This research highlights an interesting finding comparing energy use in the residential sector in the United Kingdom and Australia. Energy consumed per capita is largely similar, however the energy available is manifestly different. Australia is blessed with a greater abundance of energy than the United Kingdom. Particularly, in the main area of study in Australia, Victoria state, Brown coal is easy and cheap to access. It is therefore politically more difficult to argue that the population affords more expensive sustainable energy resources even though Australia is one of the countries that can readily produce this type of energy. Britain, however, is a net importer of energy. A large proportion of this energy is natural gas which is a fossil fuel, and therefore contributes to the negative effects of climate change. The findings of this research focus on what motivates residential users of energy to use energy more sustainably. It presents the conclusions of previous research as a backdrop, and reveals the complexity of occupant behaviour. Key drivers are financial incentives and the role of large organisations such as governments in influ-encing behaviour. This may take significant time.
The purpose of this research is to explore residential energy use in two developed countries, the UK and Australia. Few studies have been done comparing motivation behind such energy use in these two countries. This research looks at the comparative energy use in both countries along with the motivational factors that create the demand for energy in the residential sector, particularly in terms of behavioural economics.
The UK and Australia have very different energy regimes. The UK is a net importer of energy [
Since the 1980s, the UK has had a number of energy efficiency schemes (see
The Green Deal was the U.K.’s most recent experience of a direct residential energy incentive scheme, and this was started in January 2013 and ended in July 2015 when all future funding ceased.
With regard to Australia, around the time of the publication of the Stern review [
Year | Energy Efficiency Scheme | Rationale |
---|---|---|
1989 | Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) | To support nuclear power |
1990 | Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) | To additionally support renewable energy |
2000 | Climate Change Programme | To reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change (including promoting better energy efficiency in the domestic sector and improving the energy efficiency requirements of the building regulations) |
2001 | Climate Change Levy (CCL) | To tax nondomestic intensive energy users in industry and the public sector. (Renewable energy suppliers were exempt) |
2001 | Climate Change Agreement | Intensive energy companies who accepted the Climate Change Agreement, could get a discount on the CCL tax of 80%. |
2002 | The Renewables Obligation Order | Required electricity end suppliers to purchase a proportion of their electricity energy supply from renewable technologies, receiving tradable renewable obligation certificates in return (ROC’s). |
2002 | Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) | Required energy suppliers to achieve a target level of energy savings over the time period to 2005, via facilitating implementation of domestic energy efficiency improvements. |
2005 | Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) | A second phase of EEC was implemented between 2005 and 2008 |
2005 | European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) | To comply with the Kyoto Protocol. Tradable permits introduced and divided amongst firms in sectors covered by the agreement. |
2007 | Code for Sustainable Homes | To establish minimum energy performance standards for the construction of new houses. 25% energy improvement required over 2006 building regulations. |
2008 | Climate Change Act | To set a legally binding target of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. Carbon budgets set for five year periods by appointed Committee on Climate Change. |
2009 | Low Carbon Transition Plan | Set out policies to reduce emissions across key sectors. |
2008 | Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) | Replaced the Energy Efficiency Commitment. Greater focus on increased domestic energy saving measures and increased commitment to target fuel poverty. |
2008 | Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation | Requires a specific percentage of UK road fuel to be from renewables. |
2008 | Energy performance certificates (EPC’s) | EPC’s give an energy performance rating |
2009 | Community Energy Saving Programme | To address fuel poverty in the UK via energy suppliers facilitating domestic energy efficiency improvements. |
2010 | Code for Sustainable Homes | Code revised to improve energy efficiency |
2010 | Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme | A mandatory scheme to improve energy efficiency and cut emissions in large public and private sector organisations |
---|---|---|
2010 | Feed in Tariffs | A subsidy provided for electricity which is fed into the grid by small-scale low carbon generation. |
2010 | Energy Act (2010) | To provide funding for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) |
2011 | The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future | Proposed a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions in the government sector up to 2020 |
2012 | Green Investment Bank | Capital funding for projects that will assist the transition to low carbon growth. |
2012 | Renewable Heat Incentive | Support for renewable heat installations for the non-domestic sector |
2012 | Energy Bill, 2012 | Formally introduced the Green Deal |
2013 | Renewable Heat Incentive | Support for renewable heat installations for the domestic sector |
2013 | Smart Meter Rollout | To install smart electricity and gas meters to every household |
In 2012 the Australian government signed up to phase 2 of the Kyoto protocol. An unconditional emissions target of a 5% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020 was agreed upon. A carbon pricing mechanism was introduced on 1 July 2012, and with this instrument in place Australia’s net emissions were expected to be limited to 537 Mt CO2-e in 2020, which represented 155 Mt CO2-e of abatement in 2020. The scheme required enterprises which emitted over 25,000 tonnes per year of CO2-e and which were not in the transport or agriculture sectors to purchase emissions permits, initially at $23 per tonne of carbon emissions.
The pricing of carbon dioxide emissions formed part of a broader package called the Clean Energy Future Plan. This aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. The scheme was managed by the Clean Energy Regulator, with the intention that industry and households could be compensated for increased costs by the revenue derived from the carbon pricing. Initially the price of a permit to emit one tonne of carbon was fixed at $23 for the 2012-13 financial year, with unlimited permits being available from the Government. This fixed price rose to $24.15 for 2013-14. The government announced that the scheme would transition to an emissions trading scheme in 2014-15, where available permits would be limited in line with a pollution cap.
However, in September 2013 in a federal election a Liberal Government replaced the incumbent Labour Government. One of the election pledges of the new government was their intention to scrap the carbon tax, and this was formally abolished on 1 July 2014. While the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions remains in place (i.e. by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2000 levels by 2050), the new government intends to do this through their Plan for a Cleaner Environment [
Because of the federal nature of Australia, which is a vast country with energy segmented amongst the states and territories, there are still significant policy barriers which exist at the federal and state levels. For example, current policy inherently favours mature technologies which are perceived to have the lowest investment risk. Greater support for variable renewable technologies which might prove more efficient in reducing emissions is needed, particularly solar power and wind power [
In 2006 Victoria (where part of this study was undertaken) became the first state to have a renewable energy target of 10% by 2016. In 2010 the target was increased to 25% by 2020 [
Wilson & Dowlatabadi [
It can be seen there are many different models of decision-making and behaviour to consider. Decision-making can be broadly grouped into psychological and contextual domains. Psychological elements include values, attitudes and personal norms. Contextual elements include the available choices, economic incentives, social norms, technologies, and infrastructures.
Wilson & Dowlatabadi contrast the research that centres on the individual as a decision maker with that which emphasises the social and technological construction of behaviour (i.e. behaviour as a group). Despite this there are lessons to be learned from each research tradition when considering interventions. The key influences on decision-making need to be identified within a particular context. Their research cites the relevance of all the decision-making models to some aspect of residential energy use. They acknowledge that it is a challenge to combine different models of behaviour, particularly social and economic. This is an argument for further research in this area, to define the extent with which different models of behaviour can be integrated.
Main Features | Conventional Economics | Behavioural Economics | Technology Diffusion | Social Psychology | Sociology |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Decision model | Utility maximisation based on fixed and consistent preferences | Widely varying decision heuristics and context-dependent preferences | Attitude-based evaluation of technologies and the consequences of adoption | Interacting psychological and contextual variables | Sociotechnical construction of demand |
Decision scale | Individual | Individual | Individual/social | Individual/social | Social |
Main research methods | Quantitative (observed behaviour) | Quantitative (controlled experiments) | Quantitative and qualitative (surveys, interviews, observed behaviour) | Quantitative and qualitative (surveys, interviews, observed behaviour) | Qualitative (interviews, observation) |
Main dependent variables | Preferences between decision outcomes | Preferences between decision outcomes | Rate of diffusion | Self-reports of behaviour and/or energy use | Observed are self-reported behaviour |
Main independent variables | Costs and benefits of outcomes and their respective weightings | Aspects of the decision frame, context, and elicitation method, as well as outcomes | Adopt a role in social networks, communication channels, technology attributes, and leadership of adopter | Values, attitudes, norms, sociodemographics, economic incentives, skills, capabilities, and resources | Social, cultural and technical determinants of energy demand embedded in routine behaviour |
Empirical basis in energy use | Extensive | Very little | Some | Extensive | Some |
Implications for interventions to reduce residential energy use | Provide information about benefits and incentives to improve cost benefit ratio and improve cognitive capacity to assess net benefits/utility | Pay attention to framing and reference points for decisions, influence, heuristic selection by emphasising associations or emotive attributes, controlled choice sets and default options | Segments target population, exploit communications channels through social networks and use change agents, identify stage of decision process and target groups and use appropriate change mechanisms, ensure desired technology. Our behaviour has key attributes | Influence attitudes only if external conditions are weak, use multiple interventions with due attention to interaction effects, identify and target barriers, design salient and personally relevant information, values provided disposition for a long term change | Work towards long-term sociotechnical regime change, exploit opportunities of transition, recognise the social role of routine are habitual behaviour, manage expectations |
Timescales for interventions | Short-term | Short-term | Short to medium term | Short to medium term | Long-term |
A specialist on behavioural economics, a recurrent theme of Thaler [
These ideas form the foundation of Thaler’s work on Nudge Theory. The theory implies public and private organisations can help people make better choices in their daily lives. It endeavours to improve perception of heuristic thinking on human behaviour, i.e. the rules of thumb and shortcuts that people adopt when making estimates and forecasts in uncertain situations. These heuristic influences are central to decision-making in trying to determine choice. People have certain tendencies, and Nudge theory seeks to promote choices which encourage helpful, positive decision-making which ideally benefit the wider interests of society.
The assumptions in Kahneman and Tversky [
・ Changes to wealth are evaluated rather than the total wealth outcome to reflect reference dependence, i.e. the change embodied in the project relative to no project is all that is considered.
・ The subjective value of wealth change is an increasing function of the positive outcome changes and a decreasing function of the negative outcome changes. However, the rate of decrease of subjective value for a negative change exceeds the rate of increase of subjective value for a positive change. This much higher subjective penalty on income or wealth loss as opposed to income or wealth gain is referred to as loss aversion. Advocates of prospect theory and behavioural economics in general believe that this contrast between the subjective value of losses and gains of equal but small arithmetic value is an observable reality. It contrasts with the assumption of risk aversion in expected utility theory where the critical factor is the variability of outcomes, but the change in subjective valuation is the same for both small-scale positive variability and small-scale negative variability.
・ Kahneman and Tversky’s experimental evidence also demonstrated that consumers do not use objective probabilities of risky outcomes directly but subjectively adjust them so that they overestimate the likelihood of extreme losses compared with observed frequencies and underestimate the likelihood of larger gains.
The chief consequence of these empirical findings embodied in Prospect Theory is that consumers will reject investments, e.g. in energy saving, that they would be predicted to adopt using standard expected utility theory. Combined with the biases and heuristics adopted in estimation of uncertain outcomes outlined in
Heuristics in “nudge” theory overview | |
---|---|
1. Anchoring and adjustment | Using known facts and adjusting them to estimate or decide something which is unknown. |
2. Familiarity | The more familiar something is, the more frequently, it is used/communicated. A misplaced sense of trust may be developed in behaving in a particular way, as well as a belief that this behaviour is valid. This heuristic is influenced by advertising and mass media. |
3. Similarity | People make heuristic assumptions on the basis of perceived similarities to stereotypes. |
4. Over-optimism | People tend to under-estimate costs, timescales, and challenges, and to over-estimate rewards and the ease of dealing with unknown things. |
5. Loss aversion | The tendency for people to value possessions more than potential possessions―this creates inertia to making changes. Irrationally, people do not like to lose possession of things, irrespective of their actual value/importance. (The assumptions in Kahneman and Tversky Prospect Theory are set out below this table). |
6. Status quo bias | People prefer the status quo and fear changing to the unknown. Status quo bias is also caused by heuristic aversion to complexity. |
7. Framing | Framing is an individual’s method of heuristically understanding reality. It can therefore include many ways of distorting the attractiveness/unattractiveness of something. |
8. Temptation | Generally people are naturally biased towards preferring short-term rewards rather than long-term rewards. |
9. Thoughtlessness | Often people tend to form views and make decisions heuristically without concentrating. This can mean they can miss making important decisions. |
10. Conforming with the population | People have the need for affirmation, and wish to avoid risk or embarrassment. Cultural factors add to these effects. |
12. Self spotlight effect | People tend to over-estimate the significance of their own decisions and actions, and how others view them. This can influence decision-making. |
13. Choice architecture | This major area overlaps several individual heuristics, and refers to the degree to which something is designed to help people understand and make the best response to it. For example, green usually means “go” and red means “stop”. |
In a development of Thaler’s work, Akerlof & Kranton [
On an economy wide scale, Akerlof & Shiller’s [
Kahneman [
System 1, which is fast, instinctive and emotional.
System 2, which is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.
He postulates that we use both systems. System 1 is informed by natural drives and instincts, and relies on heuristics (mental shortcuts) which an individual will evolve over time. While system 1 is a kind of fast mechanism to avoid danger, it feeds its experience into the slower system 2. While system 2 can take a logical view over positives and negatives in terms of decision-making, Kahneman contends that it is naturally very poor with probability and statistics (although it can be trained to improve in this respect). It is also poorly equipped to correct the errors fed through to it from system 1. As such it is not a paragon of rationality.
There are cognitive biases associated with each type of thinking. One conclusion he makes is that we place too much confidence in human judgement. If this construct is accepted, one possible lesson might be to devise energy policy to appeal to heuristic norms. Additionally, incentives may need to be large enough to outweigh any doubts about the probability of their benefit. As Akerlof and Kahneman, amongst others have argued, behavioural factors have to some extent undermined the concept of utility in economics.
All participants were chosen based on rationale which took into account the researcher’s view that they had sufficient knowledge of energy use and climate change.
The process by which qualitative data was collected and analysed (both in the UK and Australia) was as follows:
1) Key questions were drawn from the literature review.
2) Interview questions were drawn up designed to elicit the information needed to answer the key questions.
3) Interviews were conducted with participants using prepared interview questions, however, these were “open” questions as the research approach was inductive, rather than deductive. Interesting points made by the participants were followed up by further impromptu questions from the researcher.
4) Interviews were transcribed, and from the resultant text, inferential statements were associated with participants.
5) A frequency analysis was conducted in order to understand the degree to which participants’ views were aligned with the inferential statements (these inferential statements generally, but not always, could be related to perspectives in the literature review).
6) Purposive sampling [
7) The geographical location of the research participants had no primary foundation other than practicality for the researcher. Further study of other regions or nationally may determine if geography is a factor influencing the study results. However, the study allows some account to be taken of gender and age.
8) Details of the case study participants are summarised in
Participant | Gender | Age Range | Occupation | Tenure |
---|---|---|---|---|
Robert | Male | 18 to 29 | Research student | Owner |
Gwen | Female | 18 to 29 | Research student | Tenant |
Jane | Female | 30 to 40 | Research student | Tenant |
Wendy | Female | 30 to 40 | Research student | Tenant |
Anne | Female | 18 to 29 | Research student | Tenant |
Arabella | Female | 30 to 40 | Research student | Tenant |
Juliette | Female | 30 to 40 | Teacher | Owner |
Participant | Gender | Age Range | Occupation | Tenure |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bruce | Male | 18 to 29 | Student | Tenant |
Sue | Female | 30 to 40 | Mother | Owner |
Angela | Female | 40 to 50 | Research practitioner | Owner |
Mandy | Female | 18 to 19 | Interior designer | Tenant |
Tilly | Female | 60+ | Research fellow | Owner |
Ellie | Female | 50 to 60 | Librarian | Owner |
A compelling reason to involve Australian participants in this research was the developing debate on energy policy in Australia. It is a country that is actively engaged in policy debate around climate change and the environmental need to enhance sustainable energy supply. The research in Australia was also supported by access to information from the Institute for Strategic Economic Studies at Victoria University and involved discussions with other researchers involved with the energy efficiency and climate change agenda. The Institute as a whole has a strong energy-environment agenda and has been addressing a wide range of policy issues, especially in relation to buildings. In addition, the political change involving the scrapping of the carbon tax meant that it was particularly interesting to gauge the case study participant’s opinions on energy sustainability in the residential sector.
All UK participants study lived within relatively close proximity of Loughborough, East Midlands.
All of the participants involved in the Australian study lived within relatively close proximity of Melbourne, the capital of Victoria State.
A greater consideration of the methodology and sampling methods used in this research are available by reference to Hallin [
As has been discussed in section 1 there have been a series of initiatives in the UK since 1989, which has consistently increased the pressure to use energy more sustainably and efficiently throughout all sectors of the economy. All the main political parties have broadly supported this development in energy policy. In the domestic sector, the Green Deal policy did not face any significant political opposition, despite its failure. In contrast, Australian energy policy is both fragmented and in a state of flux. Victoria State does not, so far, implement residential energy regulation as part of a national structure.
The Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency [
The UK domestic sector breakdown is represented in
In 2014, energy consumption from the UK domestic sector (excluding transport use) was 38.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe).
While exactly comparable figures were unavailable for this research, it would not be unreasonable to estimate total Australian domestic energy use in 2014 as approximately 11 Mtoe. This is for a population of approximately 22 million [
In both the UK and Australia, there was overlap between individual viewpoints (See
Per capita UK/Australia Household Energy Consumption in Million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) 2014 | |
---|---|
UK | 0.6 Mtoe |
Australia | 0.5 Mtoe |
Inferred Statement | Mixed View | Negative view | Positive View | Balance of view |
---|---|---|---|---|
Collective action is important | 4 | 0 | 2 | Uncertain |
Useful if we could choose the energy we get supplied to our home | 1 | 0 | 3 | Positive |
Education is the most important thing | 2 | 2 | 3 | Uncertain |
People are influenced by the culture around them | 1 | 3 | 3 | Uncertain |
What is your attitude to nuclear power | 3 | 1 | 3 | Uncertain |
Differential tariffs are a good idea | 2 | 1 | 4 | Uncertain |
Smart meters are useful | 4 | 0 | 3 | Uncertain |
People don’t think that rationally | 0 | 0 | 7 | Positive |
The government should nudge us in the right direction | 1 | 0 | 4 | Positive |
Government regulation is important in residential energy use | 0 | 1 | 4 | Positive |
What is your view on population and energy (bad effects) | 2 | 4 | 1 | Negative |
Financial situation is the driver behind energy use | 1 | 1 | 3 | Positive |
What is your attitude to the Green Deal | 3 | 3 | 1 | Uncertain |
How would you feel about being given a personal carbon allowance | 3 | 1 | 3 | Uncertain |
Would you be prepared to pay a carbon tax | 3 | 2 | 2 | Uncertain |
Inferred Statement | Mixed View | Negative view | Positive View | Balance of view |
---|---|---|---|---|
Collective action is important | 1 | 0 | 5 | Positive |
Useful if we could choose the energy we get supplied to our home | 2 | 0 | 4 | Uncertain |
Education is the most important thing | 3 | 0 | 2 | Uncertain |
People are influenced by the culture around them | 1 | 1 | 4 | Positive |
Attitude to nuclear power | 3 | 3 | 0 | Negative |
Renewable energy could power Australia | 2 | 1 | 3 | Uncertain |
Differential tariffs are a good idea | 3 | 0 | 3 | Uncertain |
Smart meters are useful | 3 | 0 | 3 | Uncertain |
People don’t think that rationally | 1 | 0 | 4 | Positive |
The government should nudge us in the right direction | 0 | 1 | 5 | Positive |
Government regulation is important in residential energy use | 1 | 0 | 5 | Positive |
Population and energy is a problem | 0 | 1 | 5 | Positive |
Financial situation is the driver behind energy use | 0 | 0 | 6 | Positive |
How would you feel about being given a personal carbon allowance | 3 | 0 | 3 | Uncertain |
Paying a carbon tax | 2 | 1 | 3 | Uncertain |
The impact of culture on energy use was more positive in Australia than in the UK. One could argue that this may be because there is a stronger status quo bias in the UK due to its rich and ancient history. Australia in contrast is a younger country subjected to cultural influences from antipodean countries in Europe and North America as well as South East Asia. This positive outlook did not go as far as endorsing very far reaching cultural change. There was no suggestion by either participants in the UK or Australia that they would be predisposed to adopt a living systems based approach, where people live in as self sufficient a way as possible, growing part of their food and disposing of much of their own waste. as postulated by Reed [
Again in both countries there were mixed views on the value of more information regarding domestic energy use. Both smart meters and differential tariffs were seen as useful, but not necessarily very effective. Isacsson et al. [
Participants in the UK and Australia were strongly of the opinion that people did not always behave rationally with regard to their energy use. They were also strongly of the opinion that government was the best agency to both regulate energy use and influence energy use behaviour.
The effects of a vast world population in the future was considered by Australian participants to be more likely to have a negative impact on energy use (i.e. increase the use of fossil fuels, thus affecting climate change) than research participants in the UK. One interpretation of this may be that Australia is a very developed country with a very small population and an enormous land mass. The possibility of uncontrolled migration in the future could effectively mean that native Australians could become helpless with regard to managing a sustainable energy policy.
When it came to the effect of finance on energy use, most participants in both countries were clear that it was an important driver behind their energy use. However, participants in both countries had mixed views on a carbon allowance or a carbon tax. This reflected a general distaste for taxation amongst most of the participants. When they stated that they might accept some form of taxation, it was contingent on them being very clear as to how the tax might be used. The implication was that hypothecated taxation would be more acceptable.
A point worth noting is that domestic energy in Australia is required for both heating and cooling, whereas in the UK the requirement is largely for space heating. However, in Victoria state (particularly in Melbourne, where most of the research was carried out) most of the domestic energy requirement is for heating. This was confirmed by Bruce during his interview. “Yes, so I’d say 90% heating. So we’ve got an in-duct heating system so when it heats up, it heats up all the house”.
Nevertheless, Australian energy policy can be said to be a success in terms of encouraging sustainable energy use. Mountain & Szuster [
While the climate in Australia may favour solar power, the climate in the UK lends itself quite well towards the development of wind power. Given the similarity in attitudes between UK and Australian research participants, it may be that significant subsidies to encourage community wind farms on the outskirts of towns and villages, could form the basis of a successful UK domestic energy strategy.
It was interesting to note that despite very different energy regimes, common ground was found across most domestic research participants in factors that they thought would motivate them to alter their energy demand behaviour. These included financial incentives, government “nudge” to alter heuristic behaviour and government regulation. Where financial incentives could be effective in encouraging the development of sustainable solar power in Australia, this common ground could mean that along with other strategies, significant levels of financial subsidy could be effective in developing sustainable community wind power in the UK.
This research wanted to understand more clearly what would motivate residential energy users to use more sustainable forms of energy. This is against a background of a lack of clarity around occupancy behaviour with regard to energy use. Previous research tended to concentrate on one aspect that could influence residential energy behaviour. Attribution ranged from financial incentives (such as the UK Green Deal), poor cognitive choices [
Both in the UK and Australian research, participants agreed that people do not always behave rationally (it is a reasonable, rational assumption to expect that people’s attitudes influence their behaviour). This insight is important as it makes energy policy more complex.
Another important piece of knowledge with regard to both countries is that financial incentives can be very important. While this may seem obvious, what has transpired from this research is that financial incentives need to be quite large to be effective. They also need to be tailored to the individual, or at least to a group of individuals. Disparities in wealth will lead to some extent to disparities in motivation.
Despite the very different energy regimes in the UK and Australia, it was interesting to note that energy consumption per capita was similar in both countries. There were also similarities in mixed viewpoints. Participants were uncertain as to the value of better information with regard to their domestic energy use (i.e. the availability of smart meters and differential tariffs). Because the study was undertaken in two concentrated areas, the East Midlands in the UK and Melbourne in Australia, no statistical inference can be drawn from it. However the argument can be made for both countries that the findings are of interest, as the culture in other areas of each country is not manifestly different.
With regard to policy, both respondents in Australia and the UK were generally unwilling to undergo any far reaching cultural change, such as adopting a living systems-based approach. Indeed, the idea of government taking responsibility for more efficient energy use rather than the individual resonated well with both sets of participants. This included accepting government regulation as well as being “nudged” in the right direction.
This research was made possible by EPSRC support for the London-Loughborough Centre for Doctoral Research in Energy Demand, Grant Number EP/H009612/1.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Hallin, S. and Weyman-Jones, T. (2018) A Comparison of Residential Energy Demand Behaviour in Britain and Australia. Open Journal of Energy Efficiency, 7, 100-117. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojee.2018.74007