiency improvements and the impact of the Energy Performance
Certificate. Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECN). IDEAL EPBD: Improved
Dwellings by Enhancing Actions on Labeling for the Energy Performance of
Buildings Directive.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Decision and
Human Decision Process, 50, 179–211.
Albaum, G. (1997). The Likert scale revisited: an alternate version. Market Research
Society. Journal of the Market Research Society 39 (2), 331-348.
Backhaus, J., Tigchelaar, C. & de Best-Waldhober, M. (2011). Key findings & policy
recommencations to improve effectiveness of Energy Performance Certificates &
the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Energiebeleid. Energieonderzoek
Centrum Nederland (ECN) IDEAL EPBD: Improved Dwellings by Enhancing Actions
on Labeling for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
Bamberg, S. & Möser, G. (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and
Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27, 14-25.
Banerjee, A. & Solomon, B. (2003) Eco-labeling for energy efficiency and
sustainability: a meta-evalutation of US programs. Energy Policy 31, 109-123.
Boardman, B. (2004). New directions for households energy efficiency: evidence
from the UK. Energy Policy 32, 1921-1933.
Bord, R.,O’Connor,R, & Fischer,A. (2000).In what sense does the public need to
understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science 9, 205–218.
Bradburn, N., Wansink, B. & Sudman, S. (2004). Asking Questions: The Definitive
Guide to Questionnaire Design—For Market Research, Political Polls, and Social
and Health Questionnaires, Revised Edition. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Brounen, D., & Kok, N. (2011a). On the economics of energy labels in the housing
markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62 (11), 166-179.
Environment and Resource Management
66
REFERENCES
Brounen, D. & Kok N. (2011b). Het energielabel op de Koopwoningmarkt: De laatste
stand van zaken. (Research provided for the Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken).
Accessed May 30, 2012: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-enpublicaties/rapporten/2011/04/11/het-energielabel-op-de-koopwoningmarkt.html
Brounen, D, Kok, N. & Quigley, J. (2011). Residential Energy Literacy and
Capitalization. Research provided for the European Centre of Corporate
Engagement (ECCE) and AgentschapNL. Assessed June 18, 2012:
http://www.econtrack.nl/uploads/document/Energy%20Literacy.pdf
Brounen, D, Kok, N. & Quigley, J. (2012). Residential Energy Use and
Conservation: Economics and Demographics European Economic Review 56, 931945.
Cialdini, R., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct:
Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 58 (6), 1015-1026.
Cialdini, R. , Demaine, L., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K. L., & Winter, P.
L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence 1, 3-15.
Cialdini, R & Schultz W. (2004). Understanding and motivating energy conservation
via social norms. [Final Report] Report prepared for the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation.
Darby, S. (2006) Social learning and public policy: Lessons from an energyconscious village. Energy Policy 34, 2929-2940.
De Boer, J. (2003). Stustainability labeling schemes: The logic of their claims and
their function for stakeholders. Business Strategy and the Environment 12, 254-264.
De Groot, J. & Steg, L. (2009). Mean or green: Which values can promote stable
pro-environmental behavior? Conservation Letters 2, 61-66.
De Groot, J. & Steg, L. (2010). Relationships between value orientations, selfdetermined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, 368-378.
Gardner, G. & Stern,P. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. 2nd
ed. Pearson Custom Publishing ,Boston,MA.
Gaspar, R. & Antunes, D. (2011). Energy efficiency and appliance purchases in
Europe: Consumer profiles and choice determinants. Energy Policy 39, 7335-7346.
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of
environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior 34 (3),
335-362.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint:
Using normative appeals to motivate environmental conservation in a hotel setting.
Journal of Consumer Research 35,1-11.
Gollwitzer, P. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
American Psychologist 54, 493–503.
Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2008). Social norms: An
underestimated and underemployed lever for managing climate change.
International Journal for Sustainability Communication 3,5-13.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. & van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen:
Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 98 (3), 392-404.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
67
Hansla A., Gamble. A., Juliusson, A. & Gärling, T. (2008) The relationships between
awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 28,1-9.
Harmsen, R. & Harmelink, M. (2007) Duurzame warmte en koude 2000-2020:
Potentiële Barrières en beleid. (in opdracht van het Ministerie van Economische
Zaken. [Final Report]
Heinzle, L. & Wüstenhagen, R. (2012). Dynamic Adjustment of Eco-labeling
Schemes and Consumer Choice- the Revision of the EU Energy Label as a Missed
Opportunity. Business Strategy and the Environment 21, 60-70.
Hines, J., Hungerford, H. & Tomera, A. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education 18,1–8.
IPCC, (2007): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning,
Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In: Chaiklin, S., Lave, J. (Eds.),
Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Loroz, P. S. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in
prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 1001–1023.
Lynch, J. (1982). On the external validity of experiments in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research 9, 225–240.
Marechal, K.(2009). An evolutionary perspective on the economics of energy
consumption: the crucial role of habits. Journal of Economic Issues 43 (1), 69–88.
Matsukawa, I., Asano, H., & Kakimoto, H. (2000). Household response to incentive
payments for load shifting: A Japanese time-of-day electricity pricing experiment.
The Energy Journal 21, 73–86.
McDonald, S., Oates, C. J., Young, C. W., & Hwang, K. (2006). Toward sustainable
consumption: Researching voluntary simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 525–
534.
Mick, D. G. (2006). Meaning and mattering through transformative consumer
research. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 1–4.
Murphy, L. & Meijer, F. (2011). Waking a sleeping giant: Policy tools to improve the
energy performance of the existing housing stock in the Netherlands. In T.
Lindström & L. Nilsson Borg (Eds.), Energy efficiency first: the foundation of a lowcarbon society. ECEEE 2011 summer study 6 - 11 June 2011: 1107-1118.
Murphy, L., Meijer F. & Visscher H. (2012).A qualitative evaluation of policy
instruments used to improve energy performance of existing private dwellings in the
Netherlands. Energy Policy 45, 459-468.
Oppenheim, A. (2005). Questionnaire Design, Interview and Attitude Measurement.
Chapter Biddles Ltd: King’s Lynn, Norfolk
Owens, S. (2000). Engaging the public: Information and deliberation in
environmental policy. Environment and Planning A 32 (7), 1141–1148.
Environment and Resource Management
68
REFERENCES
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (Chapter 7: The
Wording of Questions (p. 295-316) and Personal reflections on interviewing (p.157159). California.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Wiersma, G. (2003). Household preferences for
energy saving measures: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology,
24(1), 49-64.
Press, M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). Constraints on sustainable energy consumption:
Market system and public policy challenges and opportunities. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 28, 102–113.
Rowe, R., Schulze, W. & Breffle, W. (1996). A test for payment card biases. Journal
of Environment Economics and Management 31,178-185.
Schipper, L., Bartlett, S., Hawk,D. & Vine, E. (1989). Linking life-styles and energy
use: a matter of time? Annual Review of Energy 14, 273–320.
Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Hardback, 1983 Maurice Temple
Smith Ltd, London; paperback, 1991, Avebury, The Academic Publishing Group,
Aldershot, UK.
Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50,19-45.
Steg, L. (2008) Promoting household energy conservation. Energy Policy 36, 44494463.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L. & Abrahamse, W. (2006). Why are energy policies acceptable
and effective? Environment and Behavior 38, 92–111.
Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative
review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, 309-317.
Stern, P. (1992). What psychology knows about energy conservation. American
Psychologist 47, 1224–1232.
Stern, P. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant
Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 407-242.
Stern, P. & Gardner,G. (1981).Psychological research and energy policy. American
Psychologist 36 (4), 329–342.
Stern, P., Aronson, E., Darley J., Kempton W., Hill, D. Hirst, E. & Wilbanks, T.
(1987). Answering behavioral questions about energy efficiency in buildings.
Energy. 12 (5), 339-353.
Sütterlin, B., Brunner T. & Siegrist, M. (2011). Who puts the most energy into energy
conservation? A segmentation of energy consumers base on energy-related
behavioral characteristics. Energy Policy 39, 8137-8152.
Swan, L., Ugursal, V. (2009). Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the
residential sector: a review of modeling techniques. Renewable and Sustain- able
Energy Reviews 13 (8), 1819–1835.
Tangari, A. & Smith, R. (2012). How the temporal framing of energy savings
influences consumer product evaluations and choice. Psychology & Marketing 29
(4), 198-208.
Thøgersen, J. (2008). Social norms and cooperation in real-life social dilemmas
Journal of Economic Psychology 29, 458-472.
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
69
Tigchelaar, C., Bakhaus, J. & De Best-Waldhober, M. (2011a). Deliverable 6
Consumer response to energy labels in buildings: Recommendations to improve the
Energy Performance Certificate and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
based on research findings in 10 EU countries. Energiebeleid. Energieonderzoek
Centrum Nederland (ECN) IDEAL EPBD: Improved Dwellings by Enhancing Actions
on Labeling for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
Tigchelaar, C., Bakhaus, J. & de Best-Waldhober, M. (2011b). Research results and
poilcy recommendations of the IDEAL EPBD project addressing effective EPBD
implementation adn the Energy Performance Certificate for the Netherlands.
Energiebeleid. Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECN) IDEAL EPBD:
Improved Dwellings by Enhancing Actions on Labeling for the Energy Performance
of Buildings Directive.
Truffer, B., Markard, J., Wüstenhagen, W., (2001). Eco-labeling of electricity—
strategies and tradeoffs in the definition of environmental standards. Energy Policy
29 (11), 885–897.
Winer, R. (1999). Experimentation in the 21st century: The importance of external
validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27, 349–358.
Van Vugt, M., Meertens, R., & Van Lange, P. (1995). Car versus public
transportation? The role of social value orientations in a real-life social dilemma.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25, 358–378.
Internet Resources
Agentschap NL (2009). Warmte in Nederland: Onze warmtebehoefte kost veel
energie: grote besparingen zijn mogelijk.
Agentschap NL (2010). Warmte in Nederland: Onze warmtebehoefte kost veel
energie: grote besparingen zijn mogelijk [Brochure] Accessed June 21, 2012:
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/sites/default/files/bijlagen/Brochure%20Warmte%20in%
20Nederland%20NEW.pdf
Agentschap NL (2011a). EPBD/Energielabel: Beleidskader. Accessed June 8, 2012:
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/programmas-regelingen/beleidskader
Agentschap NL (2011b). EPBD/Energielabel: Veelgestelde vragen energielabel.
Accessed June 1, 2012: http://www.agentschapnl.nl/programmasregelingen/veelgestelde-vragen-energielabel
Agentschap NL (2011c) Layout van het energielabel. Accessed June 11, 2012
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/programmas-regelingen/layout-van-het-energielabel
Agentschap NL (2011d). Warmte en koude: kennis, advies, instrumenten en
financiële steun [Brochure] Accessed June 8, 2012:
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/sites/default/files/bijlagen/Brochure%20warmte%20en%
20koude%20bij%20AgNL%202NECW1104.pdf
Agentschap NL (2012). EPBD/Energielabel: Publieks- en overheidsgebouwen.
Accessed June 22, 2012: http://www.agentschapnl.nl/programmasregelingen/publieks-en-overheidsgebouwen
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680-740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
CBS (May 23 2011a). Bijna 16 procent van de in 2010 verkochte woningen heeft
energielabel. Accessed May 25, 2012: http://www.cbs.nl/nlNL/menu/themas/bouwen-wonen/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2011/2011-verkochtewoningen-met-energielabel-pub.htm
Environment and Resource Management
70
REFERENCES
CBS (August 3 2011b). Woningvoorraad naar eigendom; region. Accessed May 25,
2012:http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71446NED&
D1=0-2,4-5&D2=0,5-16&D3=a&HD=100419-1534&HDR=T,G2&STB=G1_
CBS (September 6 2011c). Huishoudens; grootte, samenstelling, positie in het
huishouden, 1 januari. Accessed May 25, 2012:
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37312&D1=a&D2
=a,!1-4,!6-7&HD=120418-1317&HDR=G1&STB=TSURVEY%20METHOD
CBS (October 27 2011d). Vooral corporatiewoningen hebben energielabel.
Accessed May 25, 2012: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/bouwenwonen/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2011/2011-vooral-corporatiewoningen-hebbenenergielabel-pub.htm
CBS (May 25 2012a). Bevolking en bevolkingsontwikkeling; per maand, kwartaal en
jaar. Accessed May 25, 2012:
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37943NED&D1=3
81,387,393&D2=16,101,186,203,220,237,254-l&HD=1003221608&HDR=T&STB=G1
CBS (June 11, 2012b). Energie; verbruik en producentenprijs naar energiedrager.
Accessed June 20, 2012:
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80324NED&LA=N
L
CBS (January 16, 2012c). Gas en elektriciteitsverbruik per woning het laagst in
stedelijke gebieden. Accessed July 17, 2012: http://www.cbs.nl/nlNL/menu/themas/bouwen-wonen/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2012/2012energieverbruik-woningtype-art.htm
Central Intelligence Agency (2012). Median Age. The world factbook. Accessed May
25, 2012: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/fields/2177.html
Compendium voor de Leefomgeving (2012a). Energieverbruik door huishoudens,
1990-2010. Accessed June 18, 2012:
http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0035-Energieverbruikdoor-de-huishoudens.html?i=6-40
Compendium voor de Leefomgeving (2012b). Huishoudelijk energieverbruik per
inwoner, 1950-2010. Accessed June 18, 2012:
http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0036-Huishoudelijkenergieverbruik-per-inwoner.html?i=6-40
Econ Track (February 9, 2012). Dirk Brounen over energiebewustzijn. Tilburg
University [Video]. Accessed June 5, 2012: http://www.econtrack.nl/video-detail/91
Eneco (2012). Energie besparen: Persoonlijk advies: Energie Prestatie Advies
Accessed June 18, 2012: http://thuis.eneco.nl/energie-besparen/persoonlijkadvies/energie-prestatie-advies/
Hylkema, W. (2009). Nieuw energielabel klaar, maar invoering en oordeel laten
noge even op zich wachten. Energeia. Accessed July 10, 2012:
http://www.energeia.nl/dossier.php?DossierID=25&ID=39040
International Energy Agency (IEA) ( 2011). Natural Gas in Netherlands in 2009.
Accessed May 25, 2012: http://iea.org/stats/gasdata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=NL
Duijnmayer, D. (2011a). Donner koppelt energiebesparende maatregelen aan een
hogere maximale huur Energeia. Accessed July 10, 2012:
http://www.energeia.nl/dossier.php?DossierID=25&ID=45498
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
71
Duijnmayer, D. (2011). Donner ziet niks in versimpeld energielabel van Vereniging
Eigen Huis Energeia. Accessed July 10, 2012:
http://www.energeia.nl/dossier.php?DossierID=25&ID=45650
Essent (2012) Particulieren: Producten & Tarieven: Energielabel. Accessed June 1,
2012:
http://www.essent.nl/content/particulier/producten/verwarmingsinstallaties/energiela
bel/index.html
Europa (February 14, 2007) Summaries of EU Legislation: Energy efficiency: energy
permonace of buildings. Accessed June 6, 2012:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/l27042_en.htm
Europa (September 9, 2010). Summaries of EU Legislations: Energy performance of
buildings. Accessed May 25, 2012:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/co
nstruction/en0021_en.htm
IDEAL EPBD (2011) Wat is de EPBD? Accessed July 19, 2012: http://www.idealepbd.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=2&lang=nl
Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (BZK) (2010). Cijfers over
Wonen Wijken en Integratie. Accessed August 3, 2012:
http://abonneren.rijksoverheid.nl/article/kennisplein-wwi/nieuwsbrief-kennispleinwwi-februari-2011/cijfers-over-wonen-wijken-en-integratie-2010-/563/4447
Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (BZK) (December 16,
2011) Memorie van toelichting: Wet kenbaarheid energieprestatie gebouwen.
[Parlimentary letter]
Milieu Centraal (2012). Gemiddeld energiegebruik in huis. Accessed June 6, 2012:
http://www.milieucentraal.nl/thema%27s/thema-1/energie-besparen/gemiddeldenergiegebruik-in-huis/
Nuon (2012) Voor Thuis: energie besparen: Energie Advies aan Huis met
Energielabel. Accessed June 1, 2012: http://www.nuon.nl/energie-besparen/energieadvies/
Woonbond (2012) Onno van Rijsbergen. Accessed July 17, 2012:
http://www.wka.woonbond.nl/werknemers/Onno_van_Rijsbergen.html
Radar (November 26, 2007). Energielabel. [TV Programma]. Accessed July 17,
2012: http://www.allesgemist.nl/video/Radar/45630
Radar (February 18, 2008). Energielabel. [TV Programma]. Accessed July 17, 2012:
http://www.trosradar.nl/uitzending/item/1189/energielabel/
Rijksoverheid (December 16, 2011) Kamer brief van Minister Donner: Energielabel
als hulpmiddel bij energiebesparing in gebouwen. [Parlimentary letter] Accessed
June 20, 2012: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-enpublicaties/kamerstukken/2011/12/16/kamerbrief-energielabel-als-hulpmiddel-bijenergiebesparing-in-gebouwen-def.html
Rijksoverheid (2012). Verwachte wijzigingen energielabel 2013. Accessed May 25,
2012: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/energielabel-woning/verwachtewijzigingen-energielabel-2013
Stichting Waarborgfonds Eigen Woning (2012). Voorwaarden & Normen 2012-2.
Nationale Hypotheek Garantie.
USP Marketing Consultancy BV (February 19, 2008). Bekendheid energielabel
verzesvoudigd: Energielabel kent nog weinig voorstanders [Press release].
Environment and Resource Management
72
REFERENCES
Accessed June 27, 2012: http://www.uspmc.nl/UserFiles/File/persberichten/feb08_02.pdf
Vereniging Eigen Huis (VEH) (2010). Verbeterd energie label per 2010. Accessed
July 10, 2012: http://www.eigenhuis.nl/actueel/nieuws/2009/92016/
VEH (June 26, 2011) Raad van State T.a.v de heer Tjeenk Willink over de invoering
van de Herziene Richtlijn Energieprestatie Gebouwen [Letter]. Accessed July 10,
2012: http://www.eigenhuis.nl/downloads/nieuwspers/110307CU_brief_RvS_inzake_energielabel.pdf
Woonbeheer Borne (2011). Energielabel. [Image] Accessed July 15, 2012:
http://www.woonbeheerborne.nl/Energielabel-35-3-0.html
Interviews
Gratia van Hooijdonk: NVM
Joop de Boer: IVM
Kees Jan Hoogelander: Agentschap NL
Marjolein de Best-Waldhober: ECN
Onno van Rijsbergen: Woonbond
Robert Cialdini: Researcher
Sophie Welschen: VEH
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
73
Appendix A Impact of Energy Consumption on the
Environment
People are already aware that our way of life is becoming increasingly dependent on
fossil-fuel energy sources. On a daily basis, people use electricity to power and
charge mobile phones, laptops and other personal devises. We use energy for
travel, both essential and luxury forms, but we also use it for more basic items such
as cooking, lighting and heating our homes. Our dependence is most evident when
there is a power outage or brownout and we cannot function in the ways to which we
have grown accustomed. Usually, however, people take energy consumption for
granted. Brounen et al. (2011) found in their research of Dutch households that
energy use is not on the minds of consumers, only 56% are aware of their
consumption levels. If awareness levels of energy in general are low, then it follows
that people may be less informed of how their personal decisions directly contribute
to deterioration of the environment. In many countries energy consumption “and its
impacts are dominant themes in the political and economic discourse of most
countries” (Gaspar & Antunes 2011:7335). This information does not necessarily
reach the household level, as overall and individual consumption is increasing and
many people “attach only a low priority to conserving energy” (Steg 2008:4450).
Nonetheless, households contribute significantly to energy demand. Using a global
average, the residential building sector is responsible for approximately 30% of the
overall energy consumption (Swan & Ugursal 2009).
Energy use plays a role in two main environmental problems: climate change and
resource scarcity. Carbon dioxide is considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) as the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas
(GHG) (2007). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due
primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change (IPCC 2007). Of the two primary
causes, the most significant human activity contributing to the increase in CO2
concentrations is the use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007). Buildings are significant
contributors to global warming through the burning of fossil fuels to provide heat.
Heating buildings alone is responsible for 36% of CO2 emissions in Europe and
represents 40% of the European Union’s (EU) total energy consumption
(Agentschap NL 2011a; Europa 2010). In the Netherlands, 555 PJ of total primary
energy consumption in the Netherlands (3223PJ) goes to heating domestic
buildings; heating buildings accounts for 38% of the energy consumed in the
Netherlands and is the largest source of consumption (Agentschap NL 2010).
Thermal energy is the largest source of energy demand in the Netherlands
(Harmsen & Harmelink 2007). In regards to resource depletion, 35.5% of natural gas
is consumed by the residential sector specifically (International Energy Agency
2011); gas is the most commonly used energy source for household heating in the
Netherlands, see Figure 7.1 (Agentschap NL 2010). Gas is used mostly for heating
and to a lesser extent for cooking and heating water (Agentschap NL 2010).
Environment and Resource Management
74
Figure 7.1 Primary energy use in the Netherlands (Agentschap NL 2010)
Fossil derived fuels are not renewable. Even if individuals are consuming biogas or
offsetting their carbon use for heating, these activities consume energy and do not
address the underlying problem of supply and demand. Figure 7.2 shows the per
capita household consumption in the Netherlands, which shows a small decrease in
natural gas consumption in recent years. Nonetheless, the overall household energy
consumption is generally increasing, please see Figure 7.3.
Figure 7.2 Residential energy use per person (Compendium voor de Leefomgeving
2012b)
The general trend of increased energy consumption paired with expanding global
population cannot be met with only a finite amount of renewable energy being
produced. In the Netherlands, there is limited infrastructure to produce renewable
energy; renewable energy can currently support only 2% of energy required for
heating (Agentschap NL 2010). In 2020, it is projected that only 260 PJ of primary
energy will be produced by renewable sources, which could meet less than 50% of
current final energy demand (Harmsen & Harmelink 2007). A further problem is the
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
75
rebound effect; individuals believe they have the right to consume more energy
because it comes from renewable sources results in a need for more energy
sources. Thus, in order to meet current and future energy needs, individuals have to
avoid wasting energy and curtailing excessive consumption regardless of their
energy source. Moreover, as heating is the largest source of household
consumption, substantial environmental benefits can be gained by lowering the level
of demand.
Figure 7.3 Household energy consumption in the Netherlands (Compendium voor de
Leefomgeving 2012b)
Environment and Resource Management
76
Appendix B Digital Door Hangers
Digital door hanger environment
Digital door hanger self-interest
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
77
Digital door hanger social norms
Digital door hanger information
Environment and Resource Management
78
Appendix C Door Hanger Sign-Up Page
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
79
Appendix D Online Survey Invitation
Environment and Resource Management
80
Appendix E Online Survey
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
81
Environment and Resource Management
82
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
83
Environment and Resource Management
84
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
85
Environment and Resource Management
86
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
87
Environment and Resource Management
88
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
89
Environment and Resource Management
90
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
91
Environment and Resource Management
92
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
93
Environment and Resource Management
94
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
95
Environment and Resource Management
96
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
97
Appendix F Interview Questions
AGENTSCHAP NL
Er is volgens veel bronnen weinig belangstelling bij zowel kopers als huurders voor
het energielabel als middel voor energiebesparing, hoe kan dat veranderen?
Hoewel woningcorporaties in bezit zijn van de meeste energielabels, hebben veel
huurders het idee dat het energielabel niet overeenkomt met de werkelijke situatie.
Ze ervaren bijvoorbeeld veel tocht of slechte kwaliteit isolatie terwijl het labelscore
redelijk hoog is. Hoe komt dit verschil?
Het energielabel heeft niet echt een goede start gemaakt, wat is volgens
Agentschap NL misgegaan?
Veel huurders, verkopers en kopers vinden de resultaten van een energielabel niet
betrouwbaar. Hoe kan vertrouwen in het label hersteld worden?
Wat zijn de grootste obstakels voor het energielabel op de koopmarkt en de
huurmarkt?
In welke mate, denk Agentschap NL dat de toekomstige sancties die per 1 januari
2013 ingaan voor het niet hebben van een energielabel effectief zullen zijn?
Wat is de rol van Agentschap NL in het ontwikkelingsproces van het label?
NVM
Er is een aantal keren geschreven in de pers dat een huis in bezit van een
energielabel sneller wordt verkocht. Merken makelaars dat verkopers/aankopers
zich bezig houden met energiebesparing bij het verkopen/aankopen van een
woning?
Denkt u dat kopers hun keuze voor een woning zouden laten afhangen van een
energielabel?
Wordt een woning met een energielabel gewaardeerd door kopers?
Wat voor vragen stellen makelaars en verkopers over het energielabel?
Wat is de mening van NVM over het energielabel?
Wat zijn de grootste obstakels voor het energielabel op de koopmarkt?
Het energielabel heeft niet echt een goede start gemaakt, wat is volgens u
misgegaan?
De NVM speelt een belangrijke rol op de cruciale momenten waar de consument
beslissingen over het energielabel neemt. Op Funda zijn er op dit moment bijna
geen huizen met een energielabel. Wat is het beleid van de NVM met betrekking tot
het energielabel?
Wat denkt u dat gaat veranderen als de wet ingaat die verkopers verplicht om bij de
verkoop van een woning een energielabel te hebben?
Denkt u dat de toekomstige sancties voor het niet hebben van een energielabel
effectief zullen zijn?
Environment and Resource Management
98
Wat is de rol van NVM in het ontwikkelingsproces van het label?
Heeft u verder opmerkingen over het energielabel?
VEH
Hoewel het energielabel sinds 2008 wettelijk verplicht is zijn de meeste woningen
niet voorzien van een label. Wat is volgens Vereniging Eigen Huis gebeurd?
In welke mate zijn eigenaren bekend met het energielabel voor woningen en
energiebesparingen?
Hoe wordt een energielabel ervaart door kopers?
Wat is de mening van Vereniging Eigen Huis over het energielabel?
Wat zijn de grootste obstakels voor het energielabel op de koopmarkt?
Wat voor effect denkt VEH dat de toekomstige sancties hebben die per 1 januari
2013 ingaan voor het niet hebben van een energielabel?
Wat is de rol van VEH in het ontwikkelingsproces van het label?
WOONBOND
In welke mate vinden huurders een energiezuinige woning belangrijk?
Zijn huurders bekend met het energielabel voor woningen?
Wat vinden huurders van het energielabel?
Wat vindt Woonbond van het energielabel?
Wat zijn de obstakels die huurder tegenkomen?
Wat voor vragen stellen huurders over het energielabel?
Wat denkt u dat gaat veranderen als de wet ingaat die verhuurders verplicht om bij
een huurcontract een energielabel te hebben?
Denkt u dat huurders hun keuze voor een woning zouden laten afhangen van een
energielabel?
Wat is de rol van Woonbond in het ontwikkelingsproces van het energielabel?
Heeft u verder opmerkingen over het energielabel?
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
99
Appendix G VEH Answer Over Energy Label
Accessed July 14, 2012 from http://www.eigenhuis.nl/energie/ by typing
“energielabel” in the search bar.
Environment and Resource Management
10
Appendix H Responsibility Correlation Table
What is the level of responsibility felt by respondents
Correlation
Coefficient
Resource depletion
Efficient
energy use
.813**
.291**
.
.000
.000
.000
580
580
578
579
.814**
1.000
.847**
.275**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.
.000
.000
N
580
580
578
579
.813**
.847**
1.000
.266**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.
.000
N
578
578
578
577
.291**
.275**
.266**
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.
N
579
579
577
580
Sig. (2-tailed)
Correlation
Coefficient
Correlation
Coefficient
Efficient energy use
Environment
problems
.814**
Correlation
Coefficient
Environment problems
GHG
1.000
N
GHG
Resource
depletion
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Environment and Resource Management
BUILDINGS BEHAVING BADLY
Spearman’s rho
Resource
depletion
GHG
Environmental
problems
Efficient energy
use
Label score
Perceived label
Score
Actual gas use
Electricity
Perceived gas
Use
5% energy
savings
20%energy
savings
Want future
energy savings
Improve
environment
Lessen CO2
Emissions
Resource
depletion
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2tailed)
N
GHG
Environmental
problems
Efficient Label
energy score
use
for
those
with
label
Perceived Actual
label score
gas
Electricity
Perceived 5%
gas use energy
savings
10
20%
No idea Value of
energy what to energy
savings do for savings
energy
1.000
.814**
.813**
.291**
-.074
.004
.018
-.087*
-.020
.227**
.166**
-.023
.391**
.000
.
.000
.000
.000
.607
.927
.668
.036
.641
.000
.000
.591
580
580
578
579
51
522
580
580
522
560
559
557
571
.814**
1.000
.847**
.275**
-.012
.007
.020
-.073
-.013
.202**
.160**
-.027
.349**
.000
.
.000
.000
.931
.866
.628
.077
.775
.000
.000
.524
.000
580
580
578
579
51
522
580
580
522
560
559
557
571
.813**
.847**
1.000
.266**
.030
.059
.004
-.079
-.019
.221**
.177**
.014
.341**
.000
.000
.
.000
.836
.181
.926
.059
.661
.000
.000
.748
.000
578
578
578
577
51
520
578
578
520
558
557
555
569
.291**
.275**
.266**
1.000
-.146
-.138**
-.122**
-.286**
-.225**
.074
.018
-.056
.294**
.000
.000
.000
.
.310
.002
.003
.000
.000
.079
.680
.189
.000
579
579
577
580
50
522
580
580
522
559
558
557
571
-.074
-.012
.030
-.146
1.000
.
.314*
-.110
.270
-.103
-.111
.014
.062
.607
.931
.836
.310
.
.
.025
.441
.064
.485
.451
.927
.663
51
51
51
50
51
0
51
51
48
48
48
48
51
.004
.007
.059
-.138**
.
1.000
.156**
-.088*
.274**
.119**
.141**
.072
-.002
.927
.866
.181
.002
.
.
.000
.044
.000
.007
.001
.105
.968
522
522
520
522
0
525
525
525
472
508
507
505
513
.018
.020
.004
-.122**
.314*
.156**
1.000
.420**
.759**
-.005
-.008
.050
.037
.668
.628
.926
.003
.025
.000
.
.000
.000
.903
.846
.238
.372
580
580
578
580
51
525
4001
4001
548
560
559
558
572
-.087*
-.073
-.079
-.286**
-.110
-.088*
.420**
1.000
.406**
-.020
.001
-.033
-.130**
.036
.077
.059
.000
.441
.044
.000
.
.000
.630
.984
.441
.002
580
580
578
580
51
525
4001
4001
548
560
559
558
572
-.020
-.013
-.019
-.225**
.270
.274**
.759**
.406**
1.000
.038
-.003
.076
-.021
.641
.775
.661
.000
.064
.000
.000
.000
.
.396
.944
.090
.632
522
522
520
522
48
472
548
548
548
505
504
503
515
.227**
.202**
.221**
.074
-.103
.119**
-.005
-.020
.038
1.000
.678**
-.208**
.182**
.000
.000
.000
.079
.485
.007
.903
.630
.396
.
.000
.000
.000
560
560
558
559
48
508
560
560
505
560
556
554
555
.166**
.160**
.177**
.018
-.111
.141**
-.008
.001
-.003
.678**
1.000
-.179**
.141**
.000
.000
.000
.680
.451
.001
.846
.984
.944
.000
.
.000
.001
559
559
557
558
48
507
559
559
504
556
559
554
554
.224**
.270**
.263**
.149**
-.100
.057
.047
-.032
.057
.386**
.326**
.005
.386**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.492
.198
.264
.452
.198
.000
.000
.903
.000
559
559
557
558
49
506
559
559
504
556
556
553
554
.497**
.479**
.523**
.214**
.019
.036
-.049
-.156**
-.087
.158**
.129**
-.010
.393**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.892
.421
.247
.000
.051
.000
.002
.814
.000
560
560
558
559
51
503
560
560
505
547
546
544
560
.479**
.489**
.470**
.232**
-.024
-.012
-.015
-.110**
-.054
.152**
.145**
.049
.416**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.869
.788
.731
.009
.227
.000
.001
.255
.000
559
559
557
558
51
502
559
559
504
546
545
543
559
Table 7.1 Correlation of perceived environmental responsibility, the ability and intention
to alter consumption levels, and actual/perceived consumption levels
Environment and Resource Management