Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies Linda Steg, Lieke Dreijerink & Wokje...

Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies

Linda Steg, Lieke Dreijerink & Wokje Abrahamse

Department of Psychology

University of Groningen

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/caglecards/main.asp?image=/news/EnvironmentMadden/environmentCartoonGIFS/fridges%20global%20warming.gif

Policy acceptance

• Stern (2000): acceptance of policies is a type of nonactivist behaviour in the public sphere that can be explained by behavioural models

• Acceptability dependent on individual characteristics and policy characteristics

Background / Method / Results / Conclusion

IAPS 2004: Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies

Research questions

• Can acceptability of energy saving policies be explained by VBN theory?

• Which policy characteristics explain acceptability of energy saving policies?



VBN theory of environmentalism



ProenvironmentalValues Beliefs personal norms Behaviour

Biospheric Ecological Adverse Perceived Sense of Behaviourworldview consequences ability to obligation to

Altruistic (NEP) for valued reduce threat takeobjects proenvironmental

Egoistic actions

Policy characteristics

Acceptability of energy saving policies is

dependent on various policy characteristics:• Reward (pull) or punishment (push) • One shot versus curtailment• Direct versus indirect energy savings• Revenue use:

– Push more acceptable if revenues used in same domain– Pull more acceptable if financed from general funds



Questionnaire study

• Questionnaires and reply paid envelope distributed in the city of Groningen

• 112 respondents

• Response 39%



Questionnaire: VBN• Short version of Schwartz’ value scale.

Confirmative factor analysis, 3 scales:– Egoistic value orientation (4 items): α = .65

– Altruistic value orientation (4 items): α = .72

– Ecocentric value orientation (4 items): α = .83

• Revised NEP (15 items): α = .73

• Confirmative factor analysis, 3 scales:– Awareness of consequences (AC, 6 items): α = .75

– Ascription of responsibility (AR, 6 items): α = .80

– Personal norm (PN, 9 items): α = .84



Questionnaire: policy characteristics

• Evaluate acceptability of 16 policy measures that systematically vary on the four policy characteristics

• Conjoint analysis: acceptability depend on (combination of) policy characteristics?

• Mean acceptability judgments used as dependent variable in regression analysis to test VBN theory; α = .90



Definition of policy characteristics

1. Push: increase price environmentally unsound behaviour by 10%Pull: decrease prices of environmentally sound behaviour by 10%

2. One shot: buy energy efficient productsCurtailment: use of products

3. Direct: use of electricity, natural gas, fuels Indirect: energy use for production,

distribution and disposal of goods4. Within domain: energy related

Outside domain: general governmental funds



Examples of policy measures

1. Push – one shot - direct – within domain:

Increase prices of appliances that are not energy efficient. Revenues are used to stimulate the development of energy efficient appliances

2. Pull – curtailment – indirect – outside domain:

Reduce prices of local seasonal vegetables and fruit (not raised in hothouses). The subsidies are funded from general public funds.



Test VBN theory


Acceptability

Eco

Altruistic

Ego

NEP AC AR PN

β=.37β=.20β=.36β=.50

β=-.12

β=-.08

β=.16 β=.25β=.35

PN → Acceptability: R2=.29 NEP → AC: R2=.28

Values → NEP: R2=.25AR → PN: R2=.32, incl. Eco R2=.49

AC → AR: R2=.21, incl. Eco R2=.29


Conjoint analysis acceptability: main effects


1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Pull Push One shot Curtailment Direct Indirect

Acc

epta

bil

ity

** **

Conjoint analysis acceptability: interaction effect


** **

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Push Pull

Mea

n a

ccep

tab

ilit

y

Within domain Outside domain

Conclusions: VBN theory

• VBN theory is suitable to explain acceptability of energy saving policies

• Test model fit with structural equation models (e.g., Lisrel, Amos)



Conclusions: policy characteristics

• Most hypotheses confirmed:– Pull more acceptable than push– One shot behaviour more acceptable than

curtailment– Direct versus indirect energy use n.s.– Push measures more acceptable if revenues

used in same domain, pull measures n.s.



Conclusion

• Acceptability of energy savings policies depend on individual characteristics and policy characteristics



Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies Linda Steg, Lieke Dreijerink & Wokje...

Documents

Transcript of Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies Linda Steg, Lieke Dreijerink & Wokje...