1. Subtasks of Task XXIV
IEA DSM Implementing Agreement
Task 24
Dr Ruth Mourik Operating Agent,
IEA DSM workshop Norway May 27-28 2013
Analysing how to start
‘Closing’ the Loop -
Behaviour Change in DSM: From Theory to Practice

2. 2
Discussing first attempt at analysing
templates with cases Subtask 1
1. National experts present from Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,
UK, Belgium, New Zealand, Netherlands
2. Decide on focus of analysis
3. Collectively draft first set of recommendations target group
Task 24
Aim of today

3. 3
Helicopter Overview of Models, Frameworks and
Disciplines
1. Identify the range of behavioural models/theories in a variety of
end-use sectors.
2. Understand the benefits of applying different models to different
contexts (target group, targeted behaviour, country, scale,
technology, timing etc).
3. Identify monitoring and evaluation metrics.
Subtask I

4. 4
Key questions in mind when analysing:
1. Impact of a chosen theory or model on design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation?
2. Theoretical perspective best suited to successful outcomes?
3. Elements of interventions that work across implementations?
4. Recommendations for policymakers to facilitate, support,
undertake the best deployment of interventions?
5. Issues cross-thematically?
Aim of analysis

5. 5
Target Audience of Task XXIVTarget themes
Analysis work in progress
1. Building retrofits
2. Transport
3. Smart metering: June
4. SMEs: June

6. 6
Retrofitting cases
Country case Theory or model used P o l i c y o r
S o c i e t a l l y
driven
Netherlands Blok voor Blok aanpak, retrofitting
programme
Behavioural economics policyNetherlands
Energy labelling of houses Behavioural economics policy
New Zealand Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smartsocial marketing; social norms;
classical economic;TPB
policy
Switzerland Swiss Building Retrofit Program Classical Economics policySwitzerland
2000 Watts Society (housing) Ethics, long-term visioning policy
Norway Myhrerenga Housing Cooperative, a
user initiated retrofitting of a
housing cooperative
TPB societally
Sweden Sustainable Järva (Hållbara Järva). Systems approach societally
UK Kirklees Warmzone classical economics policy

7. 7
‘Our’ retrofitting projects and programmes use
implicitly at least:
1. Classical economics (BvB)
2. Impact on design, implementation, monitoring:
• Focus on economic and information deficit
barriers
• Offer financial benefits or penalise financially
• Do not target other motivations
• Target mainly/only individual hh level
• Focused on one-off investment behaviour
• Technocratic/ supply side driven
Observations retrofitting
1

8. 8
‘Our’ retrofitting projects and programmes implicitly
use:
1. Behavioural economics (Kirklees,WUNZ)
• Financial benefits and information
• Nudging
• Institutional changes
• Providing technological or infrastructural support
• Target mainly/only individual hh level
• Sometimes use social marketing/social norms
• Focused on one-off investment behaviour
• Technocratic/supply side driven
Observations retrofitting
2

9. 9
Problematic approaches? Many work well:
• subsidy used to the max
• Freeriders upgrade their plans
• Many homes insulated
• Sometimes even a new norm seems to be emerging…
But:
• One-off programmes, no continuity after insulation
• Paradox: demand for information!
• A lot of prefinancing required…
• Only financial and technological tailoring
• Hardly no flexibility or participation
• Only fostering self-interested motivations (money): bigger
picture ignored
• Not focused on changing use patterns (routine behaviour)
So: danger of rebound
And:Will this really change the building sector?
Observations retrofitting
3

10. 10
Several of ‘our’ retrofitting cases use (behavioural) economics +
more sociological, STS like approaches (SJ,WUNZ, MY)
1. Longer term perspective
2. Collaboration of multiple parties: multiple benefits
3. Focus on creating trusted messengers and market parties
(audits, certification schemes, quality standards, energy labeling,
provider training etc)
4. More focus on institutional capacity building
5. Targeting needs central: also non-energy!
6. More pre-scoping to understand what and why of behaviour
7. More engagement and participation/co-design
8. Peer to peer training
9. Targeting social norms
10. Focus on lifestyles: beyond retrofitting
Observations retrofitting
4

11. 11
What about targets, monitoring and evaluation?
• Not a lot of monitoring (more evaluation)
• Often one-off monitoring, not always check
• Monitoring + evaluation : technological, financial
• Area insulated, C)2 reduction, number of subsidies, number
of homes reached
• Modelled, not real savings (! Misuse, rebound, spin-offs)
• Not a lot of benchmarking (ok for retrofitting)
• No flexibility: easy monitoring/evaluation
• What about feedback to hh? Hardly ever taking place in
economic informed programmes…. Up to hh to do it..
• Some also analysed opinions of hh: allows for more effective
future programmes: social learning
Observations retrofitting
5

12. 12
What about targets, monitoring and evaluation?
Some programmes monitor and evaluate more:
• Number participating 3rd parties
• Social norm
• Industry growth, job growth
• Humidity, room temperature
• Sometimes more energy use is good! Too narrow evaluation is
missing the point…: decrease sickdays, fewer days off school,
less GP visits
• Flexibility: challenge (BvB) and opportunity (Swiss) equality
(NZ)
• Small, bottum-up: challenge
• More systemic monitoring better?
• Social learning and experimenting?
Observations retrofitting
6

13. 13
1. Difficult to assess success:
1. CE, BE informed interventions ‘easy’ to assess but mainly
only cost effectiveness and calculated savings
2. System perspective interventions difficult to calculate
2. Theories or models mainly used implicitly?
3. Retrofitting not very visible/difficult to create desire through
visibility (labels are opportunity)
4. Retrofitting can be gateway, point of passage to habit change
5. Monitoring and evaluation often not meaningful
6. Monitoring and feedback can be powerful creators of social
norms
General conclusions
retrofitting....

14. 14
1. Too little attention for lifestyle and social dimension and
end-users need and demands?
2. More evidence based policy based on actual pre-scoping?
3. Facilitate demand driven interventions? But how to
monitor?
4. Supply driven ok, but then also tackle infra, institutional and
technological market development
5. Target the collective?
6. Does it make sense to go one by one (e.g. Subsidy
programmes)?
General conclusions
retrofitting....

15. 15
Mobility cases
Country Name of Programme Theory or model used Policy or
Societally
driven
Netherlands The New Driving, Het nieuwe Rijden Psychological theories on
motivations
PolicyNetherlands
Congestion pricing, spitsmijden Behavioural economics policy
New Zealand Fuel Efficient Driver Training ProgrammeValue Action gap policyNew Zealand
Active A2B programme Norm Activation Theory policy
Switzerland 2000Watts mobility policySwitzerland
Purchasing of fuel efficient cars Theory Planned Behaviour
Norm Activation Theory
policy
Norway Nobil : a database for an EV charging
grid informational system
Theory Planned Behaviour policy
Sweden Stockholm congestion pricing transport
project and Sustainable Jarvä?
Activity based models policy

16. 16
Several of ‘our’ mobility cases (driving, buying, using) are (often
explicitly!) informed by theories and models from psychology
1. Murray & Sachs descriptive psychological theory on
motivations car use (socio-historical value car with
psychological needs)
2. Theory of Planned Behaviour (behaviour influenced by
intention, intention influenced by attitude and norms and
perceived behavioural control)
3. Value Action Gap theory (criticism on reasoned action) :
behaviour complex process with social, individual and
institutional barriers (individual, responsibility, practical)
4. Norm Activation Theory: social norms need to be activated by
cues and reminders
5. Time geography…
Observations mobility 1

17. 17
Several of ‘our’ mobility cases (driving, buying, using) are (often explicitly!)
informed by theories and models from psychology
1. Murray Sacs: New driving NL:
• target feeling of power/status (reduce it)
• Recommendation: Create new institutions, infra, tech and social
norms and concrete actions to perform
• In practice….
• feedback on individual level from car, but not monitored
2. NAM:Active a2b:
• target habits, other needs: health and wellbeing:
• Provided cues and reminders, commitment, personal support
• no infra…
• Normalising norms through storytelling
• Leveraging change moments
• Feedback on individual and personal level
Observations mobility 2

18. 18
Several of ‘our’ mobility cases (driving, buying, using) are (often explicitly!)
informed by theories and models from psychology
1. TPB: Swiss and Norwegian purchasing programmes:
• targeting information deficit,
• communicating new social norm
2. VAG: driver training
• Use trusted and respected role model trainers
• Tailor to end-users
• Show the gap, train closing the gap
• Normalising norm through storytelling
• Collective level: involved direct social environment
3. Time geography (Swedish pricing)
• Nudging via infra, new parking, enhanced public transport
• Tax levy
Observations mobility 3

19. 19
Evaluation and monitoring
• How to evaluate success:
• Many outcomes (symbolic meaning change, social norm) very difficult
to measure
• A lot of interrelated factors influencing “measurable” outcomes (air
quality, traffic accidents)
• So often evaluation based on calculated cost effectiveness…
• Actual change hardly ever measured, self reported or
calculated is the standard…underuse of tech options?
• Evaluating cost-effectiveness. Distributive issues?
• Mismatch between aims and monitoring evaluation? Active a2b:
health and wellbeing monitored?
• Often targets are on societal level but actions on individual..
Observations mobility 4

20. 20
1. Theories or models mainly used explicitly…?
2. Storytelling very powerful to avoid social dilemma
3. Peer training essential (learning to cycle, drive, save fuel)
4. Programmes hardly ever about sustainability or money!
5. Mostly all do pre-scoping! Evidence based…
6. Importance of urban design and accompanying infra
appreciated
7. Capacity building and habit breaking central to many
programmes.
8. Often mix of interventions
9. Getting people to use the car less proves difficult (Sweden
exception?), mostly about using it differently….
10. Direct social environment hardly tackled (work, family, friends,
colleagues)
General conclusions
mobility

21. 21
We need to make decisions on:
Select case studies to focus on in Subtask 2?
1. Use subtask 2 outcomes of inventory country specific and
domain specific questions? e.g. NL:
• Buildings: principal agent issues and acceptance of retrofitting
• Transport: how to reduce and shift use, how to deal with the
meaning of the car
• SMEs: black box.... what can SMEs actually do?
• Smart Metering: interfacing, feedback, trust, who is to do it, control
issues
2. Which target group we are doing this analysis for and
how to present the findings to them?
• Intermediaries/practitioners
• Policymakers
• (Research) funders/investors
• Technology developers, industry
Open Q to be discussed
today

22. questions or comments?