Survey‐based Results on Environmentally Friendly Behavior
Heidi Bruderer Enzler & Andreas Diekmann, ETH Zurich ([email protected])
Gap Between Rational and Observed Behavior
Method: General Population Survey
Not even those pro‐environmental behaviors that pay off financially are implemented systematically (cf. "energy efficiency gap").
Swiss Environmental Survey 2007 (First Wave – Study II)
Possible explanation: Lacking future orientation Example: If I invest in a thermal insulation now (up‐front costs, effort), the benefits will only occur later (lower running costs, environmental conservation).
Representative random sample of Swiss residents ≥18 years who were sufficiently fluent in German, French or Italian and whose households had a phonebook entry
CATI (n = 3,369, response rate 52%), followed by written questionnaire (n = 2,798, 83% of 3,369)
Second Wave in 2011 (Study I and II)
Central hypothesis: Future‐oriented persons behave more environmentally friendly than present‐oriented persons.
Paper‐and‐pencil (n = 1,945; 77% of those reached; 58% of the initial participants in 2006/2007)
Different research traditions assess future/present orientation in different ways: Psychologists by means of scales (Study I), economists by means of discount rates (Study II).
Further details: http://www.socio.ethz.ch/forschung/umweltsurvey.html
Study I: Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC)
Study II: Subjective Discount Rate (SDR)
The CFC scale1 captures the extent to which a person is driven by short‐term rewards or orients himself or herself toward long‐term goals.
SDR capture the extent to which someone devalues future rewards. Thus: High SDR ≈ present‐oriented person. Low SDR ≈ future‐oriented person. CFC‐
Total
4 items reflecting future orientation, such as:
I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness CFC‐Future
or well‐being in order to achieve future outcomes.
5 items on orientation towards immediate gains, such as: I think that sacrificing now is usually unnecessary CFC‐Immediate
since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time.
1
Structure?
CFC‐
Future
CFC‐
Immediate
Behavior?
Original scale with 12 items was developed by Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger & Edwards (1994)
Main research questions (see Figure 1) Factorial structure (CFC‐Total vs. CFC‐Future and CFC‐Immediate Relationship to pro‐environmental behavior
Efficiency‐
increasing behavior
Curtailment behavior
Figure 1: Questions regarding the CFC scale
Assessed by decisions between a smaller sooner reward and a larger later reward (choice tasks, CT). Four measures, in each survey wave both a singular and a serial CT, e.g. the following serial CT: Please indicate for each of the following four decisions which payment you would rather win […]: (1) CHF 1000 in 1 year or CHF 2000 in 2 years
(2) CHF 1000 in 1 year or CHF 1500 in 2 years
(3) CHF 1000 in 1 year or CHF 1200 in 2 years
(4) CHF 1000 in 1 year or CHF 1100 in 2 years
Main research questions (see Figure 2)
Level of SDR in the general population, stability over longer periods
Relationship to pro‐environmental behavior
Level?
Stability?
SDR
Behavior?
Behavior
Figure 2: Questions regarding SDRs
Study I: Main Results
Study II: Main Results
Structure: Factor analyses (both EFA &CFA) support two‐factorial solution, highly reliable scale (internal consistency)
Level: Average SDR is well above market interest rate, >20% for all four measures
Stability: Only moderate test‐retest stability over 4 years (r ≈ .3‐.4)
Efficiency‐increasing b.
Table 2: Effects of SDR on various energy‐saving behaviors (multivariate logistic/OLS regression)
Wave 2007
Wave 2011
Outcome variable Serial CT Singular CT Serial CT Singular CT
(self‐reported behavior)
Turning off the lights when leaving a room ✗
✗
✗
✗
Avoid leaving TV on stand‐by mode ✗
✓
✓
✗
Turning radiators down when away
✗
✗
✗
✗
Opening windows for brief periods in winter
n/a
n/a
✗
✓
When feeling cold at home: environmentally friendly reaction
n/a
n/a
✓
✓
Yearly number of manual tire pressure controls on car
n/a
n/a
✗
✗
Annual heating costs (log., OLS) (positive sign expected!)
n/a
n/a
✗
✗
Use of energy‐saving light bulbs
✗
✗
✗
✗
Thermal insulation of outer walls
n/a
n/a
✗
✗
Thermal insulation of roof or attic floor n/a
n/a
✗
✗
Thermal insulation of basement
n/a
n/a
✗
✗
Thermal insulation
n/a
n/a
✗
✗
High quality windows n/a
n/a
✗
✗
Hypothetical choice of refrigerator (2007) / light bulb (2011) ✓
✓
✗
✓
Curtailment
Curtailment
Table 1. Effects of CFC on various behaviors (multivariate logistic/OLS regression)
Models with both
Outcome variable Models with
(self‐reported behavior)
CFC‐Total
CFC‐Future CFC‐Immediate
Turning off lights when leaving a room ✓
✓
✓
Avoid leaving TV on stand‐by ✓
✓
✓
Turning radiators down when away
✗
✓
✗
Opening windows for brief periods
✓
✗
✓
Days a week with meat (OLS)
✓
✓
✓
Use of recycled toilet paper
✓
✓
✓
Use of tumble dryer
✓
✓
✓
Recycling of energy‐saving light bulbs
✓
✓
✓
Room temperature in winter [°C] (OLS)
✓
✓
✓
Annual heating costs (log.) (OLS)
✓
✓
✗
Use of energy‐saving light bulbs
✗
✗
✗
Thermal insulation of outer walls
✗
✗
✗
Thermal insulation of roof or attic floor
✗
✗
✗
Thermal insulation of basement
✗
✗
✗
High‐quality windows
✗
✗
✗
Solar panels
✓
✓
✓
Heat pump or wood‐based heating
✗
✓
✗
High‐quality windows
✗
✗
✗
Behavior: See Table 2 – Mostly non‐significant results (29 out of 34) => No support for hypothesis that SDR and energy saving are related.
Efficiency‐increasing b.
Behavior: See Table 1 – More future‐oriented & less present‐oriented persons behave more environmentally friendly behavior Notes: ✓= Effect as expected and significant; ✗= Effect not significant; n/a = the respective outcome variable is not available. CT = choice task. All analyses were limited to the relevant sub‐population (e.g. home owners or their partners).
Overall Conclusion
References
Questionable whether SDR reflect a trait ‐ Moderate stability
‐ SDR does not predict pro‐environmental behavior consistently
Bruderer Enzler, H. (2015). Consideration of Future Consequences as a Predictor of Environmentally Responsible Behavior: Evidence From a General Population Study. Environment and Behavior, 47(6), 618‐643.
Bruderer Enzler, H., Diekmann, A., & Meyer, R. (2014). Subjective discount rates in the general population and their predictive power for energy saving behavior. Energy Policy, 65, 524‐540.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The Consideration of Future Consequences: Weighting Immediate and Distant Outcomes of Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742‐752.
CFC scale is reliable and as expected related to behavior
‐ Added value of distinguishing subscales is to determine
Behavioral measures are not necessarily superior to psychological scales
Use of psychological scales may be advisable (e.g. CFC, self‐control, impulsivity) v1 hbe
Notes: ✓= Effect as expected and significant; ✗= Effect not significant. All analyses are limited to the relevant sub‐population (e.g. home owners or their partners).