Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy saving behaviours: Development of a practice-based model$

Jillian C. Sweeney, Johannes Kresling n, Dave Webb, Geoffrey N. Soutar, Tim Mazzarol
University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia

H I G H L I G H T S

 We obtained consumers views about energy saving motivations, barriers and support.
 Attitudes towards energy saving are not sufcient to change behaviours.
 A practice-based approach to understanding energy saving behaviours is applied.
 A practice-based energy-cultures framework (PBECF) is developed.
 Barriers and support factors are identied that can be conceptualised within a PBECF.

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Financial pressure and concern for the environment has meant many consumers are aware of the need to
Received 17 August 2012 reduce their consumption of many resources, including energy, which is the focus of the present study.
Accepted 25 June 2013 While potential energy use deterrents in the form of access constraints and price increases are forms of
Available online 25 July 2013
extrinsic control, it is not clear how effective these are at reducing consumption and, indeed, it is not
Keywords: clear if such measures are consistent with people's underlying energy saving motivations. Beyond
Energy saving behaviours behavioural motivations, people's desires to reduce energy can be thwarted (barriers) and/or supported
Consumers by a variety of factors, some within their control, while others are perhaps less so. Using a practice-based
Energy cultures framework framework and a qualitative focus group approach, this study presents an exploratory study of these
issues. Policy suggestions for overcoming barriers, as well suggestions as to how energy saving
behaviours can be supported are offered.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In much of the literature it is suggested consumers act rationally

Society's dependence on non-renewable energy sources and its
impact on the planet's climate is a threat to global biodiversity and
ultimately the quality of all life. Leading climate scientists have
pointed to this danger (Climate change is real, 2011) and called on
politicians to take action (Brown, 2011). However, the demand for
energy continues to grow (IEA, 2010), leading to the need for a
reassessment of how energy saving is addressed at a policy level
(Perrels et al., 2006).
The scientic literature is rich in research on energy, energy
consumption and energy conservation, to the point where it is
difcult to locate scientic consensus. What adds to the complex-
ity is that research has been conducted across a broad variety of
disciplines (Stephenson et al., 2010), with many models being used
to explain consumers behaviour (see Kollmuss and Agyeman
(2002) and Jackson (2005) for discussions).
Funding: The study was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage
Grant.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 6488 5906; fax: +61 8 6488 1004.
E-mail address: j.kresling@gmail.com (J. Kresling).
when provided with information and choice. Increased exposure to
information is expected to increase awareness and knowledge,
resulting in a reduction in consumption (Jackson, 2005). However,
such approaches have lacked explanatory power; with Hargreaves
et al. (2010), Lutzenhiser (2008) and Shove (2010) recently suggesting
this may be due to their failure to consider the broader social and
cultural factors that inuence people's energy use and shape their
practices.
Stephenson et al. (2010, p. 6125) suggested differences in the way
energy is used can be understood through the social system and
culture in which people are located; leading them to suggest energy
consumption behaviour results from interactions between cognitive
norms, material culture and energy practices. Indeed, their Energy
Cultures framework is persuasive in its simplicity and ability to
provide a detailed understanding of energy consumption. Moreover,
they argue the three components assist in understanding energy use
and the key barriers to behavioural change. Their Energy Cultures
framework is a useful starting point from which to develop a more
inclusive energy saving model that includes recognised core determi-
nants of energy saving (i.e. motivations, barriers and potential avenues
for support). Indeed, the importance of support, particularly in respect

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.121
372 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381
to autonomy, has been highlighted as an important agent for engage-
ment in environmental behaviour in the Self-Determination Theory
literature (Gagn, 2003; Osbaldiston and Sheldon, 2003). Therefore
the objectives of the present study are to (1) explore how social and
cultural factors, such as knowledge, norms and technologies, and
situational factors interact with motivations, barriers and support to
inuence energy saving behaviours: and (2) empirically assess this
framework through qualitative research.
While these issues are global in nature, the present study's context
is Western Australia. Due to its recent resources boom, Australia's
geographically largest state has experienced high economic and
population growth. It is expected primary energy demand in Western
Australia will continue to grow by more than 2% a year; having already
doubled since 1988 (Ofce of Energy (OOE), 2011). On the back of
economic growth, the average small consumer's use of energy has
increased by 40% since 1994 and peak energy demand is expected to
increase by 90% over the next 20 years (OOE, 2011). Consequently, the
reduction of household energy demand is seen as a primary challenge
for energy management (OOE, 2011).
2. Advancing the framework
2.1. Behavioural models predicting energy saving behaviours
For the purposes of this study, energy saving behaviours may
be dened as the behaviours through which people try to reduce
overall energy (electricity) use. Such behaviours may include
curtailment behaviours, which save energy through reduced use;
efciency behaviours, which save energy by buying more efcient
appliances (Gardner and Stern, 2002) or maintenance behaviours,
which save energy by better maintaining appliances so as to
improve their performance and efciency (lander and
Thgersen, 1995). Efciency behaviours can be categorised as
either low (e.g. replacing incandescent lamps with compact
uorescent lamps) or high (e.g. installing insulation) investment
intensive measures (Nair et al., 2010).
A number of models have been used to predict energy saving
behaviours (Jackson, 2005) and, thus far, policy makers have gen-
erally tried to foster sustainable behaviour through information-
intensive public education campaigns (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000),
because they are usually inexpensive and relatively easy to imple-
ment (Schultz, 2002). Policy makers have also strived to foster
sustainable energy saving behaviour through economic initiatives
(e.g. low interest loans for energy efcient renovations, such as roof
insulation) and on enforcing behavioural changes through regulation
(e.g. the ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs in Australia
(Turnbull, 2007)). Although the ultimate objective of these
approaches might be similar, the mechanisms are fundamentally
different. For example education campaigns try to foster behavioural
shift through voluntary changes, whereas regulatory changes man-
date behaviour. The drawbacks of forcing a behaviour upon the
consumer will be briey touched on in Section 5.3.
Most of the information-intensive public education campaigns
are based on the information decit model (Owens and Drifll,
2008), which suggests increasing knowledge and awareness alters
consumers' attitudes towards the behaviour, which in turn translates
to behavioural change (Eden, 1996; Jackson, 2005; Schultz, 2002).
However, the relationship between increased knowledge, attitude
change and subsequently altered behaviour has been shown to be
weak and short-lived at best, if found at all; especially when non-
personalised, general information, rather than tailored information,
is provided (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000;
Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). This suggests increases in knowledge,
attitude and awareness do not necessarily translate into behavioural
change, because knowledge is not a motivator for engagement in a
desired behaviour. However, a lack of knowledge might be a barrier
(Schultz, 2002). Schultz (2002) argues the knowledge-decit model
performs poorly due a lack of recognition of the motivations or
barriers associated with the behaviour. The general lack of support
for the information decit model has led to consideration of the gap
between knowledge, values and attitudes and action (Blake, 1999;
Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Mahapatra and Gustavsson, 2010;
Mirosa et al., 2013; Nye and Hargreaves, 2009), termed the value-
action or attitude-behaviour gap. In line with this recognition, a line
of research on pro-environmental behaviour, including energy sav-
ing, has focussed on the motivations and barriers to such behaviours
and, in association with this, the mechanisms that may support
energy saving behaviours. For example, Blake (1999), Kollmuss and
Agyeman (2002), Huddart-Kennedy et al. (2009) and Steg and Vlek
(2009) noted how different motivations and barriers enable or
inhibit pro-environmental behaviours. For example, Blake (1999)
found barriers to pro-environmental behaviours can be categorised
into individuality, responsibility and practicality themes. Barriers to
engaging in energy saving might originate from a lack of time,
money or support from other household members (Huddart-
Kennedy et al., 2009), a narrow locus of control (Hines et al., 1987),
the invisibility of energy (Marechal, 2009) or other immediate
personal and situational factors, such as personal comfort
(Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002), existing technologies and appliance
characteristics (Pierce et al., 2010), the weather and building char-
acteristics (Lutzenhiser, 1993; Strengers, 2010), psychological factors
(Abrahamse and Steg, 2009), as well as the economic and political
climate (Press and Arnould, 2009).
A review of more recent energy behaviour literature, including
research grounded in practice theory, suggests the importance of
recognising the social context, (i.e. people's social and cultural
practices) (e.g. Hargreaves et al., 2010; Nye and Hargreaves, 2009;
Shove, 2010; Stephenson et al., 2010). Shove's (2010) seminal work in
theories of social change in the context of climate change emphasises
how a transition to sustainable behaviours occurs when the status
quo is brought into question and in which more sustainable regimes
of technologies, routines, forms of know-how, conventions, markets
and expectations take hold across several domains of daily life
(Shove, 2010, p. 1278). Shove (2010) further emphasises that under-
standing social change requires an understanding of how practices
evolve. This is the fundamental premise of Stephenson et al.'s (2010)
Energy Cultures framework, which takes a practice-based view of the
world and was a critical element of the present study.
From a practice-based theory point of view, people's energy
saving behaviours occur within social systems and people have the
potential to learn, adapt and make choices based on their percep-
tions of their socially constructed world. Reckwitz (2002, pp. 249
250) explains that a practice is:
A routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements
interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of
mental activities, things and their use, a background knowledge in
the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and
motivational knowledge. A practice forms, so to speak a block
whose existence necessarily depends on the existence and specic
interconnectedness of these elements.
Schatzki (2001) argues practices are embodied, materially
enabled activity sets organised around shared practical under-
standings. Thus, the practice of energy saving extends well beyond
the individual to society as a whole. The concept of habitus is
central to practice theory. Habitus is the set of socially learned
dispositions, skills and ways of acting that are often taken for
granted and which are acquired through the activities and experi-
ences of everyday life (Osborn, 1917; Bourdieu, 1986). In essence,
elements such as behaviour, thought and feeling reect a
 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381
consistent pattern, and are interconnected to such a degree that
habit is only broken by a perturbation in one or more elements
(Bourdieu, 2003). This forms the basis of our study's framework.
2.2. The study's framework
The study framework that we develop addresses how social and
cultural factors, such as knowledge, norms and technologies, together
with situational factors interact with motivations, barriers and
support to inuence energy saving behaviours. As such, our frame-
work extends Stephenson et al.'s (2010) Energy Cultures framework.
The core of Stephenson et al.'s (2010) framework comprises
three interrelated components, namely:
(a) Cognitive norms that reect attitudes, values, beliefs and
understandings about energy behaviours, such as expected
comfort or a general concern for the environment.
(b) Material culture that represents material products, such as
available technologies, energy efcient products and existing
energy sources and building attributes.
(c) Energy practices that reect practical aspects of energy beha-
viours, such as energy consuming and energy saving activities
and processes.
These three components are the think, have and do compo-
nents of energy practice and reect physical and mental activities, as
well as the knowledge forms identied by Reckwitz (2002). The
model's underlying principle is that components interact and, in the
process, inuence one another (Stephenson et al., 2010). For exam-
ple, while education can inuence cognitive norms (e.g., values) and
behaviours, other processes are also possible. For example, material
culture (e.g. the availability of smart metres and real-time energy
monitors) can inuence cognitive norms (attitude to smart metres)
and practice (use of smart metres). When these components are
consistent and supportive, behaviour is habitual.
While Stephenson et al. (2010, p. 6123) argued a wide array of
different factors inuence energy behaviours, referring to this as
their contextual soup, we extend their framework; arguing an
explicit consideration of motivation, support and barriers or
constraints is critical to understanding energy saving behaviours.
Given our practice-based focus, we term our model, which is
shown in Fig. 1, a practice-based energy-cultures framework
(PBECF), which has two levels, namely:
1. The individual (level) is at the core and is driven by motivations
to save energy (the behavioural goal).
2. The communal/cultural level is at the outer ring, which
includes material culture, cognitive norms and energy practices
(Stephenson et al., 2010) and reects the interconnections of
the various components that underlie energy behaviours. That
is, energy behaviours do not take place in isolation but, rather,
reect the inuence broader social and cultural inuences have
on individuals' energy behaviours.
The three components in the second level are determinants of the
overall behavioural goal. We suggest energy saving activities, which
would allow an individual to achieve a behavioural goal, may not be
pursued because barriers prevent the activity. We further suggest each
barrier can be categorised into at least one of the three components.
We similarly argue mechanisms that support an individual can be
categorised with respect to these components. This presents policy
makers with an opportunity to establish support mechanisms that can
overcome impeding barriers and allow people to achieve desired
behavioural energy saving goals. The proposed model was examined
in seven focus group discussions, which are described in the next
section.
373
= Individual.
Motivated to save energy
= Barriers
Material
Culture
= Support
Cognitive Energy
Norms Practices
Fig. 1. The proposed model.
3. The focus groups
A focus group approach was adopted because it enabled us to
enter respondents realities and step in to the consumers shoes
(Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990) to collect their energy saving
behaviour interpretations within our practice-based energy-cul-
tures framework. Focus groups enabled us to participate
in consumers' shared understanding (Hines, 2000) and
offered insights that cannot be gathered through one-on-one
interviews.
Participants were recruited by email with the assistance of the
local electricity supplier who facilitated access to their customer
database. Using information already in their customer database,
those responding were categorised by the energy utility according
to values, opinions and demographics such as socio-economic group,
as well as energy use. A random subset of each category was
contacted to secure their involvement. Such categorisation ensured
a diversity of respondents based on critical variables. The selected
respondents also represented a mix of gender and age. Seven focus
groups were held consistent with Stewart et al. (2006). The focus
groups comprised an average of nine respondents, consistent with
Krueger and Casey's (1994) recommendations as well as with Fern's
(1982) ndings that such a group size generates signicantly more
ideas than smaller groups of four members. Each session lasted
approximately ninety minutes. The focus groups followed Axelrod's
(1975) ten essential aspects for successful focus group research,
including the use of an experienced moderator and a common
question protocol developed by the research team following an
extensive review of relevant prior research. These included:
 Are you trying to save energy (electricity) in your home? If, yes,
what do you do? Of the things you do, what do you think helps
you use less energy?
 What motivates you to save energy? Are you concerned about
the environment, community, your bill or are you not moti-
vated to conserve energy at all?
 In your household, is there anything that you feel makes it
difcult for you to conserve energy? For example other house-
hold members, the building itself, the appliances you own.
 If there are things that make it difcult, what actions have you
taken to overcome the difculties?
 Thinking about any difculties, what would support your
efforts in conserving energy? Is there anything specic that
you found or would nd helpful (e.g. other household members
assisting you, certain information from TV, internet, radio,
friends, magazines, etc.)?
374 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381

 Do you feel that other people in the community/among your
friends are actively trying to conserve energy? Do you feel that
there is a movement towards less use of energy in the community?
The focus group sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed into
a word processing package. The transcriptions were analyzed, as
suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994). First, the researchers read
the transcripts to acquire a feel for the data. Second, recurring themes
that related to the study's research objectives with respect to motiva-
tions, barriers and support themes were identied through standard
content analysis procedures (e.g., Weber, 1985). Codes or labels were
assigned paragraph by paragraph. Subsequently, broader categories or
themes were developed to represent a series of such codes (Miles and
Huberman, 1994) and, nally, themes were substantiated and rened
by re-checking the raw data and conrming interpretations.
4. Findings
We rst identify the various motivations, barriers and support
mechanisms highlighted, which are shown in Table 1, followed by a
discussion of how these relate to the model's three main components.
For reader ease, we use the term C1 to refer to the rst comment in
the Table, C2 to the second comment and so forth. We note that the
comments described below reect the themes derived from the focus
groups based on the analysis procedures described above.
4.1. Motivations
Respondents identied two broad core reasons for trying to
save energy (economic and environmental), which included sus-
tainability issues. Of these, the primary reason concerned the
extrinsically motivated cost of electricity. The discussion of cost
reected an underlying need for a sense of control over activities
and outcomes (see C1C4). In support, Mirosa et al. (2013) found
capability was an important value in energy saving behaviours,
including mastery over household appliances as well as costs.
The importance of costs in shaping energy behaviours was
reected in the discussion about the sharp increase in electricity
costs in the Western Australian (WA) electricity market in recent
years. Indeed, a few weeks before the focus groups, a 5% electricity
price increase had been announced (OOE, 2011). This was
embedded deeply in participants minds (see C3). If current costs
were not motivation enough, the certainty of further increases
motivated participants to wish to consume less energy (see C4).
Environmental sustainability issues were less frequently men-
tioned than economic reasons and often explicitly expressed as
being secondary to monetary motives (C5, C6). For a minority of
participants, reducing their impact on the environment was the
primary motivating factor and this seemed more likely among
higher socio-economic groups (C7C9). In some cases, consumers
had little motivation to reduce their energy consumption and felt
that, as long as the energy they consumed was affordable, there
was no motivation to change such behaviours (C10, C11). This
nding is consistent with research in Europe which investigates
consumer concerns with respect to energy saving, nding that cost
saving was a primary driver for saving energy followed by
environmental concerns, and, that the latter was more evidenced
in countries with a higher per capita level of GDP (Logica, 2008).
4.2. Barriers
High instalment costs, associated with more energy efcient
appliances or improvements within and around the house that
would enable energy saving behaviours, were the most frequently
mentioned barriers to energy saving behaviours. Insufcient dis-
cretionary income, the fact that a participant did not intend to live
in their current home long enough to benet from their invest-
ment, or the fact that a consumer was renting were associated
with these closely connected barriers (C12C14), as can be seen in
Table 2.
Another barrier identied related to the design of the house
including the location of power points, as well as appliance
characteristics (C15, C16). This was particularly challenging for

Table 1
Motivations for energy saving behaviours.

Motivator Comment Comment

number

Cost C1 My whole motivation is the hip pocket.

C2 I get a kick if I know I am going to save money and I can spend money on whatever I want to that's not going out to
electricity or something like that. That's pretty much my biggest incentive.
C3 The way that the bills are going at the moment I think cost is probably a much bigger factor for a lot of people. It is the one
that hits hard; it's the one that's right in front of you and with the environmental thing, you aren't going to look at your bill
and think, oh, it doesn't matter because it is helping whatever, you are just looking at nding out how much it is going to hit
your pocket.
C4 I can afford the amount of electricity we are using at the moment but if it goes up another 25% as is forecast, well, I would
be seriously wanting to reduce that in some way either by using less of it, by discipline or by installing something that would
help.

Environment C5 Costs are the rst things that come to mind and then environment is secondary.
C6 [During a general discussion about campaigns raising awareness for environmental issues.] But I think that's where you
become aware, and then it is just driven by cost after that. I mean I primarily change habits now because the bills are
expensive. I want to try and reduce my bill, while at the same time obviously try and have a positive impact on the
environment.
C7 I feel a great urge to preserve for the future in all categories really water, energy etc.
C8 In my experience virtually everybody I know is concerned about conserving the environment and also reducing their power
bills. I would imagine it is fairly universal.
C9 I think I care to do my little things as a person, as a human being to chip-in in the global effort to try to reduce the
consumption. There is also the money factor involved, for sure, but there is also the sensation that you do something good.
When you watch it in your household then that means that you participate in the global effort in reducing it.

No motivation, if energy C10 It's put up as a moral issue that it is somehow good to save energy and when people come along and tell me things are good,
affordable I immediately think why are they good? And frankly, I can't think of one good reason why I should save energy except for
saving money while not spending more money than I can afford. So my philosophy is to use as much energy as I can
reasonably afford. I have three fridges in the house.
C11 There are a lot of people who are earning too much money and they do not care; they have got enough money to pay for it.
 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381
older consumers (C17). In addition to age, other personal circum-
stances, such as a health condition requiring the use of critical
medical equipment, can override the desire to reduce energy use
(C18). Moreover, personal preferences, such as comfort, habit and
convenience, can moderate energy saving behaviours (C19C21).
According to some participants, the amount of cognitive and
physical work required to engage in certain behaviours seemed too
great and not worth the effort (C21). Further, when different
family members or others in a shared living situation held
dissimilar attitudes, conict and frustration can result (C22C24).
In particular, although children had greater knowledge and aware-
ness of pro-environmental behaviours, they often seem to partially
offset the energy savings made by parents and were, with some
exceptions (see support below), not actively participating in
energy saving behaviours (C25, C26).
A lack of knowledge about energy saving ability appeared to be a
barrier for some participants. Additionally, an associated lack of
tools to measure energy use restricted potential energy saving,
which was caused by a difcult-to-comprehend electricity metre
(C27). Many participants felt they were not sure about what good
consumption is (C28). Some focus group comments also suggested
that the person paying the bill was the person most likely to
understand how use translated into costs (C29) and, hence, was
the most likely to try to change behaviours.
Expressions of helplessness towards saving energy and doubt
about making a difference to the environment were common
concerns. This issue reected doubt that individual effort, in
contrast to a larger group or community effort could make a
difference (C30). This was reinforced by the fact that tariff
increases can give consumers a false projection of the inuence
of their behaviours. For example, although energy consumption
might decrease over a billing period, the amount payable
increases, due to higher tariffs; reducing perceived internal control
(C31). A nal barrier concerned policy and legislation. For example,
government regulations with respect to house orientation or
distances from fences can inhibit optimising the effect of the
sun (C32).
Our analysis demonstrates that barriers do not act in isolation
but may reinforce each other. For example, C12 represents a
barrier to energy saving behaviours deriving from the high
purchase and instalment costs of more energy efcient appliances
that prohibits their purchase, which results in high costs of
electricity associated with existing appliances. The comment
suggests that personal circumstances (the affordability of the
appliance by the participant) as well as a feeling of helplessness
(an apparent bill increases despite no behavioural change) present
a combined barrier to energy saving. Other examples, described
above, include a lack of knowledge and lack of tools, as well as a
feeling of helplessness and tariff increases. Barriers may interact
and inuence each other, which can pose a challenge to policy
makers in identifying appropriate support mechanisms.
4.3. Support
Given the range of barriers identied, it was important to
explore what factors supported people trying to save energy.
While various support mechanisms have been suggested, these
have largely been derived from energy saving studies (e.g. Hill et al.
(2011) and Biying et al. (2012), among many others). In contrast, we
asked consumers about perceived support and classied these
aspects into the energy behaviour components of our model.
Support was found at a micro-level (family, friends and house-
mates), as well as at a more macro-level (policies, culture, society, the
community) (see Table 3). Support from friends and family (C33C35)
included a sense of sharing responsibility and capitalising on the drive
generated by children's school education. In contrast, Government
375
initiatives were recognised as offering support through formal reward
mechanisms, such as rebates (C36, C37) (e.g. on solar panels), a
favourable solar feedback tariff or long term planning towards renew-
able energies (C38), which might be perceived as the government
leading by example. Offering comparative feedback to the consumer (e.
g. comparing energy use to similarly sized dwellings in the area),
while not currently available was seen as increasing knowledge about
how to manage energy (C39). Support was also derived from the
community and a sense of sharing with like-minded people (C40).
Commercials and other information sources were also viewed as
supportive in a communal sense (C41).
Consistent with the helplessness barrier discussed earlier,
several respondents expressed a view that the government should
target more than individual consumers and address the businesses
and industries that use signicantly more energy (C42).
Although the barriers and support mechanisms have been
identied individually above, we seek to develop an understand-
ing as to how the various model components, including barriers
and support mechanisms, interact in the context of our practice-
based energy-cultures framework.
5. Discussion: lessons learned and policy implications
The focus groups suggested motivations to engage in energy saving
behaviours differ across individuals. However, cost was identied as
the primary motivator and the environment as the second most
important motivator. In only a few cases, individuals were not
motivated (amotivated) to reduce their energy use. While we cannot
make a statement about the origin of the different motivations, our
conversations with participants suggested environmentally-based
motivations occurred when there were no economic pressures. In
other words, when consumers did not need to decrease energy use for
cost reasons, they were more likely to be motivated by environmental
concerns. Our study supports the ndings of Martinsson et al. (2011)
that the cost of energy is less of a driving force in higher income
households due to less economic incentives.
Fig. 2 shows how the barriers that were identied in Table 2 relate
to material culture, cognitive norms and energy practices. Viewed
proactively, the model provides policy makers with opportunities to
neutralise the effect of these barriers and an opportunity to support
energy saving behaviours.
Stephenson et al. (2010) suggested that opportunities for the
take up of energy saving behaviour arise when one of the three
components in the model shifts and becomes misaligned with the
remaining parts.
The relatively slow uptake of energy saving compact uorescent
light bulbs (CFL) in Australia can serve as an example of a misalign-
ment. The introduction of CFLs as a new and more efcient, yet
affordable, technology represented, initially, a shift in material culture.
However, as research into people's attitudes, trust and beliefs in CFL
technology shows, consumers have reacted to the introduction of CFLs
with scepticism and, consequently, avoid using them; despite the
benets the technology offers (Winton, 2005). This scepticism, which
can at least partially be explained by a concern that CFLs release
harmful amounts of mercury when broken (Boughey and Webb,
2008), is a prime example of how cognitive norms and material
culture can be misaligned. Ultimately, the slow take up of CFL
technology led the Australian Government to ban traditional incan-
descent light bulbs in 2007 (Turnbull, 2007), forcing households to
adopt CFLs. In this case, material culture (the availability of CFLs),
cognitive norms (scepticism towards CFLs) and energy practices (the
continued use of incandescent bulbs) were misaligned. By targeting
the misaligned components of cognitive norms and energy practices
through legislation, energy behaviour was shifted and formed a new
376
Table 2
Barriers to energy saving behaviours.
Barrier
High energy costs due to high purchase and
instalment costs of appliances
House design
Personal circumstances
Personal preferences
Family members differences in attitudes and
behaviours
Children in the household
Lack of knowledge/tools
Not being the bill-payer
Feeling of helplessness
Government policy/legislation
J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381
Comment Comment
Number
C12 I have been on a disability pension for 15 years. I have got a wife and two kids and I have just noticed
what used to be $150 bill is now a $300 bill and we are not doing anything different. We have got the
same appliances; we are not using anything extra. Just the cost is killing us. . What do you do
when you are struggling as it is?
C13 We could make our houses more energy efcient but that would cost and I've not done it in recent
years because I wasn't thinking of living in the house long enough for it to be cost effective
C14 It is the cost of power that inuences me to turn things off. But I have electric hot water and an
electric stove. These are the things I can't change [renting] I would dearly love to, but it is personal
circumstances that prevent this.
C15 for me to turn the microwave off I've got to get it out of its recess to get to the power point. And
the TV I can't turn it off because I can't get to the power point.
C16 [What prevents you from saving energy?] Appliances that require resetting if you turn them off at
the wall. I'm not good at turning anything off that I have to reset afterwards.
C17 And they say to leave things on standby is the wrong thing to do, but in our instance, because of our
age and where the power points are situated, it is impossible to switch appliances off at the socket.
C18 The other thing I was going to bring up is using medical equipment because my husband uses a CPAP
machine which goes all night and we have got no idea how much power that uses and that's running
all night, every night.
C19 In the past we used to get by without air conditioning but I think now everyone's used to have nice
air conditioned ofces, they expect the same at home we can't live without it of course.
C20 I think we are quite used to some kind of comfort which is not compatible with all the things we
need to do to save energy.
C21 My wife is nagging me to turn all the power points off at the switches and walls and all the rest of it. I
can't see how it could possibly make enough of a difference that I would notice. I don't want to have
to reset my clocks and all the rest of it. I want to sit down and push a button and make it work.
C22 I feel completely unsupported at home the number of times that our bills are through the roof I
tell them turn your lights off, but it just does not happen and it is not just the kids [hinting towards
husband].
C23 My wife was brought up with a very strict father that used to turn off everything and she wasn't
allowed to have lights on or anything like that, so she has the habit of switching lots of lights on I'll
go home tonight and she will have every light in the house on because she has just got this thing in
her head the meanness of her father and all the stuff that she had to go through as a child.
C24 I work on the principle that if the house is around 22 degrees whether it is summer or winter. but
she [wife]wants it like 25 degrees in the winter time and 19 degrees in the summer so you get this
problems that I will walk into the house and I'm freezing in the summer time and hot in the winter, so
she feels the temperature changes a lot more than I do and my kids don't feel it either so we have this
constant battle where we keep turning it down or turning it off and she keeps turning it back up
again.
C25 [Are children better educated about energy conservation today than they were in the past?] I'd like to
think so, but we had two children at home recently and they believe in climate change and are not
sceptics or anything like that, but you still cannot get a teenager to turn something off without
actually using a catapult.
C26 Environmental awareness seems to be quite well driven in the schools, because we've got 7 and
9-year olds and they are quite aware, but they do not follow through. They know about it, but they got
to be reminded. They just do not think. They are in their own world.
C27 [The problem is] not knowing what you are doing that causes the most energy consumption. You
only got one little metre outside and I tried occasionally to gure things out being out there and
counting how many times it revolves around, what you got turned on and off. .. With more
information about where my energy is used in the house I could maybe target my savings better.
C28 I would like to know what level of energy consumption would be a good level because I really don't
know. I dropped down my consumption by making changes and I really can't think of anything else I
could do but I still don't know if our energy consumption is high or not for a two person apartment. If
I knew what that was I would have a target to work towards to.
C29 I often wonder if it is the person who is responsible for paying the bills that sees the need to be
mindful of saving energy. In our household I am the one that controls the nances so to speak, so
when the bill comes in, my husband just has the bill but he hasn't actually opened it and looked at it,
so I am the one saying, why don't you turn off the lights; we need to turn off this; don't use that.
C30 Now that money should be coming in [from carbon pricing] and being used to develop the
technologies to power Australia for the next hundred years. I stopping my energy expenditure by a
few hundred units every year is not going to make any difference.
C31 I am using less and the bills aren't coming down; they are going up. They are putting in new tariffs
and there are increases all the time. So it makes it futile when you think you are doing your bit and
the bill just keeps rising.
C32 Our legislation negatively says all houses have to have front entrances facing towards the street so
we align our houses by the street lengths and you know all those things kind of add up.
 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381 377

Table 3
Perceived Support with respect to energy saving behaviours.

Support Avenue Comment Comment

Number

Support from friends and family
Support through school education
Support from government and
utility initiatives
Support through the community
Support through promotion and
communication
Support through government
targeting broader market
C33 I have an eight year old daughter and with the stuff that shes being taught at school that she is bringing home,
she is teaching me.
C34 I have friends and family with whom I discuss different little things that we do that might help save or conserve
energy or water or whatever.
C35 We have got three kids. Eleven, nine and ve and the eldest one is pushing all these projects and they do come
back from school and say: OK, yes, we have learnt about this today and ask you different things. The same thing
with carbon footprints the school has also got their own vegetable garden and things like that they recycle all
their compost, so they are very much pushing the environment at the schools these days.
C36 Probably about seven years ago I actually bought a front loader washing machine and I would never have bought
a front loader washing machine except for the rebate.
C37 If you can afford solar panels, it is certainly something to consider. I am not just looking at the immediate
benets; I am still looking at 10 years down the track. When the rst grant came out and they said they were
going to pay $8,000 towards a system I wasnt nancial at that time to take the benet of that massive rebate so I
have had to cut my costs and wait for the right time and then execute it.
C38 Id feel the support from a big plan out plan out there that I know where things are going and all the non-carbon
based fuels, non-carbon based fuel ways of generating electricity we are going to be needing for eons, lets just
work on that.
C39 I think the problem with comparisons is they never compare pears with pears or apples with apples. You
compare one household and there is a family with four kids or something like that, and then you compare it with,
for instance, me, where there is one person. So what they would have to do is compare like with like. And the
comparison could be useful because I do look at the comparison between my bill for last year as to what it is this
year. And I am always quite aware of whether it has gone up or whether it has gone down. So it would be quite
interesting if they had some sort of comparison of like with like.
C40 I feel a great urge to preserve for the future in all categories really water, energy etc. etc. Im not really sure
where my views came from because I wasnt brought up with anyone imparting their knowledge about the
world. I moved to Fremantle about three years ago and I think there are generally a lot of people there that are
more willing and accepting of the worlds problems and I nd it really important to save for the future.
C41 I try to reduce my energy, but at the same time I dont see the results on my bill and I dont know why; what am I
doing wrong; what could I do better? If I had more information about where my energy is being used in the
house I could maybe target things better.
C42 It is not only water that is wasted in industry, the land developers and the non-metered users of power havent
been tackled in this State either; they are tackling the poor householder but there isnt any initiatives to crack
down on the big end of town that are unmetered users.

= Individual. Material Culture Barriers

Costs /availability of energy efficient appliances
Motivated to save energy House design (e.g. location of power points, windows, etc.)
Government policy and legislation (e.g. House orientation rules)

= Barriers
Material
Culture
= Support

Cognitive Norms Barriers

Personal preferences (e.g. comfort, Energy Practices Barriers:
convenience) - Personal circumstance (e.g. age,
Family members differences health)
Feeling of helplessness (locus of - Situational factors (e.g.
control) inaccessibility of power points,
renting, etc.)
- Lack of knowledge /tools

Cognitive Energy
Norms Practices

Fig. 2. The identied barriers.

alignment across the three components (i.e. a new habitus or
status quo).
Other alternatives would have been extended promotional
activities or rebates on CFLs that shifted cognitive norms and
material culture, encouraging the desired energy practice. Argu-
ably, such measures are more desirable than regulation and laws
because they support a less controlling form of behaviour. By
targeting the misaligned component, all components of the model
can be realigned to positively reinforce each other, successfully
shifting the corresponding energy culture (Stephenson et al.,
2010). As a result, it makes sense to look at support opportunities
in each of the three components.
5.1. Cognitive norms supporting the thinking
Cognitive norms concerns are consumers' thinking aspect.
Changing cognitive norms may be seen as a daunting task because
many are deeply anchored in society. Societal attitudes towards
supporting sustainability and a less material-dependent culture
could be inuenced through changes in general upbringing and, in
378 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381
particular, education (Stephenson et al., 2010). The present study
found school-aged children understand the need for sustainability
and pro-environmental behaviours. However, our ndings suggest
school-aged children do not always follow through with energy
saving behaviours.
To reinforce positive education, families, rather than individuals,
could be the focus of support; perhaps through family-targeted
workshops, such as those offered by many government agencies and
departments at a local community or neighbourhood level. Similarly,
promotional campaigns using multiple media forms and targeted at
families are likely to reinforce family inclusivity and improve energy
saving efforts. On this point, and also in a household energy saving
context, recent research exploring the effect of social norms
campaigns highlights the importance of combining an injunctive
(approval) message with a descriptive message to reduce the
likelihood of a boomerang effect i.e., without the injunctive mes-
sage, energy consumption for households with previously low levels
of consumption increased (Schultz et al., 2007). With this in mind,
one such simple example could read: The Hill family has reduced
their energy consumption by 20 percent in just 3 months . Can
you match or better the Hills? Consistent with Schultz et al. (2007),
a smiley face is used here to denote the injunctive message
component. This could be presented on paper or indeed on a
computer screen with vignettes showing the Hill family engaged
in energy saving activities and could include one or more smiling
onlookers.
The present study suggests family members have a signicant
impact on energy saving behaviours in a household. Consequently,
as children's and families' perceptions are changed, the groups'
cognitive norms will also change; within the family at a micro
level and within the community and society as a whole at a
macro level.
Comparative information is a potentially strong cognitive norm
support mechanism that could be offered by an energy provider.
Such comparative information would enable consumers to com-
pare their own energy use with that of other households with
similar set-ups (number of people living in the household, age,
similar prole of appliance ownership, area, etc.). Some initiatives
that experiment with such feedback have produced positive
results, as average energy consumption decreased (e.g. Allcott,
2011). Comparative feedback encourages consumers to mimic
their neighbours if they nd their energy use is comparably high
and, simultaneously, may reinforce better performing households
to continue their consumption reduction efforts. A novel example
of such an approach is a neighbourhood street in Britain that
collectively reports energy use comparisons at various levels,
including households in the street, the city average and the
country average, literally via a graph painted on the surface of
the street and updated daily (Webb, 2011). This approach engages
other community members and generates conversation thereby
further promoting energy saving.
5.2. Material culture supporting the having
Supporting material culture enables people to make informed
choices about the acquisition of appliances and building materials
(e.g. insulation), as well as the design of houses. Support in this
area focuses on the having aspect of the model. Jackson (2005)
suggested governments can establish prerequisites, enabling
almost all environmental behaviours, including, providing recycling
facilities to encourage household recycling and providing public
transport to encourage reduced use of cars.
In the case of energy saving, promoting sustainable energy
saving through material culture requires government initiatives,
such as the provision of rebates on energy efcient appliances and
working in partnership with consumers to enable the optimisation
of energy use (e.g. building orientation, use of energy efcient
materials in construction and insulation standards.). This would
support consumers who struggle to purchase expensive, but very
efcient appliances.
Helping the consumer in the purchasing process can be
achieved through labelling electrical appliances' efciency. In
Australia, some appliances (e.g. TVs and refrigerators) are labelled
under the Energy Star Rating initiative. However, the range of
products could be extended and consumers could be better edu-
cated about the rating scheme. Further, the Energy star rating also
encourages manufacturers to produce more efcient appliances in
general, which reects a positive change of the material culture.
Some European countries are trialling smart metres that allow
consumers to track and monitor household energy consumption as
it appears in real-time (Hargreaves et al., 2010). Real-time infor-
mation about household energy use can help consumers under-
stand their consumption better and, consequently, reduce energy
more effectively. Technology subsidies that will pay for supportive
devices, such as real-time displays, are an example of how a
government can encourage behaviours positively through a
change in material culture.
Finally, effective legislation can help consumers improve their
energy efciency. An example came from a focus group participant
who was not allowed to position his house so as to minimise the
negative impact of weather. A more enabling ruling would give
consumers more involvement and autonomy in such processes,
which could result in the co-production of effective energy saving
outcomes.
5.3. Energy practices supporting the doing
Investments in education, promotion and information are a
core support mechanism for consumers trying to save energy.
As suggested by the literature, information and education cam-
paigns should be targeted and personalised to cater for individual
contexts (Abrahamse et al., 2005). For example, Abrahamse et al.
(2007) found (comparative) feedback was more effective than the
provision of general energy saving information, as was noted in
Section 5.1.
Targeted and personalised information provision through promo-
tional campaigns can lead to more creative ways of providing
information and supportive tools. For example, some focus group
participants found it difcult to connect the use of specic
appliances to cost. Interactive specialised calculators or indicators
that let consumers easily calculate usage costs of specic appli-
ances are likely to make them mindful of their use in daily
activities. These calculators could be made available online or as
smartphone applications; reaching out to a tech-savvy audience
who are likely to be high energy users. In general, in our more
mobile and connected world, the focus should shift from one-to-
many mass media campaigns to more interactive and integrative
many-to-many campaigns that use different channels for different
audiences. The global Earth Hour campaign, which relies on
internet based marketing and word-of-mouth, is an example of
how new technology can be used.
A limitation many consumers face is that they rent the property
in which they live. Many renters are restricted or not willing to
invest in more energy efcient appliances. Martinsson et al. (2011)
similarly found that homeowners, as opposed to renters, have a
stronger propensity to react economically. As is pointed out in
their study, homeowners often simply have more options for
savings since they have the freedom of making changes to the
building (e.g. installing insulation). At the same time landlords
often have little nancial incentive to provide more energy
efcient appliances to their tenants because energy costs are being
paid by the tenants. As more than 25% of Australia dwellings
 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381
= Individual.
Motivated to save energy
= Barriers
= Support
Cognitive Norms Barriers
Personal preferences (e.g. comfort,
convenience)
Family members differences
Feeling of helplessness (locus of
control)
Cognitive
Norms
Cognitive Norms Support
School education / Upbringing
Community workshops
Targeting families rather than individuals
Fig. 3. Identied support.
(almost 2.5 million households) are rented (Australian Bureau of
Statistic (ABS), 2011), renters are an important segment. Support
for renters could range across material culture, cognitive norms
and energy practices. Energy practices among renters should be
targeted towards norms and energy practices (such as energy
saving tips), as renters are less likely to make changes that affect
material culture. For example, they will not invest in insulation or
white goods as they will not benet from this in the short term.
Across the model's three components, care should be taken that
support is not confused with enforcement. As outlined in the CFL
example above, banning the use of incandescent light bulbs was a
restrictive measure that forced CFLs use on consumers. Giving
consumers the tools and information to make the decision to
voluntarily change would have been a more desirable way to
encourage this behaviour, as voluntary engagement in such
behaviour is intrinsically motivated and, thus, is more likely to
be sustained over time (Vallerand and Ratelle, 2002). Issues
resulting from enforcing energy related behaviours on consumers
is worthy of further research. Fig. 3 shows the suggested support
mechanisms in the model and how these relate to the energy
saving barriers across the three core concepts that drive energy
saving behaviours.
6. Conclusions
Reducing household energy consumption is one of the major
challenges facing energy providers and governments. This is
especially true in Western Australia, which was the site for the
present study, as the State has seen signicant increases in
demand for energy and is reliant on carbon intensive energy
sources. The pressure from these interacting factors suggests a
need to examine current energy use; in particular the motivations,
barriers to reductions in energy use and the uptake of energy
saving behaviours, and how support mechanisms might be intro-
duced to sustain reductions in energy use.
Previous research found energy saving is associated with at
least three approaches; (a) curtailment behaviours, such as turning
379
Material Culture Barriers
Costs /availability of energy efficient appliances
House design (e.g. location of power points, windows, etc.)
Government policy and legislation (e.g. House orientation rules)
Material Culture Support
Energy Star Rating
Material Rebates
Culture Technology subsidies (e.g. smart meters
and energy monitors)
Favourable legislation
Energy Practices Barriers:
- Personal circumstance (e.g. age,
health)
- Situational factors (e.g.
inaccessibility of power points,
renting, etc.)
- Lack of knowledge /tools
Energy
Practices
Energy Practices Support:
- Targeted marketing and promotional
campaigns
- Provision of interactive tools (e.g. energy
cost calculators)
- Support for renters
lights off; (b) the acquisition of energy efcient appliances and
building improvements, such as installing insulation, to increase
energy efciency and (c) better maintenance of appliances and
devices. Clearly, curtailment behaviours may be relatively easy and
inexpensive at least for some electricity users, while purchasing
energy saving appliances are more difcult to implement, requir-
ing a large initial investment and in some cases a degree of
knowledge and expertise to maximise their effect. Often acquisi-
tion of such appliances offers long term savings following a
signicant nancial layout, which can inuence their perceived
short-term desirability.
A clear nding from the present research is that attitudes and
values are not always sufcient to generate energy saving beha-
viour and that saving depends on the consumer's situation, such as
ownership of energy efcient devices. Thus, energy saving may be
moderated by the affordability of highly efcient devices; as some
consumers have to use low-cost, less efcient appliances. This
nding is consistent with the reported weaknesses and incon-
sistencies in value-action or attitude-behaviour models asso-
ciated with pro-environmental actions (Blake, 1999; Mirosa et al.,
2013). It also supports the contention that different strategies are
likely to be required for households with different levels of income
as well as housing type (Martinsson et al., 2011; Thgersen and
Grnhj, 2010).
A practice-based energy-cultures framework (PBECF) was
developed by extending Stephenson et al.'s (2010) Energy Cultures
Framework. Such a perspective takes an overall view of energy
saving, while recognising the linkages and interactions between
the components and between the different barriers and avenues
for support. Indeed the components shape and are shaped by
each other (Stephenson et al., 2010). This model represents a
mental model of the world; inherent in this model is that a change
in one component will lead to shifts across all of the components
in the system until a balance between components is once more
attained.
Most consumers appeared to be motivated to save energy,
however, a range of barriers and constraints that prevent some
energy saving behaviours were identied. These range from
unfavourable house designs that make it difcult to access power
380 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381
points, to personal preferences (e.g. cooling and heating levels).
We also found some evidence that a small number of consumers
may not be motivated to save energy if energy is affordable. This
latter group is particularly challenging to target, as an increase in
the cost of energy may not create an imbalance with respect to the
central concepts in the study model. However, for other consu-
mers, we identied several effective modes of support for energy
saving, including support from family, community and govern-
ment. Each barrier and support mechanism was associated with at
least one of the model's components. Given the system approach
and the balance among the components, which reects no
change or habitus, the extended model offers insights into what
inhibits positive change to cultural norms, material culture and
energy practices and what supports general positive change. As a
change is only required in one component to develop an imbal-
ance among components this increases the opportunities to
enhance a positive outcome; thus, the model is likely to be of
use to policy makers seeking to generate such change.
Interventions that generate a shift in behaviour might include
online community forums among energy users to generate a change
in the thinking, having or doing components. For example, the
thinking may be inuenced by user to user discussions, instructional
videos and interactive tools, such as energy usage calculators. The
having may be inuenced by creating and sharing an understanding
and competence in the acquisition and use of energy efcient devices
and tools. The doing may be inuenced through discussion and the
sharing of energy saving tips and strategies. Such an intervention
would offer a low cost, wide reach medium that may moderate the
three components; ultimately leading to an increase in energy saving
behaviours. The role of computer-based technology as a support
mechanism that enhances autonomously motivated behaviours has
largely been conned to education (i.e., Yumuk, 2002), digital gaming
(i.e., Wang et al., 2008) and diabetes care (Williams et al., 2007) and
represents a fruitful opportunity for further research.
7. Limitations
While these ndings provide useful and rich insights into
energy saving behaviour through the development of a practice-
based framework, the study has several limitations. The rst was
the qualitative nature of the study; the study model needs to be
validated by quantitative research, to further understand for
example the relative importance of the various barriers and
support mechanisms and the inter-relationships between the
various core behavioural components, cognitive norms, material
culture and energy practices. Second, the study was conducted in
Western Australia, a state which has recently experienced a
resources boom, fuelling population increases and energy demand
which may impact views on energy saving. However, while our
research was conducted in a single state in Australia, we argue that
the principles of the model are generalizable. One of the strengths
of the PBECF is its applicability for different energy markets. The
framework provides a structure that helps to visualise and under-
stand how energy saving behaviours are inuenced by motiva-
tions, barriers and support within the three core model
components in any energy market. The model is likely to provide
different insights in different parts of the world, most likely even
within countries and regions as model components differ depend-
ing on the wider communal and cultural landscape.
References
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L, Vlek, C., Rothengatter, T., 2007. The effect of tailored
information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use,
energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology 27 (4), 265276.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., 2009. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors
relate to household's direct and indirect energy use and savings. Journal of
Economic Psychology 30 (5), 711720.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., Rothengatter, T., 2005. A review of intervention
studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 25 (3), 273291.
Allcott, H., 2011. Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics
95 (910), 10821095.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011. Housing Occupancy and Costs 200910,
Cat. no. 4130.0, ABS, Canberra.
Axelrod, M.D., 1975. 10 Essentials for good qualitative research. Marketing News 8,
1011.
Biying, Y., Zhang, J., Fujiwara, A., 2012. Analysis of the residential location choice
and household energy consumption behavior by incorporating multiple self-
selection effects. Energy Policy 46, 319334.
Blake, J., 1999. Overcoming the value-action gap in environmental policy: tensions
between national policy and local experience. Local Environment: The Inter-
national Journal of Justice and Sustainability 4 (3), 257278.
Boughey, D., Webb, R., 2008. CFL Issues: Current knowledge, potential solutions.
Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts. Available from: http://www.energyrating.com.au/pubs/2008-pha
se-out-session6-boughey.pdf.
Bourdieu, P., 1986. Habitus, code et codication. Actes de la recherche en sciences
sociales 64 (1), 4044.
Bourdieu, P., 2003. La fabrique de l'habitus conomique. Actes de la recherche en
sciences sociales 150 (1), 7990.
Brown, M.J.I., 2011. When Scientists Take to the Streets It's Time to Listen Up.
Available from: http://theconversation.edu.au/when-scientists-take-to-the-s
treets-its-time-to-listen-up-1912 (accessed 28.02.12).
Climate change is real, 2011. Climate Change is Real: An Open Letter From the Scientic
Community. Available from: http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-rea
l-an-open-letter-from-the-scientic-community-1808 (accessed 28.02.12).
Eden, S., 1996. Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientic,
counter-scientic and non-scientic contributions. Public Understanding of
Science 5 (3), 183204.
Fern, E.F., 1982. The use of focus group for idea generation: the effect of group size,
acquaintanceship and moderator on response quality and quantity. Journal of
Marketing Research 19, 113.
Gagn, M., 2003. Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and
well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 15, 372390.
Gardner, G.T., Stern, P.C., 2002. Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour.
Pearson, Boston, MA.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., Burgess, J., 2010. Making energy visible: a qualitative eld
study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors.
Energy Policy 38 (10), 61116119.
Hill, F., Lynch, H., Levermore, G., 2011. Consumer impacts on dividends from solar
water heating. Energy Efciency 4 (1), 18.
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., Tomera, A.N., 1987. Analysis and synthesis of research
on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environ-
mental Education 18 (2), 18.
Hines, T., 2000. An evaluation of two qualitative methods (focus groups interviews
and cognitive maps) for conducting research into entrepreneurial decision
making. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 3 (1), 716.
Huddart Kennedy, E., Beckley, T.M., McFarlane, B.L., Nadeau, S., 2009. Why we don't
walk the talk: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in
Canada. Human Ecology Review 16 (2), 151160.
IEA, 2010. International Energy Agency: World Energy Outlook 2010. Available
from: http://www.iea.org/weo/2010.asp (accessed 2.04.12).
Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption. Centre for Environmental
Strategy, University of Surrey. Available from: http://www.c2p2online.com/
documents /MotivatingSC.pdf.
Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental
Education Research 8 (3), 239260.
Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A., 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Logica, 2008. Turning Concern into Action: Energy Efciency and the European
Customer. Available from: http://www.efonet.org/index.php?option=com_
docman&task=doc_details&gid=49&Itemid=41.
Lutzenhiser, L., 1993. A cultural model of household energy consumption. Energy
17 (1), 4760.
Lutzenhiser, L., 2008. Setting the Stage: Why Behaviour is Important. BECC
Conference, Sacramento, CA. Available from: http://piee.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/
docs/behavior /becc/2007/presentations/0T-Lutzenhiser.pdf.
Mahapatra, K., Gustavsson, L., 2010. Adoption of innovative heating systemsneeds
and attitudes of Swedish homeowners. Energy Efciency 3, 118.
Marechal, K., 2009. An evolutionary perspective on the economics of energy
consumption: the crucial role of habits. Journal of Economic Issues 43 (1),
6988.
Martinsson, J., Lundqvist, L.J.., Sundstrm, A., 2011. Energy saving in Swedish
households. The (relative) importance of environmental attitudes. Energy
Policy 39 (9), 51825191.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000. Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to
community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 543554.
 J.C. Sweeney et al. / Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371381
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Nemiroff, L.S., Beers, L., Desmarais, S., 1995. Determinants of
responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues 51 (4), 139156.
Mirosa, M., Lawson, R., Gnoth, D., 2013. Linking personal values to energy efcient
behaviours in the home. Environment and Behavior 45 (4), 455475.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks.
Nair, G., Gustavsson, L., Mahapatra, K., 2010. Factors inuencing energy efciency
investments in existing Swedish residential buildings. Energy Policy 38, 29562963.
Nye, M., Hargreaves, T., 2009. Exploring the social dynamics of proenvironmental
behavior change. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14 (1), 137149.
Ofce of Energy (OOE), 2011. Energy 2031. Strategic Energy Initiative. Directions
Paper. Government of Western Australia Ofce of Energy, Perth. Available from:
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypa
per/3813100cb1e5bc616f7914cc48257855000f71a1/$le/3100-15.03.11.pdf
(accessed 10.06.12).
lander, F., Thgersen, J., 1995. Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite
for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy 18, 345385.
Osbaldiston, R., Sheldon, K.M., 2003. Promoting internalized motivation for envir-
onmentally responsible behaviour: a prospective study of environmental goals.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (4), 349357.
Osborn, H.F., 1917. Heritage and Habitus. Science 45 (1174), 660661.
Owens, S., Drifll, L., 2008. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context
of energy. Energy Policy 36 (18), 44124418.
Perrels, A., Ostertag, K., Henderson, G., 2006. Reshaping markets for the benet of
energy saving. Energy Policy 34 (2), 121128.
Pierce, J., Schiano, D.J., Paulos, E., 2010. Home, habits, and energy: examining
domestic interactions and energy consumption. In: Proceedings of the 28th
International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association
of Computing Machinery, New York, NY.
Press, M., Arnould, E.J., 2009. Constraints of sustainable energy consumption:
market system and public policy challenges and opportunities. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing 28 (1), 102113.
Reckwitz, A., 2002. Toward a theory of social practices. A development in culturalist
theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2), 243263.
Schatzki, T.R., 2001. Introduction. Practice theory. In: Schatzki, T.R., Knorr Cetina, K.,
von Savigny, E. (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Routledge,
London, UK, pp. 114.
Schultz, P.W., 2002. Knowledge, information, and household recycling: examining
the knowledge-decit model of behavior change. In: Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. (Eds.),
New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Volun-
tary Measures. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 6782.
381
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., Griskevicius, V., 2007. The
constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psycholo-
gical Science 18 (5), 429434.
Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social
change. Environment and Planning A 42 (6), 12731285.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review
and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (8), 309317.
Stephenson, J., Barton, B., Carrington, G., Gnoth, D., Lawson, R., Thorsnes, O., 2010.
Energy cultures: a framework for understanding energy behaviours. Energy
Policy 38 (10), 61206129.
Stewart, D., Shamdasani, P., 1990. Focus Group: Theory and Practice. Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N., Rook, D.W., 2006. Focus Groups: Theory and
Practice, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Strengers, Y., 2010. Air-conditioning Australian households: the impact of dynamic
peak pricing. Energy Policy 39 (1), 73127321.
Thgersen, J., Grnhj, A., 2010. Electricity saving in householdsa social cognitive
approach. Energy Policy 38 (12), 77327743.
Turnbull, M., 2007. World rst! Australia Slashes Greenhouse Gases From Inef-
cient Lighting [press release]. Available from: http://www.energyrating.com.
au/pubs/2007-minister-env-light-bulb-ban.pdf (accessed 8.05.12).
Vallerand, R.J., Ratelle, C.F., 2002. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: a hierarchical
model. In: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), The Handbook of Self-determination
Research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY.
Wang, C.K., Khoo, A., Liu, W.C., Divaharan, S., 2008. Passion and intrinsic motivation
in digital gamins. Cyber Psychology & Behaviour 11, 3945.
Webb, F. 2011. Tidy St: Shining a light on community energy efciency. The Guardian
12 April. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/
apr/12/energy-use-households-monitor-electricity (accessed 20.06.12).
Weber, R.P., 1985. Basic Content Analysis. Sage Publications Inc, Beverly Hills.
Williams, G.C., Lynch, M., Glasgow, R.E., 2007. Computer-assisted intervention
improves patient-centred diabetes care by increasing autonomy support.
Health Psychology 26 (6), 728734.
Winton, L., 2005. Final Report on a Consumer Research Study About Compact
Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs). Prepared for the Australian Government Department
of the Environment and Heritage. Australian Greenhouse Ofce. Artcraft
Research. Available from: http://energyrating.com.au/library/pubs/200615-con
sumer-rpt-cs.pdf.
Yumuk, A., 2002. Letting go of control to the learners: the role of the Internet in
promoting a more autonomous view of learning in an academic translation
course. Educational Research 44 (2), 141156.