Document Server@UHasselt >
Research publications >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Are dwellers deliberative or heuristic in their decisions to invest in energy efficient renovation measures?|
|Authors: ||Taranu, Victoria|
|Issue Date: ||2017|
|Publisher: ||ABA Intercopy|
|Citation: ||Lindström, Therese Laitinen; Blume, Ylva; Regebro, Margareta (Ed.). Consumption, Efficiency & Limits. ECEEE Summer Study Proceedings, ABA Intercopy,p. 1979-1988|
|Series/Report: ||ECEEE Summer Study proceedings|
|Abstract: ||In order to develop behaviourally-informed policies it is important to understand the mechanisms behind investment decisions in energy efficient (EE) renovation. This study contributes to understanding both deliberative and heuristic thinking of house owners. Unlike previous research, it does not limit to testing biases in isolation, but explores the balance between deliberative/heuristic thinking. The undertaken survey (n=178) consists of two parts complementing each other: a ranking exercise and a labelled choice experiment (CE).
The ranking exercise consists in pairs of questions with arguments in favour of and against undertaking five EE renovation measures. It aims at verifying whether deliberative or heuristic thinking prevails. For example, a deliberative reasoning is “It is good for the environment to save energy”, denoting slow, self-aware thinking based on values, beliefs and personal norms. An example of heuristic thinking is “All my neighbours have changed their windows” denoting social norm bias that works as a shortcut. The labelled CE further explores motivations to undertake renovation measures. Respondents had to choose between four measures, with varying levels of the following characteristics: visual changes, thermal comfort obtained, CO2 reduction, investment cost, hassle during renovation and source of advice.
By joining insights from both parts of the survey we can assess the consistency and draw conclusions. Results of the ranking exercise show that arguments in favour of uptake are mostly deliberative, whereas arguments against depend on whether the respondent installed the measure or not. The relevance of investment cost and reduction in CO2 in the adoption intention was reconfirmed by the CE. Since deliberative reasoning such as monetary and CO2 savings are already perceived as motivations while investment cost is still a barrier for those who did not install the measures, providing information on financing schemes might be more effective than underlining monetary savings.|
|Type: ||Proceedings Paper|
|Appears in Collections: ||Research publications|
Files in This Item:
|N/A||341.2 kB||Adobe PDF|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.