Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
What do people living in deprived communities in the UK think about household
energy efficiency interventions?
Fiona Scott, Christopher R. Jones, & Thomas L. Webb
The University of Sheffield, UK
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the BIG Energy Upgrade project, a
project part financed by the European Union through the Yorkshire and
Humber European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Programme 2007-13.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher Jones or
Thomas Webb, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Western Bank,
Sheffield, S10 2TP, c.r.jones@sheffield.ac.uk or t.webb@sheffield.ac.uk
1
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Abstract
While physical interventions such as external wall cladding can improve the energy
efficiency of domestic households, how residents think about and respond to such
interventions can influence both their uptake and impact on the energy efficiency of the
household. The present research investigated what residents living within deprived
communities in Yorkshire and the Humber (United Kingdom) thought about a number of
household energy efficiency interventions proposed as part of a project known as the BIG
Energy Upgrade. Residents generally felt positive about the proposed interventions and
expected that they would lead to financial savings, improve the appearance and warmth of
their homes and sense of pride in the local community. However, while residents intended to
adopt energy efficiency interventions if offered them, they were less willing to personally
invest in them. Home ownership and the belief in humans’ ability to tackle climate change
were found to predict willingness to invest. These findings have implications for our
understanding of attitudes towards the installation of household energy efficiency
interventions in deprived communities and responses to initiatives that seek to improve the
energy efficiency of hard-to-treat homes.
Word count: 186 words
Keywords: household energy efficiency interventions, beliefs, attitudes, deprived
communities, Theory of Planned Behaviour
2
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
What do people living in deprived communities in the UK think about household energy
efficiency interventions?
In 2008, the UK Government passed legislation to set a legally binding target for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. This
target was subsequently raised to 80 per cent (Climate Change Act, 2008). In 2011, domestic
households were responsible for around 26% of total UK energy use (DECC, 2012a) and
15% of the UK’s total carbon dioxide emissions (DECC Statistical Release, 2012b). Taken
together with predictions that more than 60% of domestic households occupied in 2050 have
already been built (Technology Strategy Board Press Release, 2010), it is clear that to meet
its emissions targets, the UK must drastically improve the performance of its existing
domestic housing stock (Boardman et al., 2005). A number of government initiatives,
including the Warm Front scheme (Gilbertson et al., 2006), have gone some way to meeting
emission reduction targets through ‘standard’ interventions (e.g., cavity wall and loft
insulation). However, one of the key barriers remains ‘hard-to-treat’ homes, defined by the
Energy Saving Trust (2004) as homes that for a variety of reasons cannot accommodate
‘staple’ energy efficiency measures. They may include homes that are off the gas network,
with solid walls, with no loft space, in a state of disrepair, high-rise blocks, and any other
homes where for technical and practical reasons staple energy efficiency measures cannot be
fitted.
The BIG Energy Upgrade
Launched in September 2011, the ‘Energy Innovation in Deprived Communities’
project (publically known as ‘The BIG Energy Upgrade’, see http://big-energy-upgrade.com/)
is an innovative regional project that targets hard-to-treat homes in Yorkshire and the
Humber by retrofitting a variety of household energy efficiency interventions including
external wall cladding, energy efficient gas boilers, fuel efficient central heating systems and
3
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
controls, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, UPVC windows, heat meters and photovoltaic
panels. In addition to these physical interventions, the project also provides door-to-door
energy advice and assessments of individual household energy efficiency interventions. The
project’s overarching objectives are to achieve a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions
(approx 145,113 tonnes of CO2e) and to tackle fuel poverty in the region’s most deprived
communities (see Figures 1 and 2 for locations).
The BEU programme targets hard-to-treat homes in nine Lower Layer Super Output
Areas (LSOAs)1, across the Local Authorities of Barnsley, Doncaster, Kirklees, Leeds, North
East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire in the UK (defined as see Table 1 for a list of all
LSOAs and Figures 1 and 2 for locations). Targeting was based on the most deprived 10% of
LSOAs as determined by an index of multiple deprivation (a national measure published by
the UK Government Department for Communities and Local Government, see DCLG, 2011)
at the time of the project’s inception (2010). The communities at the centre of the current
research, therefore, represented the nine poorest communities in Yorkshire and the Humber in
terms of a variety of deprivation indices including income, employment, health, education,
housing, crime and living environment. Houses participating in the BEU were initially
assessed to gauge energy efficiency, the appropriate mix of physical interventions was then
installed, alongside the provision of door-to-door energy advice.
While physical interventions can improve the energy efficiency of buildings, how
residents think about and respond to such interventions can influence both the uptake of
interventions and subsequent realized energy efficiency savings. For example, a resident who
believes that installing external wall cladding will be unsightly may be unlikely to adopt such
an initiative. In short, beliefs and behaviour can influence efficiency gains via (a) the day-today actions of residents (e.g. whether or not they undertake energy conserving actions around
the home, c.f. Mullaly, 1998) and (b) resident’s willingness to appropriately adopt a ‘green’
4
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
technology (Farsi, 2010) and use it in an energy-efficient way (Janda, 2009). Despite the
importance of individuals’ beliefs and behaviour, however, there has been remarkably little
evaluation of the impact of previous retrofit programmes on residents (Brown & Swan,
2013). Moreover, even when evaluation does occur, the findings of that evaluation are rarely
fed back to those who designed the retrofit programme (Brown & Swan, 2013).
The Present Research
The present research was designed to increase understanding of how people living in
deprived communities think about energy use and, in particular, what they think about a
range of different household energy efficiency interventions (see Table 2 for the list of
interventions). We used the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), as a
framework for understanding how people think about a particular behaviour (e.g., installing
cavity wall insulation) and how these thoughts influence action. The TPB is widely
researched model and has been demonstrated to be an efficient predictor of intentions and
behaviour (Armitage & Connor, 2001). It has been used with some success to examine green
behaviours including: intention to buy environmentally-friendly products (e.g. Kalafatis et al.,
1999); wastepaper recycling (Cheung et al., 1999); and use of public transportation (Heath et
al., 2006). The TPB suggests that to understand someone’s behavior, you need to understand
that individual’s attitudes (e.g., whether they think cavity wall insulation would be
beneficial), subjective norms (e.g., what their neighbours think they should do), and
perceived behavioural control (e.g., the extent to which people feel that they have control
over whether or not to have household energy efficiency interventions). These three
cognitions shape an individual's behavioural intentions (e.g., the decision about whether to
install cavity wall insulation) that, in turn, are hypothesized to determine their subsequent
behaviour (e.g., allowing contractors into their home).
5
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
While residents’ willingness to adopt the measures provided as part of the BEU will
influence the success of this particular project, understanding the intentions residents in
deprived areas to invest in home energy interventions will also have important implications
for future energy efficiency and demand reduction schemes. Upcoming government
initiatives such as the proposed ‘Green Deal’ scheme rely on residents to make a financial
investment in household energy efficiency interventions (DECC, 2012c). Thus, success in
meeting national emissions targets in the domestic sector will rest, at least in part, on
understanding the factors that influence residents’ intentions to invest in or adopt such
interventions. The TPB would predict that residents with more favourable attitudes toward
the household energy efficiency interventions, those who believe that their investing in
interventions will be favourably viewed by others, and those who believe that they have
control over the installation of interventions may be more likely to adopt and invest in them.
The present research also explores other factors that are likely to predict attitudes to
and/or intentions to adopt or invest in household energy efficiency interventions. First, we
predicted that residents who believed in and who were concerned by anthropogenic climate
change (Spence et al., 2010) would have more positive attitudes toward such interventions
and a greater willingness to adopt them. Second, the present research measured familiarity
with each of the proposed household energy efficiency interventions. Existing literature (e.g.
Farsi, 2010) posits that consumers’ perceived uncertainties about the comfort benefits and
resulting energy savings of relatively new technologies lead them to undervalue the benefits
of these technologies when compared to more conventional commodities. As such, residents
may be more willing to adopt and/or invest in interventions that are more familiar to them.
Finally, low levels of home ownership are a defining feature of deprived communities. With
its specific focus on deprived communities, therefore, the BEU also provides an interesting
opportunity to explore whether home ownership influences willingness to invest in home
6
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
energy interventions. The many social housing and renting tenants within the sample may
well encounter perceived or actual barriers in terms of making changes to their homes, which
is likely to make the relationship between perceived behavioural control and the target
behavioural outcome more pertinent (Madden et al., 1992).
Methods
The present research asked residents who were due to receive one or more household
energy efficiency interventions as part of the BEU to complete a questionnaire. The
questionnaire was designed to assess the attitudes, behaviours and beliefs of local residents
within the sample region towards the household energy efficiency interventions offered as
part of the BEU project. The questionnaire included an introduction (providing some
background to the BEU project and instructions for completion), a series of questions to
explore respondents’ awareness and expectations of the scheme, then questions to probe
residents’ perceptions of a range of household energy efficiency interventions, and a section
designed to measure relevant demographic information.
First, respondents were asked to rate how beneficial they anticipated that the BEU
scheme would be to their household, their community, their council and their energy supplier.
These measures were combined to create a scale reflecting perceive benefits of the scheme,
which was internally consistent when the latter item pertaining to the benefits of the scheme
to the energy supplier was excluded (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.69).
Next, respondents were given information about a number of household energy
efficiency interventions and asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed
with statements pertaining to those interventions. Two items (‘I would be willing to have X
installed in my home’ and ‘I would be willing to contribute financially to the cost of having
X installed’, where X referred to a specific energy efficiency intervention) were combined to
create a scale measuring ‘intention’. A further two items (‘X would help me to reduce my
7
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
energy bills’ and ‘I would feel good about having X’) were combined to create a scale
measuring ‘attitudes’. The attitude scale had good and, in some cases, excellent internal
consistency for all interventions, with Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging between 0.84 and
0.92 (see Table 6). However, the intention scale did not demonstrate internal consistency
(Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged between -0.31 and 0.29), indicating that these items
(willingness to adopt the intervention and willingness to contribute financially to the
intervention) did not correlate and should not be combined. We therefore treated the
‘intention’ measures separately in all subsequent analyses.
The subjective norms and perceived behavioural control associated with each
intervention were measured with single items (i.e., ‘People who are important to me would
want me to have X’ and ‘It would be easy for me to have X installed in my home’,
respectively). Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their familiarity with
the same household energy efficiency interventions with the single item ‘How familiar are
you with X as a way to conserve energy?’.
Location Selection and Distribution Details
Attempts were made to distribute questionnaires to all households within the LSOAs
targeted by the BEU project (with the exception of Eightlands in Kirklees, which was not part
of the BEU at the time of conducting the survey). In total, N = 1,121 households were
approached between August 2011 and February 2012. The survey was closed to further
responses at the end of March 2012. A postal survey, with accompanying freepost envelope,
was distributed to every eligible household in Barnsley, Doncaster, Leeds, North East
Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire. Where possible, face-to-face contact was made with
respondents, enabling the distributor to explain more about the purpose of the study and to
assist with completion of the survey. Door-to-door distribution took place in Barnsley,
Doncaster, and Kirklees. A researcher also attended community meetings, e.g. Tenants’ and
8
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Residents’ Association meetings and Family Days in Leeds, Kirklees and North East
Lincolnshire. The response rate was highest in areas where more Local Authority support for
face-to-face completion was available. See Table 3 for a full summary of distribution
methods employed in each region.
Respondents
A total of 279 questionnaires were returned, yielding an overall response rate of
24.9%. Of the 279 respondents, only 3.9% either owned or were paying a mortgage on their
home, whilst 56.3% lived in social housing and 36.2% lived in rented accommodation (0.7%
of respondents were unsure and 2.9% did not answer). In contrast, figures for the Yorkshire
and the Humber region (Government Office, 2008) suggest that around 69% of households in
the region are owner-occupied, with only 18% socially rented and 13% privately rented. That
only 3.9% of respondents in our survey owned or were paying a mortgage on their home,
therefore, confirms the deprived nature of the communities under investigation. In further
support of the deprived nature of the communities, 44.1% of respondents reported their total
household income as £9,999 or less per annum, 31.2% reported their total household income
as between £10,000 and £19,999 per annum and only 6.5% reported their household income
as £20,000 or more per annum (18.3% did not answer). Household income was determined
using a self-report measure and it is unclear whether respondents interpreted the question as
disposable or total income. ONS figures released in Spring 2012 placed regional gross
disposable household income at £15,709 for the UK and £13,594 for Yorkshire and the
Humber in 2010, suggesting that even if respondents interpreted the question as disposable
household income, at least 44.1% of respondents in our sample were living on well below the
regional average. A large proportion (74.9%) of respondents said that they claimed welfare
benefits (22.2% of respondents said they did not claim welfare benefits and 2.9% did not
answer).
9
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Of the sample, 82.1% lived in a semi-detached house, 11% in a terraced house, 3.6%
in a detached house and 1.4% in a flat (1.8% did not answer). A typical household consisted
of 1.8 adults and 0.98 children. In terms of education level, 40.9% of respondents held no
formal qualifications, 26.9% reported that their highest educational qualification was held at
school level (GCSE/O-Level or A-Level Higher/BTEC), 16.1% reported their highest
educational qualification was vocational and 3.9% said their highest educational qualification
was at a higher level (Degree or equivalent or Postgraduate qualification) (5.4% reported that
their highest educational qualification was something else). Only 1.1% of respondents were
members of environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, WWF or Friends of the Earth
(98.2% were not and 0.7% did not answer) and 4.7% of the sample were members of a local
community group of tenants’ association (94.6% were not and 0.7% did not answer).
Just over half of the respondents used a pre-payment meter for their gas (55.2%),
40.9% paid using a different method and 2.9% did not use gas (1.1% did not answer).
Similarly, 56.6% of respondents used a pre-payment meter for their electricity, 38.4% paid
using a different method and 0.7% said they did not use electricity (4.3% did not answer). On
average, respondents’ estimated that their monthly spend on gas was £62.36 (N = 244), whilst
their monthly spend on electricity was slightly less at £50.45 (N = 249).
Results
Beliefs about climate change
The majority of respondents (77.8%) believed that the world’s climate is changing
(5.0% did not believe that it was changing and 16.5% were unsure). On average, respondents
were ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change (M = 1.72, SD = 0.96, where 0 = not at all
concerned and 3 = very concerned). When asked about the causes of climate change, 40.5%
of respondents said that it was caused ‘partly by natural processes and partly by human
activity’. Almost a quarter of respondents (24.0%) felt that climate change was caused
10
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
‘mainly’ or ‘entirely’ by human activity, while only 13.6% of respondents felt climate change
was caused ‘entirely’ or ‘mainly’ by natural processes. Respondents within our sample
perhaps seemed less certain of the anthropogenic causes of climate changed compare to other
studies, e.g. Spence et al (2010) who found that 57% of their sample endorsed the statement
‘most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change’ (21% disagreed). Whilst it
would be unwise to make a like-for-like comparison between the two questions as they were
framed, it’s fair to say that a large percentage of respondents within our sample were unsure
of the causes. A further 18.3% of respondents were unsure about the cause and 1.4% of
respondents said there was ‘no such thing’ as climate change. At total of 38% of respondents
felt that climate change was currently, or was going to, affect them (34.1% did not and 26.9%
were unsure). Almost half of respondents (45.2%) felt that there was something that could be
done to tackle climate change, although a quarter of respondents (24.7%) said that there was
nothing that could be done and a further 28.7% of respondents were unsure.
Perceptions of the Proposed Scheme and its Benefits
Respondents were generally aware of the BEU, with 91% stating that they were aware
that the local council was planning a scheme of improvements in their neighbourhood.
Respondents generally perceived that the scheme would be beneficial to their household (M =
4.16, SD = 1.10) and community (M = 3.83, SD = 1.21) and also of some benefit to the local
council (M = 3.33, SD = 1.28) and their energy supplier (M = 2.75, SD = 1.44).
The majority (80.3%) of respondents believed they would save money on their energy
bills as a result of the proposed improvements (13.6% did not think they would save money
and 6.1% did not respond), with the predicted average saving estimated at £28.34 per month2.
27.6% of respondents said that they would spend this money on improvements to their home
or garden and 14.0% said they would spend any saving on their family (20.1% were unsure
what they would spend any savings on).
11
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Respondents were also asked to describe what they believed to be the ‘best thing’
about the proposed improvements3. Responses tended to focus on aesthetic improvements,
with 38.7% of respondents commenting that the appearance of their own home or the
neighbourhood would improve. It is important to note that, in many cases, aesthetic
improvements held a broader meaning for respondents relating to a sense of pride in their
home and/or community:
‘Improved appearance equals improved respect’.
Respondent, Chickenley (Kirklees)
‘Making the estate look a lot better makes it a proper home’.
Respondent, Wheatley (Doncaster)
A sizeable minority (17.6%) of respondents made reference to improved warmth of
their properties. When asked to describe what they believed to be the ‘worst thing’ about the
proposed improvements, 39.1% of respondents said that there was ‘nothing bad’ about the
work, while 23.7% of respondents predicted that that some form of disruption, noise or mess
during the work would be the worst thing (see Table 5 for a summary of the main perceived
pros and cons.
Beliefs about Different Types of Household Energy Efficiency Interventions
Table 6 shows the mean level of each belief by the type of intervention. A series of 7within (type of intervention: loft insulation, UPVC windows, cavity wall insulation, external
wall cladding, solar electricity panels, A-rated boilers, home energy monitors) repeated
measures ANOVAs were conducted in order to examine differences in respondents’ beliefs
about the different interventions.
Familiarity
There was a significant difference in respondents’ familiarity with the different
interventions, F(6, 178) = 60.22, p < .001, eta² = 0.67. Pairwise comparisons revealed that
12
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
respondents were more familiar with loft insulation (M = 1.24, SD = 0.80) and UPVC
windows (M = 1.36, SD 0.80) than any of the other interventions (cavity wall insulation, M =
0.82, SD = 1.07; external wall cladding, M = 0.31, SD = 1.29; solar electricity panels, M =
0.49, SD = 1.14; A-rated boilers, M = 0.14, SD = 1.39; and home energy monitors, M = -0.36,
SD = 1.32). Respondents were least familiar with home energy monitors.
Attitudes
There were significant differences in respondents’ attitudes towards the different
interventions, F (6, 101) = 6.32, p < .001, eta² = 0.27. Pairwise comparisons revealed that
respondents had more favourable attitudes towards loft insulation (M = 1.34, SD = 0.72) than
external cladding (M = 1.05, SD = 0.93), solar electricity (M = 1.04, SD = 0.85), and home
energy monitors (M = 0.82, SD = 0.83). They had less favourable attitudes towards home
energy monitors (M = 0.82, SD = 0.83) than loft insulation, cavity wall insulation (M = 1.12,
SD = 0.82) and UPVC windows (M = 1.26, SD = 0.90).
Subjective Norms
There were significant differences in subjective norms associated with each type of
intervention, F (6, 98) = 3.96, p < .001, eta² = 0.20. Pairwise comparisons revealed that
respondents felt more normative pressure towards adopting loft insulation (M = 1.16, SD =
0.83) than toward external wall cladding (M = 0.85, SD = 1.00), solar electricity panels (M =
0.86, SD = 0.93) and home energy monitors (M = 0.79, SD = 0.90). Respondents felt a
weaker normative pressure towards home energy monitors (M = 0.79, SD = 0.90) than toward
loft insulation (M = 1.16, SD = 0.83) and UPVC windows (M = 1.09, SD = 1.01).
Perceived Behavioural Control
There were significant differences in respondents’ perceptions of control over the
adoption of different types of intervention, F(6, 97) = 9.48, p < .001, eta² = 0.37. Pairwise
comparisons revealed that respondents believed that they had more control over acquiring
13
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
UPVC windows (M = 1.18, SD = 0.94) than over acquiring cavity wall insulation (M = 0.58,
SD = 1.09), external cladding (M = 0.75, SD = 1.0), solar electricity (M = 0.66, SD = 0.95),
‘A-rated’ boilers (M = 0.88, SD = 0.87) and home energy monitors (M = 0.84, SD = 0.81).
They also believed that they had more control over acquiring loft insulation (M = 1.05, SD =
0.90) than cavity wall insulation, external cladding and solar electricity.
Intentions to adopt and to invest
There were significant differences in respondents’ intentions to adopt and invest in the
different interventions, F (6, 96) = 5.45, p < .001, eta² = 0.25. Pairwise comparisons revealed
that, although intentions to adopt were relatively high for all interventions, respondents were
more willing to adopt loft insulation (M = 1.51, SD = 0.82) than external wall cladding (M =
1.09, SD = 1.02), solar electricity panels (M = 1.12, SD = 0.87) or home energy monitors (M
= 1.02, SD = 0.86). Respondents were also more willing to adopt new UPVC windows (M =
1.40, SD = 0.85) than external wall cladding or home energy monitors. There were no
significant differences between the other interventions.
Intentions to invest were much lower across all interventions, with means ranging
from -0.73 to -0.86 (see Table 6 for more detail). The type of intervention did not influence
respondents’ intentions to invest, F (6, 94) = 1.05, ns, eta² = 0.06, suggesting that respondents
were largely unwilling to invest financially in energy interventions, regardless of the type of
intervention offered.
Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Predict Intentions to Adopt Energy
Efficiency Interventions
A multiple regression was performed to investigate whether attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioural control predicted intentions to adopt household energy
efficiency interventions. Consistent with the predictions of the TPB, these three variables
explained 70.2% of the variance in intention to adopt. Of these variables, however, only
14
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
respondents’ attitudes made a unique contribution to intentions to adopt (β = 0.82, p < 0.001).
Subjective norms and perceived behavioural control did not make a statistically significant
contribution (β = 0.05, ns and β = 0.03, ns, respectively). This suggests that respondents’
willingness to adopt the interventions is determined primarily by their attitudes towards the
interventions.
What Factors Predict Beliefs about Household Energy Efficiency Interventions?
Home ownership. A one-way MANOVA was performed to explore the effect of
home ownership on intentions (to adopt and invest), attitudes, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioural control with respect to household energy efficiency interventions (see
Table 6). Respondents who owned their own home were significantly more willing to invest
in interventions (M = 0.36, SD = 0.30) than respondents who did not own their own home (M
= -0.77, SD = 0.06), F(1, 269) = 13.43, p < .005, eta² = 0.05. There were no significant
differences between the other beliefs as a function of home ownership, Fs (1, 267) < 1.32, ns,
eta2 < 0.01.
Belief in climate change, its impacts and our ability to tackle it. A one-way
MANOVA was performed to explore the effect of belief in climate change on respondents’
beliefs about household energy efficiency interventions. Belief in climate change had no
significant effect on respondents’ beliefs about household energy efficiency interventions, F
(5, 223) = 1.28, ns, eta2 = 0.03. However, the belief that humans can do something to tackle
climate change significantly influenced respondents’ responses to the different household
energy efficiency interventions, F (5,188) = 3.05, p < .05, eta² = 0.08. Respondents who
believed that humans can do something to tackle climate change: (a) were more willing to
invest in household energy efficiency interventions (M = -0.53, SD = 0.09); (b) had more
positive attitudes toward household energy efficiency interventions (M = 1.21, SD = 0.05);
(c) had a stronger sense of subjective norms in respect of household energy efficiency
15
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
interventions (M = 1.04, SD = 0.06); (d) perceived themselves to have more control over
whether or not to adopt energy efficiency interventions (M = 0.89, SD = 0.06); and (e) were
more willing to adopt household energy efficiency interventions (M = 1.40, SD = 0.05) than
those who did not4.
The belief that climate change is currently affecting, or is going to affect, human
beings also significantly influenced respondents’ responses to household energy efficiency
interventions, F (5,194) = 2.73, p < .05, eta² = 0.07. Respondents who believed that climate
change is affecting them had more positive attitudes toward household energy efficiency
interventions (M = 1.19, SD = 0.06) than respondents who did not believe that climate change
would affect them (M = 0.99, SD = 0.06), F(1, 198) = 5.99, p < .05, eta2 = 0.03. Respondents
who believed that climate change affects them also had a stronger sense of subjective norms
in respect of household energy efficiency interventions (M = 1.05, SD = 0.06) than those who
did not (M = 0.74, SD = 0.07), F(1, 198) = 11.36, p < .001, eta2 = 0.05. The belief that
climate change is currently affecting, or is going to affect, the individual did not influence
intentions or perceived behavioural control (see Table 6 for more detail).
Familiarity A one-way MANOVA was performed to explore the effect of familiarity
with the interventions on respondents’ beliefs about household energy efficiency
interventions5. Familiarity with the interventions significantly influenced respondents’
responses to household energy efficiency interventions, F(5,271) = 10.54, p < .001, eta² =
0.16). Respondents who were more familiar with the measures were more willing to adopt
household energy efficiency intervention (M = 1.42, SD = 0.50) than were respondents who
were less familiar with them (M = 1.08, SD = 0.62), F(1, 275) = 25.03, p < .001, eta² = 0.83.
Respondents who were more familiar with the measures also had more positive attitudes to
household energy efficiency interventions (M = 1.24, SD = 0.50) than respondents who were
less familiar with them (M = 0.87, SD = 0.58), F(1, 275) = 32.47, p < .001, eta² = 0.11. More
16
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
familiar respondents’ also perceived that they had more control over the installation of
household energy efficiency interventions (M = 0.89, SD = 0.64) than respondents who were
less familiar (M = 0.65, SD = 0.63), F(1, 275) = 10.32, p < .001, eta² = 0.04.
Other variables. A series of one-way MANOVAs were also performed to explore the
effects of income, educational attainment, membership of local community or tenants’ group
and belief in climate change on intentions (to adopt and invest), attitudes, subjective norms
and perceived behavioural control in regards to the interventions. These factors had no
significant effect on respondents’ responses to household energy efficiency interventions,
Fs(5, 269) < 1.63, ps > .15, eta² < 0.03, see Table 6 for more detail.
Discussion
While physical interventions can improve the energy efficiency of buildings, how
residents think about and respond to such interventions can influence both uptake of
interventions and their impact on energy efficiency (Brown & Swan, 2013). The present
research distributed questionnaires to residents living in deprived communities who were due
to be offered household energy efficiency interventions as part of the BEU. We found that
residents were generally aware of the proposed scheme and generally perceived it to be
beneficial. The majority of residents believed that the physical changes being made to their
homes would lead to significant savings on their energy bills. The scheme was clearly
anticipated by residents to have wide reaching impacts, particularly in terms of the
appearance and, therefore, sense of pride felt by the local community.
Respondents typically held positive attitudes toward household energy efficiency
interventions, felt personally capable of accessing the interventions, and believed that others
would view their adoption of the interventions positively. As a consequence of these positive
17
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
social cognitions, in particular positive attitudes, residents were willing to adopt the
interventions, particularly, loft insulation and UPVC windows. It is interesting to note that
residents were also most familiar with loft insulation and UPVC windows and that levels of
familiarity predicted residents’ beliefs about the interventions. The importance of familiarity
in the decision to adopt a household energy efficiency intervention could be due to a
decreased perception of risk, either to health and safety (Fischhoff et al, 1978) or the risk that
the benefits will not outweigh the costs and inconvenience of installation (Farsi, 2010).
Residents who are more familiar with a particular intervention are likely to have more
objective knowledge about the intervention, perhaps including an awareness of other people
like them who have had the intervention installed. This means they are likely to be aware of
the potential benefits, particularly if someone close to them has observed the benefits first
hand.
We applied an established model of reasoned action—namely, the Theory of Planned
Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) – in order to understand the determinants of residents’ intentions to
adopt home energy efficiency interventions. Consistent with existing research on the TPB
(for a review, see Armitage & Conner, 2001), our findings provide support for the TPB –
over 70% of the variance in residents’ intentions was explained by TPB constructs. Closer
examination, however, revealed that only residents’ attitudes toward the interventions (e.g.,
whether they think cavity wall insulation would be beneficial) predicted intentions to adopt.
Subjective norms (i.e., what important others think that they should do) and perceived
behavioural control (e.g., the extent to which residents’ feel that they have control over
whether or not to have household energy efficiency interventions) did not. The subjective
norm construct is generally found to be a weak predictor of intentions (Armitage & Conner,
2001), but it is reassuring to find that residents decision making was primarily shaped by their
own beliefs about the interventions, rather than perceived approval from others. Taken
18
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
together with the effects of familiarity on attitudes and intentions, these findings suggest that
residents’ willingness to adopt technical and physical interventions could be increased by
increasing familiarity and challenging negative attitudes. A range of literature highlights the
importance of familiarity in the adoption of new technologies, linking familiarity with a
decreased perception of risk (Farsi, 2010). Lee et al. (2005) observe that educational
attainment plays a role in the adoption of home banking (the higher the level of educational
attainment, the greater the likelihood of using computers for banking), hypothesising that
familiarity with personal computers through educational and job-related situations increases
with education, whilst Brown (2008) posits that upcoming generations will in fact expect
things to be accomplished via technology, due to their familiarity and comfort with it from an
early age. Door-to-door advice such as that offered within the scheme by Yorkshire Energy
Services is likely, then, to play an important role in increasing willingness to adopt by raising
familiarity.
The effect of tenure
Although residents were generally willing to adopt the interventions, they were not
generally inclined to invest in them. However, it is important to acknowledge the specific
nature of our sample in this regard; residents who are being offered (essentially free)
household energy efficiency interventions may be less likely to express an intention to invest
financially in other interventions because they believe that they have no need to invest
further. However, it is interesting to note that while household income did not predict
willingness to invest6, home ownership was a significant predictor of intention to invest in
interventions. The finding that, even in deprived areas, home ownership has a greater impact
on willingness to adopt interventions than household income is important as it suggests that
the value of improving household energy efficiency through physical interventions is
magnified for individuals who have a sense of ownership over their own homes. This finding
19
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
echoes the findings of studies by the UK Department for International Development (DFID),
which suggest that those living in deprived communities (in these studies, farmers) are
willing to invest in their environment when they have land or property ownership or at least
some form of control (DFID Policy Division, 2004). The prolonged financial ‘pay back’
period involved in most energy efficiency interventions means that they only become
worthwhile investing in over a long period. Therefore, longer-term attachment to home and
community is likely to determine willingness to invest. While home ownership is one useful
measure of this ‘attachment’ (Taylor, 1996), attachment to place is a multi-faceted
phenomenon and a sense of attachment can be fostered by a variety of factors (Hidalgo &
Hernandez, 2001) that would be usefully explored in future research. Whilst Place
Attachment, defined by Manzo (2003) as an emotional connection with place, has been
connected to home ownership (Taylor, 1996), it has also been shown to correlate with the
length of dwelling, as Giuliani (2003) attests, ‘length of residence seems to be closely linked
both to the feeling of belongingness and to the sorrow at moving out of the community’.
Many of those we surveyed had been living in the same council-rented or social housing
properties for many years and fully expected to be living there for many years to come. In
addition, a range of other factors have been found to affect place attachment, for example,
even short-term student renters were shown to display higher levels of place attachment when
their residences fostered a sense of privacy and family functionality (Harris, Brown &
Werner, 1996). It is possible that longevity of residence and a variety of other factors may
represent an attachment to, and investment in, the local neighbourhood that predicts
willingness to invest in a similar way to ownership, a hypothesis that lends itself to further
research.
Some of the responses to the open-ended questions included in the present research
suggest that many residents who do not own their own homes are willing to invest in other
20
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
forms of household improvements. For example, when asked how they intended to spend any
money saved as a result of the improvements, almost a third (27%) of non-owning
respondents (those living in council-rented properties or social housing) independently
commented that they would like to invest their own money in improving a property that they
did not own, with responses including: ‘Decorating and new carpets’ (Council Renter in
Wheatley, Doncaster); ‘Putting up a fence at the side and rear of house’ (Social Housing
Tenant in Wheatley, Doncaster); ‘Improvements within the home - making it look better for
our own comfort’ (Social Housing Tenant in Golcar, Kirklees). It may be that construing
energy efficiency intervention in terms of aesthetic improvements to the household and
neighbourhood could bolster acceptance and willingness to invest (Rogers et al., 2008).
In support of the importance of aesthetic improvements, when asked to express in
their own words what the greatest potential benefits of the proposed intervention might be,
residents in our sample focused on quality of life factors relating to the aesthetic
improvements to their homes and neighbourhoods and a related sense of pride in the
community. It is also possible that the perceived investment by external agents in local
communities may foster an increased sense of place attachment and ‘ownership’ amongst
residents, thus increasing local willingness to protect the local environment and to personally
invest in the future. Concerns over the stigmatisation and unpopularity of social housing
estates in the 1990s saw Housing Associations looking further than their investment in bricks
and mortar to take a wider role towards alleviating social problems in a policy trend termed
the ‘Housing Plus’ (HP) approach. In keeping with our findings, contemporaneous research
(Evans, 1998) found that quality of life factors such as a perceived sense of safety and
attractive environment were more important than factors such as the actual quality and
affordability of properties in making an estate a more attractive place to live. A raft of HP
initiatives, including child care, transport and crime prevention projects were found to have
21
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
only a modest overall impact on the intended beneficiaries, while the perceived impact on the
wider community was much greater, with residents, police and Housing Association officials
reporting boosted resident morale, reduced theft and vandalism during construction and an
increased sense of ownership. Perhaps as place attachment and a sense of community play a
role in neighbourhood revitalization efforts (Brown, Perkins & Brown, 2003), so too does
external, positive investment in the neighbourhood (such as that initiated by the BEU
project), in turn, positively influences perceived place attachment. Based on the processes of
place attachment and place identity, Devine-Wright (2009) posits that residents may oppose
local developments and changes as a reaction to perceived disruption of this place attachment
and identity and are thus motivated to act to protect the place to which they are attached. It is
possible that, above and beyond the associated financial and environmental benefits, the
installation of household energy efficiency interventions may actually be viewed by residents
as a form of place-protective action, in that their installation serves to preserve their preexisting emotional attachments to place. As such, they may be willing to act (acceptance and
adoption) to foster this development, rather than oppose it.
The effect of beliefs about climate change
The majority of respondents believed in climate change and were fairly concerned
about its impacts, although fewer than half felt that anything could be done to tackle climate
change. This would seem to suggest that residents in deprived communities feel less
empowered to tackle climate change, when compared to the 63% of the UK population who
agree or strongly agree that they personally can help to reduce climate change by changing
their behaviour (Spence et al., 2010). While belief in climate change was not found to be a
significant predictor of intention to adopt or invest in household energy efficiency
interventions, belief in the ability of humans to tackle climate change was a significant
predictor of intention to adopt (and invest in) household energy efficiency interventions. This
22
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
finding suggests that it would be wrong to assume that residents in deprived communities fail
to invest in household energy efficiency interventions because they are disinterested, doubtful
or unconcerned about climate change. On the contrary, and in line with recent public opinion
analyses from the Green Alliance (2012), our findings suggest that residents in deprived
communities share a similar level of belief (77.8%) and similar, though slightly reduced,
concern (61.1% ‘very concerned’ or ‘fairly concerned’) to the general population (78% and
71%, respectively, Spence & Venables, 2010 and Green Alliance, 2012, respectively).
Rather, the belief that one can personally make a difference was one of the key predictors of
residents’ willingness to invest in energy efficiency interventions. This finding has clear
implications for the positive value of increased education about the role that people play in
climate change and interventions designed to boost a sense of personal empowerment in
relation to climate change. The principles of existing documents advising on engagement
with deprived communities may provide a starting point for the right approach in terms of
environmental issues (Camina, 2004). Residents’ perceived disempowerment to make a
difference environmentally may also be linked to this wider issue of ownership. Residents
who do not own their homes and do not feel empowered to make positive changes to them
may well be less likely to feel that they personally can make a difference to their impact on
the environment. It is possible that they feel thwarted by their circumstances and that
however much they attempt to conserve energy, the historically poor energy efficiency of
their homes means that they and their household are inherently ‘wasteful’. As Power (2003)
attests, people in deprived communities suffer disproportionately from direct environmental
problems alongside concern for wider environmental problems, yet they are often constrained
in how they can respond (for example, when poor local services struggle to tackle issues such
as fly tipping and pollution). This finding further highlights the importance of fostering in
residents a sense of attachment and ownership (financial or perceived) over their homes and
23
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
communities and thus a sense of personal empowerment, a sense which our findings suggest
may well be improved by investments such as those made through the BEU.
In conclusion, the headline aims of the BEU project are to achieve a substantial
reduction in CO2 emissions and to tackle fuel poverty in the region’s most deprived
communities. Respondents’ expectations of savings on energy bills send a clear positive
message that the scheme is perceived by residents to be capable of meeting its brief in
beginning to address fuel poverty in the region’s most deprived communities. Beliefs and
behaviour will likely influence efficiency gains via both the day-to-day actions of residents
and resident’s willingness to appropriately adopt the ‘green’ technologies and use them in an
energy-efficient way. The overwhelming willingness of residents to adopt the interventions,
as a consequence of positive social cognitions, is a very good starting point. What is as yet
unclear is whether residents will use the interventions in energy-efficient ways, in particular,
whether the financial savings made by residents as a result of household energy efficiency
interventions could encourage (environmentally negative) rebound effects, including
residents using more energy, since it is now more affordable (Hertwich, 2005). On a more
positive note other indirect effects not connected to the price may emerge, such as the ‘spill
over’ of (positive) environmental behaviours (Hertwich, 2005). The present research has
provided a unique opportunity to understand the impact of energy efficiency interventions
from an end-user point of view and it was interesting to note that residents tend to perceive
the potential benefits of the scheme as primarily associated with positive changes in the
appearance of their homes and communities and, as a result, an increased sense of pride and
‘community’. Residents also perceive the anticipated benefits in terms of tangible factors,
including increased comfort and warmth.
24
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
References
About Neighbourhood Statistics (n.d.). Office for National Statistics online. Retrieved from
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/Info.do?page=aboutneighb
ourhood/about.htm
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. T. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A
meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D. & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing
neighbourhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23, 259-271.
Boardman, B., Darby, S., Killip, G., Hinnels, M., Jardine, C. N., Palmer, J., & Sinden, G.
(2005). 40% House, ECI Research Report 31. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.
Brown, P., & Swan, W. (Eds). (2013 forthcoming) Retrofitting the Built Environment. WileyBlackwell.
Brown, S. (2008). Household technology adoption, use, and impacts: Past, present, and
future. Information Systems Frontiers, 10:4, 397-403.
Camina, M. (2004). Understanding and engaging deprived communities. Home Office Online
Report, Retrieved from
http://ligali.org/pdf/understanding_and_engaging_deprived_communities.pdf
Cheung, S. F., Chan, D. K.-S., Wong, Z. (1999). Reexamining the Theory of Planned
Behaviour in Understanding Wastepaper Recycling. Environment and Behavior, 31:5,
587-612.
25
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Christie, L., Donn, M., & Walton, D. (2011). The 'apparent disconnect' towards the adoption
of energy-efficient technologies. Building Research & Information, 39, 450-458.
doi:10.1080/09613218.2011.592485
Communities and Local Government (2011). The English Indices of Deprivation (ISBN: 9781-4098-2922-5). London.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2012a). Digest of United Kingdom Energy
Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energychapter-1-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2012b). Statistical Release, 2011 UK
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Provisional figures and 2010 UK greenhouse gas
emissions, final figures by fuel type and end-user. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/39777/
4817-2011-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-provisional-figur.pdf
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2012c). The Green Deal and Energy Company
Obligation: Government Response to the November 2011 Consultation. London,
United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/thegreen-deal-and-energy-company-obligation
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Department of Trade and Industry.
(2001). The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file16495.p
df
Department for International Development, Policy Division. (2004). Land reform, agriculture
and poverty reduction: Working Paper for the Renewable Natural Resources and
Agriculture Team. Retrieved from http://dfid-agricultureconsultation.nri.org/summaries/wp5.pdf
26
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place
Identity in Explaining Place-protective Action. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 19, 426-441.
Energy Saving Trust. (2004). Hard-to-treat Homes Guide.
Evans, R. (1998). Policy review tackling deprivation on social housing estates in England: An
assessment of the Housing Plus approach. Housing Studies, 13, 713-726.
Farsi, M. (2010). Risk aversion and willingness to pay for energy efficient systems in rental
apartments. Energy Policy, 38, 3078-3088. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.048
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A
psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy
Sciences, 9, 127-152.
Gilbertson, J., Stevens, M., Stiell, B. and Thorogood, N. (2006). Home is where the hearth is:
grant recipients' views of England's home energy efficiency scheme (Warm
Front). Social science and medicine, 63:4, 946-956.
Government Office (2008). Tenure by Government Office Region, Labour Force Survey
Green Alliance (2012). What people really think about the environment: an analysis of public
opinion, Green Alliance Policy Insight.
Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment. In Bonnes, M., Lee, T.,
& Bonaiuto, M. (Eds.), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues (pp. 137170). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Heath, Y. and Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting the
Use of Public Transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2154–2189.
Hertwich, E. G. (2005). Consumption and the Rebound Effect: An Industrial Ecology
Perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9:1-2, 85-98.
27
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R. and Tsogas, M. H., Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory
of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
16:5, 441-460.
Harris, P. B., Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1996). Privacy regulation and place
attachment: Predicting attachments to a student family housing facility. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16, 287–301.
Hidalgo, M. C. and B. Hernandez (2001). Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical
Questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281.
Janda, K. B. (2009, June). Buildings don’t use energy: people do. Paper presented at the 26th
Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Quebec City, Canada.
Kalafatis et al., 1999
Lee, E. J., Lee, J. And Eastwood, D. (2005). A Two-Step Estimation of Consumer Adoption
of Technology-Based Service Innovations. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37:2,
256-282.
Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S. and Ajzen, I. (1992). A Comparison of the Theory of Planned
Behaviour and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18:1, 3-9.
Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of emotional
relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47-61.
Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place
attachment to community participation and planning, Journal of Planning Literature,
20, 335-350.
Mullaly, C. (1999). Home energy use behaviour: a necessary component of successful local
government home energy consumption programs. Energy Policy, 26, 1041-1052.
28
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Office for National Statistics. (2012). Statistical Bulletin. Regional Gross Disposable
Household Income 2010
Power, A. (2003). Environmental issues and human behaviour in low-income areas in the
UK, Annual Progress Report. Environment and Human Behaviour – an ESRC New
Opportunities Programme, retrieved from
http://www.psi.org.uk/ehb/projectspower.html
Rogers, P. P., Jalal, K. F., & Boyd, J. A. (2008). An introduction to sustainable development.
London: Earthscan.
Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Demski, C. (2010). Public
Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of
a Survey Conducted from January to March 2010. Cardiff: School of Psychology.
Retrieved from http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/climate-change-publicperceptions-of-climate-change-report.pdf
Taylor, R. B. (1996). Neighbourhood responses to disorder and local attachments: The
systematic model of attachment, social disorganization, and neighbourhood use value.
Sociological Forum, 11, 41-74.
Technology Strategy Board. (2010). Press Release: £17m Government Investment in
Retrofitting to Pave the Way for Low Carbon Housing. Retrieved from
http://www.innovateuk.org/_assets/pdf/pressreleases/press%20release%20retrofit%20national%20release%20-%20final.pdf
29
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Footnotes
1.
A geographical area with boundaries based on population size (each LSOA has a minimum
population size of 1000 and an average if 1500). LSOAs were designed for the collection and
publication of small area statistics (ONS, 2010).
2.
Of 224 respondents who thought they would save money, 119 responded to the question.
Values which were + or – 2 SDs from the mean (£36.03) were removed from the sample (3
values). High outliers may indicate low level of ‘energy cost literacy’ or a misreading of the
question as annual saving.
3.
‘Best’ and ‘worst’ things about the proposed household energy efficiency interventions was
an open-ended question. Responses have been analysed and coded. The resulting statistics
describe the percentage of participants who stated this (total responses account to more than
100% of respondents since the open-ended format allowed for more than one response).
4.
(M = -0.87, SD = 0.13), F(1, 192) = 4.50, p < .05, eta² = 0.02; (M = 0.92, SD = 0.07), F(1,
192) = 11.66, p < .001, eta² = 0.06; (M = 0.75, SD = 0.08), F(1, 192) = 9.06, p < .01, eta² =
0.05; and (M = 0.61, SD = 0.08), F(1, 192) = 7.69, p < .01, eta² = 0.04; and (M = 1.19, SD =
0.07), F(1, 192) = 6.02, p < .05, eta² = 0.03 respectively.
5.
A median split was used to divide respondents into those who were familiar vs. those who
were not familiar.
6.
There may be some floor effects here.
30
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Table 1
Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) Within the Sample Region that were Targeted by
the Research Team.
LSOA (and LSOA code*)
LSOA (cont’d)
1. E01007325 - Athersley (Barnsley)
6. E01011363 - Lower Wortley (Leeds)
2. E01007651 – Wheatley (Doncaster)
7. E01013137 - East Marsh (NE Lincs)
3. E01007652 – Wheatley (Doncaster)
8. E01013139 – Guildford (NE Lincs)
4. E01011122 - Chickenley District (Kirklees)
9. E01013311 – Frodingham (N Lincs)
5. E01011148 - Golcar District (Kirklees)
**
*LSOA codes are unique reference codes assigned by the Department for Communities and
Local Government (DCLG)
** A tenth LSOA (E01011130 - Eightlands in Kirklees) was originally included, but at the
time of our research the status of this scheme was unknown.
31
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
32
Table 2
Household Energy Efficiency Interventions Eligible for ERDF Funding, as Approved by Department for Communities and Local Government
All household energy efficiency interventions
Barnsley
Doncaster
Kirklees
Leeds
eligible in original business plan
North Lincolnshire
Lincolnshire
Cavity wall insulation*
()
()
Loft insulation*
()
()
()


Solid wall insulation (external)
Fuel Switching - Replacement of existing non-gas
North East





heating systems with gas heating*
Heating controls - upgrade with new heating system* 

()


Solar Water Heater
Photovoltaic (solar electricity) panels
()
Replacing old boilers with ~65% seasonal efficiency

()




new improved efficiency greater than 88.3%*
Glazing E to C rated*

Voltage optimisation


Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
33

Smart meters
Energy advice provided by Yorkshire Energy


Services
* no longer eligible for ERDF funding after a contract variation in October 2012
() installed or considered for installation via other funding sources




Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
34
Table 3
Survey Distribution and Response
Local
Authority
Barnsley
Survey
Targeted
Percentage Percentage Postal Door- Attendance
responses households* response
of total
survey
toat
received
rate
sample
door community
meetings



63
271
23%
23%
Doncaster
147
288
51%
53%



Kirklees
39
201
19%
14%



Leeds
10
60
17%
4%









-
-
-
North East
5
50
10%
2%
Lincolnshire
North
15
251
6%
5%
279
1121
25%
100%
Lincolnshire
Total
*‘Targeted households’ means targeted by one or more methods of: postal survey, door-todoor distribution.
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
35
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for each Measure
Characteristic
Mean
SD Coding
Section 1: Perceptions of the proposed scheme and its benefits
Awareness of scheme
0.91
0.29 1 (yes); 0 (no)
Perceived benefit of scheme (combined scale)
11.33
2.82 Max. 15 (higher score = greater benefit)
Perceived benefit to scheme to household
4.16
1.10 1 (no benefit at all) to 5 (very much benefit)
Perceived benefit of scheme to community
3.83
1.21 1 (no benefit at all) to 5 (very much benefit)
Perceived benefit of scheme to council
3.33
1.28 1 (no benefit at all) to 5 (very much benefit)
Perceived benefit to energy supplier(s)
2.75
1.44 1 (no benefit at all) to 5 (very much benefit)
Belief in financial saving
0.86
0.35 1 (yes); 0 (no)
Projected financial saving
28.34
22.65 Continuous (GBP)
Section 2A: Perceptions of loft insulation
-Familiarity
1.23
0.86 -2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-Intentions
0.39
0.80 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Attitudes
1.24
0.72 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Subjective norms
1.09
0.81 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Perceived behavioural control
0.97
0.86 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
Section 2B: Perceptions of cavity wall insulation
-Familiarity
0.85
1.07 -2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-Intentions
0.33
0.82 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Attitudes
1.12
0.82 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Subjective norms
1.01
0.91 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Perceived behavioural control
0.67
1.04 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
Section 2C: Perceptions of external wall cladding
-Familiarity
0.26
1.31 -2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-Intentions
0.30
0.84 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Attitudes
1.13
0.84 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Subjective norms
0.96
0.91 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Perceived behavioural control
0.66
1.05 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
Section 2D: Perceptions of solar electricity panels
-Familiarity
0.46
1.12 -2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-Intentions
0.18
0.76 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Attitudes
1.02
0.88 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Subjective norms
0.84
0.91 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Perceived behavioural control
0.57
0.94 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
Section 2E: Perceptions of energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-Familiarity
-0.18
1.42 -2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-Intentions
0.26
0.70 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Attitudes
1.04
0.87 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Subjective norms
0.86
0.90 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Perceived behavioural control
0.71
0.90 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
Section 2F: Perceptions of new UPVC windows
-Familiarity
1.31
0.82 -2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-Intentions
0.38
0.78 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Attitudes
1.31
0.76 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Subjective norms
1.11
0.86 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Perceived behavioural control
1.07
0.89 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
Section 2G: Perceptions of home energy monitors
-Familiarity
-0.38
1.35 -2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-Intentions
0.06
0.85 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Attitudes
0.67
0.87 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Subjective norms
0.55
0.94 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Perceived behavioural control
0.73
0.88 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
Perceptions of all household energy efficiency interventions combined
-Familiarity
0.51
0.72 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Intentions – willingness to install
1.26
0.59 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Intentions – willingness to pay for
-0.72
1.04 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-Attitudes
1.07
0.57 -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
N
279
273
278
276
276
270
262
116
271
239
240
237
233
228
142
142
138
138
255
232
230
228
229
273
271
271
269
270
275
263
263
263
259
270
245
245
243
242
277
275
274
271
271
279
279
279
279
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
-Subjective norms
-Perceived behavioural control
Section 3: Compensatory green beliefs
Compensatory green beliefs
Section 4: Demographics
Number of adults in residence
Number of children in residence
Claim welfare benefits
Membership of environmental organisation
Membership of community group
Average monthly gas spend
Switched gas supplier (last 6 months)
Intends to switch gas supplier
Knows how to switch gas supplier
Average monthly electricity spend
Switched electricity supplier (last 6 months)
Intends to switch electricity supplier
Knows how to switch electricity supplier
‘Green’ behaviours
Climate change concern
36
0.90
0.78
0.66
0.64
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
277
278
28.69
7.65
Max. 60 (higher score = greater belief)
267
1.8
0.98
0.77
0.01
0.05
62.36
0.11
0.06
0.81
50.45
0.11
0.07
0.79
11.62
0.91
1.35
0.42
0.10
0.21
30.77
0.31
0.24
0.39
25.37
0.31
0.25
0.41
2.79
278
278
271
277
277
244
265
259
260
249
273
268
272
278
1.72
0.96
Continuous (number of people)
Continuous (number of people)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
Continuous (GBP)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
Continuous (GBP)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
1 (yes); 0 (no)
Max. 20 (higher score = more ‘green’
behaviours)
0 (not at all concerned) to 3 (very concerned)
254
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
37
Table 5
‘Best’ and ‘worst’ things about the proposed household energy efficiency interventions, as perceived by residents*
‘Best’ things
% ‘Worst’ things
%
Positive impact on appearance of the home and/or neighbourhood
38.7 Nothing bad
39.1
The improved warmth of the home
17.6 Disruption, noise or mess during the work
23.7
Saving money
13.3 No answer
15.1
No answer
8.2 Not sure
4.3
Specific wider benefit to the community – pride, reputation etc.
5.7 Fears that work will not be done on time or at all
3.6
Not sure
5.4 Missing out on home improvements that are not included
3.2
No best thing
3.6 Fears that work will not be done properly or to a high standard
2.5
Replacing older, dissatisfactory systems
3.6 Negative attention from others – jealousy, vandalism etc.
2.2
Wider environmental impact – reduced CO2 emissions, etc.
3.6 If rent increases as a result
1.4
Improved standard of living
3.2 Negative impact on appearance of the neighbourhood
0.7
Increased safety
1.1
*‘Best’ and ‘worst’ things about the proposed household energy efficiency interventions was an open-ended question. Responses have been
analysed and coded. The resulting statistics describe the percentage of participants who stated this (total responses account to more than 100% of
respondents since the open-ended format allowed for more than one response).
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
38
Table 6
Residents Intentions to Adopt Interventions and Attitudes Toward Interventions by Type of
Intervention
Measure
Familiarity
-Loft insulation
-Cavity wall insulation
-External wall cladding
-Solar electricity panels
-Energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-New UPVC windows
-Home energy monitors
Intention to adopt
-Loft insulation
-Cavity wall insulation
-External wall cladding
-Solar electricity panels
-Energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-New UPVC windows
-Home energy monitors
Intention to adopt ANY
Intention to invest
-Loft insulation
-Cavity wall insulation
-External wall cladding
-Solar electricity panels
-Energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-New UPVC windows
-Home energy monitors
Intention to invest in ANY
‘Intention’ scale
-Loft insulation
-Cavity wall insulation
-External wall cladding
-Solar electricity panels
-Energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-New UPVC windows
-Home energy monitors
Attitudes (combined)
-Loft insulation
-Cavity wall insulation
-External wall cladding
-Solar electricity panels
-Energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-New UPVC windows
-Home energy monitors
Attitudes to ANY
‘Attitudes’ scale
-Loft insulation
-Cavity wall insulation
M
SD
Coding
N/
N items
Cronbach’s
α
1.24
0.82
0.31
0.49
0.14
1.36
-0.36
0.80
1.07
1.29
1.14
1.39
0.80
1.32
-2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
-2 (never heard of it) to 2 (very familiar)
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.51
1.28
1.09
1.12
1.24
1.40
1.02
8.66
0.82
0.80
1.02
0.87
0.79
0.85
0.86
4.03
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-14 (strongly disagree) to 14 (strongly agree)
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.80
-0.78
-0.79
-0.74
-0.86
-0.73
-0.76
-0.74
-5.40
1.11
1.09
1.12
1.03
1.11
1.19
1.19
6.86
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-14 (strongly disagree) to 14 (strongly agree)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.95
0.74
0.65
0.59
0.35
0.53
0.75
0.15
1.49
1.44
1.61
1.51
1.35
1.51
1.65
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.25
0.19
0.18
0.16
-0.31*
0.13
0.29
1.37
1.12
1.05
1.04
1.10
1.26
0.82
15.24
0.72
0.82
0.93
0.85
0.84
0.90
0.83
8.92
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-28 (strongly disagree) to 28 (strongly agree)
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
14
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.93
2.49
2.23
1.45
1.65
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
2
2
0.84
0.89
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
-External wall cladding
-Solar electricity panels
-Energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-New UPVC windows
-Home energy monitors
Subjective norms
-Loft insulation
-Cavity wall insulation
-External wall cladding
-Solar electricity panels
-Energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-New UPVC windows
-Home energy monitors
Subjective norms (ANY)
Perceived behavioural control
-Loft insulation
-Cavity wall insulation
-External wall cladding
-Solar electricity panels
-Energy efficient ‘A-rated’ boilers
-New UPVC windows
-Home energy monitors
Perceived behavioural control (ANY)
39
2.25
2.07
2.10
2.61
1.34
1.68
1.73
1.74
1.51
1.74
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
-4 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree)
2
2
2
2
2
0.85
0.92
0.90
0.92
0.89
1.16
1.02
0.85
0.86
0.89
1.09
0.79
6.65
0.83
0.90
1.00
0.93
0.89
1.01
0.90
5.04
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-14 (strongly disagree) to 14 (strongly agree)
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.89
1.05
0.58
0.75
0.66
0.78
1.18
0.84
5.84
0.90
1.09
1.00
0.95
0.87
0.94
0.81
4.61
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree)
-14 (strongly disagree) to 14 (strongly agree)
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.83
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
40
Table 7
PBC
Subj. Norms
Attitudes
Interventions
Int. Invest
interventions), Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control Regarding
Int Adopt
Effect of Various Factors on Intentions (to adopt and to invest in energy efficiency
Intervention
N
Between-measures effects (univariate F tests)
Home ownership
269
0.04
13.43*
1.32
0.08
1.11
275
1.12
0.04
0.03
1.67
0.70
277
3.40
12.59*
2.60
3.07
2.22
194
6.02*
4.50
11.66*
9.06*
7.70*
200
2.98
0.41
5.99*
11.36*
1.92
227
1.73
1.90
1.87
1.22
0.43
(significant effect of intervention, F(5,263) = 4.39, p <.005, eta² = 0.77
Membership of environmental organisations
(significant effect of intervention, F(5,269) = 2.50, p <.05, eta² = 0.04)
‘Green’ behaviours
(significant effect of intervention, F(5,271) = 3.09, p <.05, eta² = 0.54)
Belief in our ability to tackle climate change
(significant effect of intervention, F(5,188) = 3.05, p <.05, eta² = 0.08)
Belief that climate change is currently affecting or will affect you
(significant effect of intervention, F(5,194) = 2.73, p <.05, eta² = 0.07)
Income
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
41
(no significant effect of intervention, F(20,724) = 1.309, p = .165, eta² = 0.03)
Educational attainment
258
0.65
0.79
0.15
0.36
0.85
229
1.45
0.01
2.25
0.06
0.04
275
1.71
4.22*
1.01
1.69
0.06
277
25.03*
6.25
32.47*
5.39
10.32*
(no significant effect of intervention, F(30,990) = 0.763, p = .818, eta² = 0.02)
Belief in climate change
(no significant effect of intervention, F(5,223) = 1.28, p = .273, eta² =0 .03)
Membership of community group or tenants’ association
(no significant effect of intervention, F(5,269) = 1.63, p = .153, eta² = 0.03)
Familiarity with energy efficiency interventionsi
(significant effect of intervention, F(5,271) = 10.54, p <.001, eta² = 0.16)
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Table 8
Regression of Intention to Adopt Household Energy Efficiency Interventions on
Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control (across
interventions)
B
SE B
β
p
Attitudes
0.84
0.06
0.82
0.00
Subjective norms
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.38
Perceived behavioural control
-0.03
0.05
-0.03
0.56
Independent variable
42
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Figures
Figure 1.
Map showing location of Yorkshire and the Humber in the UK
43
Running head: BELIEFS ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY INTERVENTIONS
Figure 2.
Map showing location of relevant communities within the region.
44