Reducing Energy Consumption
through Community Knowledge
Networks (RECCKN)
www.recckn.co.uk
Briefing Paper 4: Findings: What makes information about domestic energy-saving
useful? Examining householder perceptions
‘RECCKN’ was a two and a half year research project
that used a series of in-depth interviews and focus
groups with 55 participants to investigate how people
learnt about energy saving and efficiency. This series
of Briefing Papers present short summaries of the
research project. In this paper, we discuss what
determines whether people consider a piece of energy
information to be useful, helping us understand how
such information could be more effectively shared and
communicated.
Much energy information is
considered to be unhelpful
1–
Access to information is crucial for anyone to learn about saving
energy. Information is the messages through which knowledge
is created.
In the RECCKN project, our participants felt there was a great
deal of information about energy and energy saving available.
Many even described how they often felt bombarded and
overloaded with the sheer amount available and sent to them.
They also felt that much of this information was not effective at
helping them learn about energy saving, and in enabling them
to take positive action to reduce their energy use. Essentially,
information was not necessarily useful for helping people learn
about energy saving, and so did not always lead to increased
knowledge or the will and inspiration to take action.
RECCKN research uncovered a number of factors that together
shape public perceptions of whether energy saving information
is useful. These can be broadly categorised as:
 The content and form of the information
 The source of the information
 The communication process through which information is
shared
The remainder of this Briefing Paper describes the ways that
each of these factors influence public perceptions of
information about energy saving and efficiency.
2 – The
content and form of information
When stating the amount of energy consumed by a particular
appliance or behaviour, many participants found information
expressed in kilowatt hours or CO2 emissions to be abstract and
confusing. They could better relate to such information if it was
conveyed in monetary terms. Money ‘makes sense’ because it is
familiar to everyone in their daily lives, and is often the driver
for energy saving actions – particularly those concerned about
the rising cost of fuel. A complementary option is to provide
comparative information on energy consumption so that people
get a perspective of ‘high’ and ‘low’ levels of usage. As part of
RECCKN, all participants received personalised feedback
comparing their household energy usage to one another and the
UK average, and they widely agreed that this was useful.
Information about what to do to save energy, and how to do it,
is also vital for households to be energy efficient. Our
participants felt that when they received this sort of information
it was often too generic, particularly when received through
standardised flyers or adverts. They argued such information
would be more useful if it was tailored to their specific
circumstances and context. Importantly, this included taking
into account what they already knew. Assuming people are
ignorant or passive can lead to ‘the same old information’ being
given, which can be patronising, and so simply ignored, rather
than helpful. As one participant said:
“I don’t want general information, maybe something more
specific. More helpful … If it was something new, I don’t want old
information … [The energy suppliers] do send little things
through but it’s nothing that I haven’t read before. I scan over it
and if it’s nothing new it just goes in the recycler.” (Female, 40s)
3–
The source of information
Participants felt it was crucial for any source of energy saving
information to be considered impartial and trustworthy. The
energy companies and other businesses were frequently seen as
wanting to sell a product or service, compromising the honesty
and impartiality of any energy-saving information they provided.
As such, their recommendations were not always acted upon.
For example:
“The council are sort of trying to help you, while companies are
trying to get you to go with them aren’t they, so they’re only
giving you the information they want you to see…” (Female, 50s)
“The difficult thing about all the energy saving information you
get at the moment [is that] it all comes from energy companies.
Why is it in their interest for you to use less energy?” (Male, 40s)
Other, ‘impartial’ sources of information, with no perceived
sales agenda, are required for people to feel confident in the
accuracy of advice. As one participant commented:
The following quotes provide examples of participants
negatively describing ‘one-way’ communication processes:
“When you feel as if people are pushing it down on you, you go
the opposite way.” (Female, 50s)
“…you want to go to someone where you think you’ll get
impartial advice, not where somebody’s got some sort of axe
to grind.” (Female, 50s)
“You don’t want to [have] a conference or something like that
[to share energy information] because people aren’t going to
come along … they will think, oh conference, that means I have
got to sit down and listen to a load of people talk.” (Male, 40s)
Participants also felt it was important for an information source
to be in some way ‘knowledgeable’. As long as they were
trustworthy, trained professionals or ‘experts’ were considered
very useful by many participants, who felt they could provide
detailed and accurate advice on technical issues. However, some
participants commented that they didn’t know where to find a
professional expert that was also impartial and trustworthy.
Instead, our participants often advocated an ‘interactive’ form of
communication, in which the communication is a two-way
dialogue, and information is exchanged rather than ‘transmitted’.
In this situation, they had a chance to ask the questions they
wanted answered, and to explain their circumstances and current
level of knowledge. Interactive processes could therefore help
ensure the advice provided was relevant, that people felt a sense
of control, and could build trust in information and its source.
Many participants described how hearing from other ‘normal
householders’, especially if they had personal experience of a
topic, was also very valuable. They could provide practical,
useable advice and recommendations of ways to save energy
and money, and help people feel confident and motivated
enough to take action themselves. For example:
Sometimes, participants suggested the internet and online
discussion forums as examples of interactive processes. More
often, they advocated face-to-face discussion:
“I can’t waste time just going listening to burbling on. I think it’s
good if people submit questions and then they were answered.
That could be done by email, but I think sometimes getting
together and sharing ideas would be quite good.” (Female, 60s)
“…I suppose word of mouth is best isn't it … because people
have, you know, they have genuine experience.” (Male, 30s)
“Q: Which do you find to be the most helpful information sources?
I think talking to people, really. I do really actually think talking
to people who might say, oh, my god, I've got a really good
deal, or this is happening.” (Female, 60s)
“I was wondering about the possibilities say of a public meeting
… I like to hear people face-to-face and hear them respond to
arguments, because then I think you are getting a fairer view,
than if you're just being pressured from one side.” (Female, 80s)
“…if it looked like a brilliant offer I’d be quite suspicious until
I’d looked to see what other people are doing.” (Female, 50s)
In summary, the advice of trustworthy ‘experts’ and peers with
personal experience each provide a certain type of know-how –
technical detail from experts, and practical, grounded advice
from peers. It seems both are valuable for giving people the
knowledge they need to efficiently use energy.
4–
5–
Summary

A number of factors influence whether people consider
information to be useful and worth acting upon. These
relate not only to the content of information, but also
its source and the way it is communicated. Therefore,
assessments of information’s usefulness are shaped by
social factors as much as psychological ones.
In terms of content, information needs to be relevant
and tailored as much as possible to people’s situations.
Sources of information need to be trustworthy, and
knowledgeable in some way. Peers with personal
experience can be as useful as professional experts.
Information shared through dialogue is often perceived
more positively than that communicated through oneway lectures that attempt to impose knowledge
These factors are not discrete. Holistic strategies,
shaped around all of the factors outlined here, are
required for information to be more effectively shared.
The communication process
Participants suggested they disliked information communicated
through a ‘one-way’ process, in which an information source
unilaterally decides what advice is given, and when and where it
is provided, with little chance for the recipient to ask questions
or explain their situation. Participants described three main
problems with this type of process:
 It made them feel that they lacked control and were being
imposed upon.
 By trying to ‘transfer’ knowledge without understanding
the recipient’s context, the information provided could be
irrelevant and the process patronising.
 It created distrust by giving the impression the provider
was merely imposing their own agenda.




If you have any questions or comments about the RECCKN project
contact Professor Andrew Dobson at: a.n.h.dobson@keele.ac.uk. For
more info, see the project website www.recckn.co.uk