When well begun is half done
Peters, Annemijn Maron
DOI:
10.33612/diss.132605604
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Peters, A. M. (2020). When well begun is half done: How the adoption of sustainable energy technologies can lead to sustainable use of the technologies and other pro-environmental behaviours. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.132605604
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
1.
Introduction
Global climate change is largely caused by human behaviour. To combat
anthropogenic climate change, changes in human behaviour are needed (see Steg, Perlaviciute, & Van der Werff, 2015), including the adoption of sustainable energy technologies (SET). SET produce (e.g. solar photovoltaics; PV) or provide a flexible source of demand or storage (e.g. electric vehicles; EV) of sustainable energy. The adoption of SET adoption is on the rise (IEA, 2018; Eurostat, 2018). Yet, to achieve a sustainable energy transition it is important that people not only adopt these
sustainable energy technologies, but also use them in a sustainable way (sustainable SET use; Steg, Perlaviciute, & Van der Werff, 2015), such as by shifting energy use in time to match the available supply of sustainable energy. For example, people could adjust their energy demand to the production of self-generated solar energy (Geelen, Reinders, & Keyson, 2013; Van der Kam & Van Sark, 2015; Nicolson, Huebner, & Shipworth, 2017) or to times of renewable energy surplus in the grid (Babrowski, Heinrichs, Jochem, & Fichtner, 2014; Eising, van Onna, & Alkemade, 2014). Moreover, people could match energy demand and supply by installing smart technologies that automatically switch appliances on or off depending on the availability of renewable energy (Kobus, Klaassen, Mugge, & Schoormans, 2015).
Yet, sustainable technologies do not always lead to sustainable behaviour
(Nilsson, Bergstad, Thuvander, Andersson, Andersson, & Meiling, 2014; Pritoni, Meier, Aragon, Perry, & Peffer, 2015; Abrahamse, & Schwom, 2018). An example is the launch of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket into space in February 2018, with the
all-electric Tesla Roadster and dummy driver Starman mounted on the rocket1.
Hence, adopting an EV may not lead to sustainable use of EV (e.g. sending an EV to the moon, see cover) and other sustainable behaviours. Another example is that energy demand is not aligned with PV production: PV produce most energy during the day, while the demand for energy is particularly high during the morning and evening when PV production is relatively low (Bahaj & James, 2007; Van der Kam & Van Sark, 2015). Similarly, EVs are typically charged in the early evening when people return home from work, thereby increasing the peak electricity demand (Elaad, 2013). To meet these peak demands, often peak load power plants are used
1 The launch of the Tesla Roadster into space served as a test flight of the Falcon Heavy rocket. This example is
to illustrate the aim of my thesis, in which we study both the adoption and sustainable use of SET, and not to trivialize the role Tesla has in accelerating the sustainable energy transition.
which emit more CO2 compared to base load power plants (Cavoukian, Polenetsky &
Wolf, 2010; Ahn, Li, & Peng, 2011; Borenstein, 2012). Also, the stability of the electricity grid may erode when people do not use SET in a sustainable way (Van der Kam & Van Sark, 2015).
As yet, studies typically focus on factors that are related to SET adoption (c.f.
Rai & Robinson, 2013; Bockarjova & Steg, 2014; Noppers, Keizer, Bolderdijk, & Steg, 2014; Noppers, Keizer, Bockarjova, & Steg, 2015; Korcaj, Hahnel, & Spada, 2015; Palm, 2016; Braito, Flint, Muhar, Penker, & Vogel, 2017) and generally do not consider subsequent use of SET. As mentioned above, while sustainable use of SET is important, it is not sufficient to limit global warming. Notably, people need to consistently engage in a wide range of sustainable behaviours, such as saving energy, implementing energy efficiency investment measures, changing travel behaviours and shifting to a more plant-based diet (Steg, Perlaviciute, & Van der Werff, 2015; IPCC, 2018). This raises the question whether the adoption of SET could not only affect the sustainable use of SET, but also the engagement in a wide range of
sustainable behaviours. This PhD thesis aims to understand to what extent adoption of SET would promote sustainable use of SET as well as the engagement in other types of sustainable behaviours.
Several studies that have examined whether engagement in a specific
sustainable behaviour (other than the adoption of SET) affects the likelihood of engaging in subsequent sustainable behaviours yield inconsistent results (i.e. spillover-effects; Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009; Truelove, Carrico, Weber, Raimi, & Vandenberg, 2014; Nilsson, Bergquist, & Schultz, 2017; Maki, Carrico, Raimi, Truelove, Yueng, & Araujo, 2019). Some studies suggest that engagement in sustainable behaviour might promote engagement in other sustainable behaviours (i.e. positive spillover; Evans, Maio, Corner, Hodgetts, Ahmed, & Hahn, 2012; Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2014a, 2014b), while other studies suggest that engagement in sustainable behaviour does not promote engagement in subsequent sustainable behaviours (Steinhorst, Klöckner, & Matthies, 2015; Thomas, Poortinga, Sautkina, 2016). In fact, engagement in sustainable behaviour might even reduce the likelihood of engaging in subsequent sustainable behaviours (i.e. negative spillover; Tiefenbeck, Staake, Roth, & Sachs, 2013). Hence, it is critical to understand which factors affect
the likelihood that the adoption of SET results in sustainable SET use as well as engagement in other sustainable behaviours, and how the consistent engagement in sustainable behaviours can be promoted.
Motivations to adopt SET may affect the consistent engagement in sustainable behaviours
In this dissertation, we2 will first study which factors affect the likelihood that the
adoption of SET results in sustainable SET use and engagement in other sustainable behaviours. We propose that SET adoption can affect the extent to which people use SET in a sustainable way and engage in other sustainable behaviours, depending on the consequences of the adoption of SET for the way people perceive themselves. More specifically, we propose that the adoption of SET may promote sustainable SET use and the engagement in other sustainable behaviour via the consequences of the adoption for one’s environmental self-identity. Environmental self-identity is the extent to which people see themselves as an environmentally friendly person (Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013a, 2013b). Research shows that when people realise they acted in a sustainable way in the past, their environmental self-identity can be strengthened, making engagement in other sustainable behaviours more likely, as people are motivated to be or appear to be consistent, and to align their actions and the way see themselves (Van der Werff et al., 2013b, 2014a, 2014b; Kashima, Paladino, & Margetts, 2014; Steg, 2016). We propose that adopting SET may strengthen environmental self-identity, as this behaviour might signal that one is a pro-environmental person.
We propose that the extent to which SET adoption signals that one is a
pro-environmental person may depend on one’s reasons for adopting SET (i.e. adoption motivation). People may adopt SET for different reasons, for example because they like novel technology, because it is financially attractive, or because it benefits the environment (Noppers, Keizer, Bolderdijk, & Steg, 2014; Korcaj, Hahnel, & Spada, 2015). We propose that environmental self-identity is most likely to be strengthened when people adopt SET for environmental reasons, as in that case people are more likely to realise that adoption of SET benefits the environment, and hence, adoption is more likely to signal that one is a pro-environmental person. When people adopt
2 I use ‘we’ rather than ‘I’ throughout this dissertation, as the research is developed together with my supervisors
SET for other reasons than protecting the environment, such as financial or
technological reasons, we expect that the adoption is less likely to signal that one is a pro-environmental person, as in this case people will be less likely to realise that adopting SET benefits the environment. As a result, environmental self-identity is probably not strengthened and people will not be more likely to use SET in a sustainable way and to engage in other sustainable behaviours (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1: Conceptual model tested in Chapter 2
Our reasoning3 has not been tested yet. However, a few studies provide
circumstantial evidence for parts of our reasoning. First, research suggests that engagement in a sustainable behaviour that clearly benefits the environment strengthens one’s environmental self-identity. For example, when people received feedback showing that they acted in a sustainable way in the past, their
environmental self-identity was boosted (Venhoeven, Bolderdijk, & Steg, 2016). This suggests that people are more likely to perceive themselves as a pro-environmental person when they engage in sustainable behaviour. Building upon these findings, we argue that people are more likely to perceive their behaviour as sustainable when they engaged in the behaviour for environmental reasons. As a consequence,
environmental self-identity may be strengthened.
Second, research suggests that engagement in sustainable behaviour is
particularly likely to strengthen environmental self-identity when people did not perform the behaviour because of external factors. For example, engaging in sustainable behaviour voluntarily is more likely to strengthen one’s environmental self-identity than engaging in the behaviour non-voluntarily (e.g. due to a law,
3 The three empirical chapters are separate research papers, therefore there will be some overlap between the
chapters in the theoretical reasoning.
regulation or restriction of choice; Venhoeven et al., 2016). Furthermore, environmental self-identity is strengthened when people engage in sustainable behaviour that is rather unique or difficult, but not when it is easy and common (Van der Werff et al., 2014a). These findings suggest that when people voluntarily chose to adopt SET (rather than being forced by a law or regulation, or persuaded by subsidies or lease plans), or when the adoption is unique (i.e. being an early adopter) and somewhat difficult (i.e. in terms of time, effort and finances), it is more likely that people think they acted sustainably for environmental reasons. As a consequence, the adoption is more likely to signal that they are a pro-environmental person and it may be more likely that the adoption of SET strengthens environmental self-identity.
Third, research has shown that emphasizing environmental benefits of a
specific sustainable behaviour, such as CO2 emission reduction, is more likely to
promote the engagement in other sustainable behaviours than emphasizing financial benefits, such as financial savings (Evans, Maio, Corner, Hodgetts, Ahmed, & Hahn, 2012; Steinhorst et al., 2015). Similar results were found when financial costs of behaviour actually changed: a small financial charge on plastic bags motivated people to bring their own shopping bags, but it did not significantly encourage engagement in other types of sustainable behaviour (Thomas et al., 2016). These findings suggest that emphasizing environmental benefits may make it more likely that people focus on environmental reasons for engaging in a behaviour, and as a consequence people may be more likely to think that they are a pro-environmental person, which increases the likelihood that they consistently engage in sustainable behaviours. However, the aforementioned studies did not test why emphasizing environmental benefits is more likely to encourage other sustainable behaviours. Hence, the
question remains whether emphasizing environmental benefits of SET makes it more likely that people realise they adopt SET for environmental reasons, and whether this would signal that they are a pro-environmental person, thereby strengthening environmental self-identity and in turn promoting sustainable SET use and the engagement in other sustainable behaviours.
In this PhD dissertation we will test whether environmental motivation to
adopt SET promotes the engagement in a wide range of sustainable behaviours, including sustainable SET use. Importantly, we will test whether environmental self-identity mediates the relationship between environmental motivation to adopt SET and engagement in different sustainable behaviours (see Figure 1.1). Also, we will test
whether financial or technological reasons to adopt SET do not encourage sustainable SET use and other sustainable behaviours, because adopting SET for financial or technological reasons is not likely to strengthen environmental self-identity.
The effects of possible discrepancies between intended and actual sustainable SET use on the way people perceive themselves and motivation to adopt SET
As mentioned above, to achieve a sustainable energy transition people do not only need to adopt SET, they also have to use SET in a sustainable way. Therefore, we will also study whether people use the SET in a sustainable way once the SET are
installed. More specifically, in Chapter 3 we will study whether people use their PV in line with their expectations prior to the installation of the PV, and how possible differences between intended and actual sustainable PV use may affect the way people perceive themselves and their motivation to adopt PV.
We argue that the way people perceive themselves may be influenced by the
extent to which actual SET use differs from one’s anticipated use of SET. Notably, people are likely to base their judgement about how sustainable they act by
comparing their behaviour to a reference point (cf. Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). This reference point could be a personal goal, their past behaviour or behaviour of others (Karlin, Zinger, & Ford, 2015). We reason that the intention to engage in sustainable energy behaviour may also be a relevant reference point against which one’s current behaviour is judged. Furthermore, people are motivated to be or to appear consistent and to align their cognitions, such as the way they see themselves, with their actions (Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b; Kashima, Paladino, & Margetts, 2014; Steg, 2016). On the basis of this, we hypothesize that discrepancies between anticipated and actual sustainable PV use may affect the way people perceive themselves. Specifically, we argue that these discrepancies may affect the extent to which people see themselves as a sustainable PV user (i.e., their sustainable PV identity). When people use PV in a less sustainable way than intended, they are likely to see themselves as a less sustainable PV user. Conversely, their sustainable PV identity may be strengthened when they use the PV in a more sustainable way than they anticipated.
The question remains whether a discrepancy between the intention to use PV in a sustainable way and actual sustainable PV use might additionally affect the extent to which people see themselves as a person who acts pro-environmentally in general (i.e., their environmental self-identity; Van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b), and thereby the likelihood of future sustainable behaviour. It may be that
discrepancies between intended and actual sustainable PV use will merely influence one’s identity related to this specific behaviour (i.e., sustainable PV identity) and not one’s general environmental self-identity, as research has shown that environmental self-identity is particularly affected when people realise that they engaged in many different (un)sustainable behaviours (Van der Werff et al., 2014a). Hence, a
discrepancy between intended and actual PV use may not have implications for one’s general environmental self-identity, particularly if the level of engagement in other types of sustainable energy behaviour would remain the same.
A discrepancy between intended and actual use of PV may also affect the
reasons people ascribe to their decision to adopt PV (i.e., adoption motivation) due the aforementioned desire to be or to appear consistent. Specifically, when people use their PV in a more sustainable way than anticipated, their sustainable PV identity and maybe even their environmental self-identity could be strengthened, which may make people more likely to think that environmental reasons played an important role in their decision to adopt PV than they indicated beforehand. In contrast, when people use their PV in a less sustainable way than anticipated, they may perceive themselves as a less sustainable PV user and maybe even a less sustainable person in general, which may make them less likely to think that environmental reasons played an important role in their decision to adopt PV than they indicated beforehand.
We will examine whether there is a discrepancy between the intention to use
PV in a sustainable way and actual PV use, and whether a difference between intended and actual use of PV may have implications for the way people see themselves (i.e. both sustainable PV user and environmental self-identity) and the motivation they ascribe to adopting PV. As argued above, we expect that people are more likely to see themselves as a sustainable PV user when their behaviour (i.e., use of PV) is more sustainable than anticipated. They may even be more likely to perceive themselves as a sustainable person in general (i.e. strong environmental
self-identity), as this discrepancy may signal that they are a pro-environmental person, and think that environmental reasons played a more important role in their decision
to adopt PV than prior to the adoption of PV. In contrast, we expect that people are less likely to see themselves as a sustainable PV user when their behaviour is less sustainable than anticipated, they may even be less likely to see themselves as a sustainable person in general and less likely to think that environmental reasons played an important role in their decision to adopt SET than they indicated beforehand.
In Chapter 3 we report results of a longitudinal questionnaire study to test the reasoning above. Specifically, we compare people’s intention to use SET in a
sustainable way prior to the adoption, to their actual sustainable SET use once they installed the SET. Next, we will study the effects of a potential discrepancy between anticipated and actual sustainable SET use on the extent to which they see themselves as a sustainable SET user and pro-environmental person in general and on their motivation to adopt SET (see Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2: Conceptual model tested in Chapter 3
Promoting sustainable SET use and other sustainable behaviours by emphasizing environmental benefits of SET
As argued above, people may be more likely to use SET in a sustainable way and to engage in other sustainable behaviours when they adopt SET for environmental reasons. An important question for policy makers and practitioners is therefore
!
%
&$$
% !'
whether and how the environmental motivation to adopt SET could be strengthened in order to promote a wide range of sustainable behaviours, including sustainable SET use. In Chapter 4 we will test whether emphasizing environmental versus financial benefits of SET strengthens environmental motivation to adopt SET, and whether this in turn promotes the engagement in sustainable SET use and other sustainable behaviours. We propose that emphasizing the environmental benefits of SET may make it more likely that people realise SET have environmental benefits, which may increase the likelihood that people are motivated to adopt SET for environmental reasons (i.e. environmental motivation to adopt SET). In turn, when people are more strongly motivated to adopt SET for environmental reasons, the adoption of SET is more likely to signal that they are a pro-environmental person (i.e. pro-environmental signalling value of SET), thereby strengthening environmental self-identity. A strengthened environmental self-identity may promote sustainable SET use and the engagement in other sustainable behaviours, due to the
aforementioned motivation to be consistent.
In contrast, when financial benefits of SET are emphasized, people are
probably not more likely to realise that SET have environmental benefits, which implies that the motivation to adopt SET for environmental reasons will not be strengthened. Therefore, the adoption of SET may not signal that one is a pro-environmental person, and pro-environmental self-identity will not be strengthened, making sustainable SET use and the engagement in other sustainable behaviours not more likely. In Chapter 4, we will examine whether appeals emphasizing
environmental rather than financial benefits of SET increases the likelihood that people are motivated to adopt SET for environmental reasons, and whether this SET adoption will in turn will more strongly signal that one is a pro-environmental person, thereby strengthening environmental self-identity and promoting the engagement in sustainable SET use and other sustainable behaviours.
There is some initial evidence to suggest that emphasizing environmental
benefits of a sustainable behaviour, such as CO2 emission reductions associated with
a behaviour, may promote the engagement in other sustainable behaviours, while emphasizing financial benefits of a sustainable behaviour, such as financial savings, does not promote the engagement in other sustainable behaviours. Specifically, when environmental rather than financial benefits of car-sharing were emphasized, people were more likely to engage in recycling behaviour (Evans, Maio, Corner, Hodgetts,
Ahmed, & Hahn, 2012). Similarly, when environmental rather than financial benefits of saving electricity were emphasized, people reported stronger intentions to engage in a wide range of sustainable behaviours that were not directly related to saving electricity (Steinhorst, Klöckner, & Matthies, 2015).
Yet, in the aforementioned studies it was not tested whether engagement in an
initial behaviour influences subsequent behaviour. More specifically, participants in both studies received information on a sustainable behaviour they did not necessarily engage in. Instead, the authors tested the consequences of emphasizing different benefits of a certain sustainable behaviour on people’s intention to engage in other sustainable behaviours. Hence, the authors may have tested the consequences of differences in framing of a message on people’s intention to engage in different sustainable behaviours. Furthermore, the studies did not test whether emphasizing environmental benefits is more likely to encourage other sustainable behaviours because of the implications for our assumed process variables, that is, environmental and financial motivations to adopt SET, pro-environmental signalling value of SET and environmental self-identity. Hence, the question remains whether emphasizing the environmental rather than financial benefits of (hypothetical) adoption of SET makes it more likely that people consider they would adopt SET for environmental reasons, and whether this in turn may signal that one is a pro-environmental person, thereby strengthening environmental self-identity and in turn promoting sustainable SET use and the engagement in other sustainable behaviours.
In Chapter 4, we will ask people to imagine they would to adopt SET and provide them with information on the environmental or financial benefits of SET. Subsequently, we examine the effect of the appeals on the extent to which people intend to engage in sustainable SET use and other sustainable behaviours, and on the process variables we described above, notably the motivation to adopt SET, the pro-environmental signalling value of SET and pro-environmental self-identity (see Figure 1.3). As answering questions on these process variables may influence responses on the outcome variables, and vice versa, regardless of the effect of the manipulation, we will test our line of reasoning in two steps in two experimental studies.
In Chapter 5, we will discuss the main findings of this dissertation and the
implications of our findings for theory and practice. Moreover, we will identify important directions for future research.
Figure 1.3: Conceptual model tested in Chapter 4
Summary
To achieve a sustainable energy transition, it is important that people not only adopt sustainable energy technologies, but also use them in a sustainable way and engage in other sustainable behaviours (Steg et al., 2015). In this dissertation, we study whether and how SET adoption is related to sustainable SET use and the engagement in other sustainable behaviours, and how the consistent engagement in sustainable behaviour can be promoted. In Chapter 2, we will test whether environmental motivation to adopt SET promotes sustainable use of SET, as adopting SET for environmental reasons may strengthen environmental self-identity. We assume that a strong environmental self-identity promotes the engagement in sustainable SET use and other sustainable behaviours, because people are motivated to be consistent and to act in line with how they see themselves. In contrast, we hypothesize that the extent to which people adopt SET for other reasons than protecting the environment, such as financial reasons or because they like new technology, does not increase the likelihood that the adoption of SET makes people realise that they are a
pro-environmental person. Hence, adopting SET for financial and technological reasons will probably not strengthen environmental self-identity and not increase the likelihood that people engage in other sustainable behaviours, including sustainable SET use.
"
!
%
%
% !
In Chapter 3, we will examine whether people use SET in a sustainable way once adopted. More specifically, we will study whether people intend to use SET in a sustainable way, and whether their actual use is in line with their intentions.
Furthermore, we will study whether potential discrepancies between people’s actual use of SET and their anticipated use of SET might affect environmental self-identity and people’s motivations to adopt SET. We expect that when people use their SET in a more sustainable way than anticipated, they will be more likely to perceive
themselves as environmentally friendly person, and may be more likely to think that environmental reasons play an important role in their decision to adopt SET than prior to the adoption of SET. In contrast, when people use their SET in a less sustainable way than anticipated, they might be less likely to perceive themselves as an environmentally friendly person, and may be less likely to think that
environmental reasons play an important role in their decision to adopt SET.
In Chapter 4, we will test whether emphasizing the environmental versus
financial benefits of SET increases the likelihood that people realise SET have environmental benefits and whether this strengthens environmental motivation to adopt SET. Furthermore, we test whether environmental motivation to adopt SET in turn strengthens environmental self-identity and increases the likelihood of
