Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Everything there is to know about energy & behaviour from IEA DSM Task 24 Phase I


Published on

Dr Sea Rotmann, Task 24 Operating Agent, gave a very in-depth presentation on everything energy & behaviour change from the many findings of Phase I of the Task to an audience of policymakers, researchers, community leaders and industry in Toronto, on May 27, 2015.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Everything there is to know about energy & behaviour from IEA DSM Task 24 Phase I

  1. 1. IEA DSM Task 24 Phase I Closing the Loop – Behaviour Change in DSM: From Theory to Practice Dr Sea Rotmann Operating Agent Task 24 Toronto, May 28, 2015
  2. 2. What is special about Task 24? For more information, visit
  3. 3. Some numbers of Task 24 For more information, visit • July 2012 – April 2015: Official start and end dates • 8 participating countries: Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Austria • 9 countries gave in-kind (expert) support: the UK, Spain, Portugal, UAE, France, Australia, South Africa, Canada and the US. • 228 behaviour change and DSM experts from 21 countries participate in Subtask 5, the invite-only Task 24 Expert Platform ( • 15 successful expert workshops/webinars have been held to date • 137 videos and presentations of these events on the Expert Platform • Over 35 publications have been created and disseminated • Almost 60 case studies showing the successful (or not so successful) use of diverse models of understanding behaviour in the areas of transport, SMEs, smart meters and building retrofits have been collected to date from 16 countries in a Wiki (
  4. 4. Our Audience: ‘Behaviour Changers’ from: - Government - Industry - Researchers - The Third Sector - Intermediaries For more information, visit
  5. 5. Subtasks of Task 24 5 – Social network and expert platform 1 – Helicopter view of models, frameworks, contexts and evaluation metrics 2 – In-depth case study analysis 3 – Evaluation Tool for different stakeholders 4 – Country- specific to do’s and not to do’s, guidelines and recommenda tions For more information, visit
  6. 6. Subtasks For more information, visit Subtask 1 – Helicopter Overview of different models of understanding, frameworks, contexts, case studies and evaluation metrics
  7. 7. The Story of Task 24 For more information, visit
  8. 8. Subtask 1 - Definitions of Task 24 For more information, visit
  9. 9. Subtask 1 – What is behaviour? For more information, visit Energy behaviour refers to all human actions that affect the way that fuels (electricity, gas, petroleum, coal, etc) are used to achieve desired services, including the acquisition or disposal of energy-related technologies and materials, the ways in which these are used, and the mental processes that relate to these actions. Behaviour Change in the context of this Task thus refers to any changes in said human actions which were directly or indirectly influenced by a variety of interventions (e.g. legislation, regulation, incentives, subsidies, information campaigns, peer pressure etc.) aimed at fulfilling specific behaviour change outcomes. These outcomes can include any changes in energy efficiency, total energy consumption, energy technology uptake or demand management but should be identified and specified by the Behaviour Changer designing the intervention for the purpose of outcome evaluation.
  10. 10. Subtask 1 – What is behaviour? For more information, visit persistence “unfrozen” half-yearlyyearly Conscious, or well-considered action Once in a lifetime Active information-seeking monthlyrarely Little information-seeking Hardly thinking – taking action Habitualised routinesOnce-off “frozen” consciousness frequency weekly daily cookinggroceriesholidayingChoosing energy supplier Buying a car Buying a house
  11. 11. Subtask 1 – Overview of different models of understanding behaviour For more information, visit
  12. 12. Subtask 1 – The ‘Monster’ and its Wiki For more information, visit
  13. 13. Subtask 1 – More definitions For more information, visit Models of behaviour help us to understand specific behaviours, by identifying the underlying factors which influence them. There are individualistic models and social models. By contrast, theories of change show how behaviours change over time, and how they can be changed. Behavioural theory is diagnostic, and change theory is more pragmatic. Both are important to understand when designing interventions!
  14. 14. Subtask 1 – Models of Understanding Behaviour – some caution For more information, visit  Models are concepts, not representations of behaviour  Behaviour is complex, models are deliberately simple  There is a limit to how far models will stretch  Models don’t tend to differentiate between people  Attitudes/awareness don’t always precede behaviour  Factors are not barriers
  15. 15. Subtask 1 – Looking at different models of understanding behaviour For more information, visit
  16. 16. Subtask 1 – Main models of understanding behaviour For more information, visit INDIVIDUALISTIC (A-B-C Models) Rational choice models based on cost-benefit calculations (neoclassical economics) Information deficit models are based on linear assumptions: information generates knowledge, which shapes attitudes, which lead to behaviour (neoclassical economics) Bounded rationality models include psychological principles such as cognitive biases and environmental constraints (behavioural economics) Value Action Gap shows the difference of what people say and what they do (social psychology)
  17. 17. Subtask 1 – Main models of understanding behaviour For more information, visit INDIVIDUALISTIC (A-B-C Models) Figure 3: The ABC model based on Shove 2010 However, in practice people usually make more complex trade-offs between costs and gains (both financial and non- financial) and, consequently, the models are most likely not accurate. In Paul attitudes and values influence: behaviour and people chose to behave a certain way based on these values and attitudes
  18. 18. Subtask 1 – Main models of understanding behaviour For more information, visit INDIVIDUALISTIC (A-B-C Models) DUAL PROCESS Models of Cognition Triandis’ Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour (TIB)
  19. 19. Subtask 1 – Main models of understanding behaviour For more information, visit SOCIALLY-ORIENTED MODELS Theories of Consumption as Social Practices (Practice Theory) DECC running header 24
  20. 20. Subtask 1 – Practice Theory – worked example For more information, visit 54 Figure 6: 3 Elements Worked Example: Linedrying
  21. 21. Subtask 1 – Theories of Change For more information, visit  Central to many concepts of change is the merging of theory and practice  Applied approaches: Social Marketing, Intervention Mapping, Defra’s 4E Model…
  22. 22. Subtask 1 – Theories of Change – Changing habits For more information, visit  Unfreezing/Refreezing  Vigilant Monitoring  Implementation Intentions But: Individuals only, they need to be pre-motivated, it needs to be done quickly and intensely and they may not be easily scalable  MOMENTS OF CHANGE!
  23. 23. Subtask 1 – Comparison between indvidual and social approaches For more information, visit Darnton, A, Verplanken, B, White, P and Whitmarsh, L (2011). Habits, Routines and Sustainable Lifestyles: A summary report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. AD Research & Analysis for Defra, London.
  24. 24. Subtask 1 – Comparison between indvidual and social approaches – Pros and Cons of each For more information, visit Individual Models Social Models Pros Cons Pros Cons Some have understanding of dual process of cognition Easy to follow A+B+C= behaviour change Can look at various (mostly influencing) contexts affecting individuals Known and tested Very powerful with segmentation and bottom-up tailoring Scaleability Inclusivity Breadth of Scope Causal relationship hard to determine Not shown to be that effective, especially if based on intentions More complex models hard to use Takes systemic approach thus easily scaled up If you change a practice, it can be a global change Looped, re-enforcing Influencing and contextual factors Fosters collaboration among all sectors More realistic? Too complex to understand Dependent on many elements to work together Frustrating if right collaboration can’t be fostered Hard to put into practice May only speed up change
  25. 25. Subtask 1 – Main differences between disciplines For more information, visit The programmes based (explicitly and implicitly) on economic theories usually translate into approaches that: - focus mainly or even solely on individuals - are mostly technocratic thus seem to be generating biggest benefits for the supply side, not the end user - regard individuals as instrumentally/economically rational creatures (‘Homo economicus’) - regard information deficits as an important cause of ‘non-rational’ behaviours - focus often on short and one-off financial incentives - focus on extrinsic motivations mainly (ie are dependent on the response they evoke from others) - do not normally tailor their approach to the individual characteristics - lack flexibility and room for engagement, co-creation and participation - monitor mainly quantitative aspects and work with calculated or modeled savings Behavioural economics-based approaches also include insights from social psychology, and for instance focus on the power of nudging people into different behaviours through their infrastructural, institutional or design environment.
  26. 26. Subtask 1 – Main differences between disciplines For more information, visit Social marketing, or insights from psychology, sociology and collaborative learning and practice theory approaches are increasingly being used. These programmes are often cross-sectoral and use elements of theories and models in an eclectic manner. Very often, user engagement is central to the design. They do take account of the impact of the wider context and environment and social norms and are thus clearly based on a more systemic perspective/theory or model. They: - focus on collaboration and institutional capacity building - focus on building trust in market parties and information sources - target end user needs and multiple benefits - use multiple definitions of success - perform pre-scoping - allow for engagement and participation - allow for flexibility and iteration of programmes - focus on institutional change - focus on lifestyles - use the power of social norms
  27. 27. Language can be a problem! For more information, visit
  28. 28. That was our Eureka! moment For more information, visit
  29. 29. We’re all expert story tellers YOUTUBE: U_p3PlWDpLyDBh8TwUBmVHQ
  30. 30. The art and scientific methodology of storytelling Narratives = social science tool aimed at providing way to explore how big events (policies) impact on small scale (individuals) Allow for quick, practical and useful understanding of complexity of interconnected factors in behaviour research We all turn everything into a narrative in order to remember it For more information, visit
  31. 31. Subtask 1 – Some ‘Monster’ findings For more information, visit Each of the domains of Task 24 also had some unique story lines, eg:  Transport: driving is a very routine behaviour, with built-in capacity for adaptation/adoption to new cars/routes/traffic;  Buildings: retrofitting-related behaviour deals with investment decisions at the planning stage where unappealing new behaviours can be quickly rejected or even result in cancelling a planned action.  Smart metering: many cases demonstrate that this domain deals with an entirely new behaviour, presenting opportunities for impact through training and feedback but also almost no existing behavioural context to use as a starting point.  SMEs: many of the behaviours that need to change require a lot of risk taking and senior leadership, with potentially big impacts on staff and productivity.
  32. 32. Subtask 1 – Some ‘Monster’ findings For more information, visit Each of the domains also had some highlights, eg:  Buildings: Warm Up NZ programme for its use of intermediaries and strong stakeholder engagement, as well as evaluation focus on health improvements as main metric and Swedish Sustainable Järva Project  Transport: NZ Post’s Driver Behaviour Training for its use of trusted trainers and the Dutch Spitsmijden congestion avoidance pilot  Smart metering: NOT working were time of use tariffs (NZ and Italy) and solely economic incentives (though NLs Jouw Energie Moment had a more systemic approach); the Swedish Energy AWARE Clock was a great example of using smart design in providing better feedback  SMEs: EECA’s Crown Loan Subsidy was thought to be great once it learnt to use trusted intermediaries and shared learning. A good example of nudging was shown in the Belgian Build4Change case.
  33. 33. Subtask 1 – Sustainable Järva (Building Retrofits) For more information, visit Once upon a time… there were 6 neighbourhoods around the field of Järva that were in urgent need of improvement. They were constructed in the 60s as part of the 1million Home programme to tackle a growing housing deficit in urban areas in Sweden. They contained housing units for more than 60000 people, but times had changed a lot since then… Every day… People in the area were experiencing economic and social challenges. Many of the foreign residents were unemployed and struggling with the Swedish language, and youth was lacking good opportunities for education. The houses were terribly inefficient and the area in general did not work for the needs of its residents. Several investments had been undertaken but nothing worked and people felt no one was listening to them. But, one day… the City of Stockholm decided to improve the living conditions once and for all. But this time would be different, this time they realised that circumstances were radically different to the 60s and that, in order for upgrading the area successfully, they needed to involve the residents. From the beginning. Because of that… the Järva dialogue was initiated during the Fall 2009 and for one week 10000 residents left over 30000 opinions and suggestions how the area should be developed and improved. Based on their contribution a vision was formulated and measures were planned in 4 areas: 1) improved housing and urban environment, 2) everyday security, 3) better education and language teaching, 4) more jobs and entrepreneurship. But then… it was also realised that the area and the buildings had been constructed before the energy crisis without considering the environment, and thus the project Sustainable Järva was born to include an energy, environment and climate-focus to the vision. Until, finally… the dialogue with the residents continued and together with all stakeholders many great measures were planned to promote sustainable lifestyles, satisfaction and well- being. The ultimate goal with the project was to serve as a model for sustainable development. And, ever since then… the neighbourhoods around the field of Järva have become a place where people want to live, work and play. The end.
  34. 34. Subtask 1 – Spitsmijden(Transport) For more information, visit Once upon a time… in a small country with many cars, enthusiastic, hardworking Dutch people left for work every morning around 9am, five days of the week, to be returning home just as eagerly around 5pm. Every day… they would bore themselves to death driving in peak traffic every morning and afternoon. Such a waste of time, that could otherwise be spent on making wooden clogs and picking tulips, the favourite past-time of any Dutch(wo)man, as you know. But, one day… a cooperation between universities, government and business started a project called Spitsmijden (congestion avoidance). Two types of incentives were used to achieve this change in behaviour: a price incentive for every avoided drive in the city and information supply (feedback) through a hand computer in the form of navigation and suggestions for other modes of transport. Because of that… several pilots in the Netherlands were set up to see if it would help people in avoiding rush hour. And indeed, people were tempted: 4 months after the pilots, when the financial incentive was gone, 47% of the participants were still avoiding rush hour one way or another. But then… the initiators came up with an additional incentive: the personal avoidance plan. People were told to plan their congestion avoidance behaviour, using a scheme of when and how the behaviour would be conducted. A theory of Cialdini states that when a person commits herself to something, (s)he will be inclined to be consistent with that commitment. But it was uncertain if this theory would fly in light of driving behaviour. Until, finally… the results showed that the avoidance plan indeed caused an additional effect on rush hour avoidance behaviour: there were now 27% more people avoiding rush hour than without the avoidance plan! And, ever since then… former participants are still avoiding traffic jams. Although the % slightly dropped after the project ended, an increasing number of Dutchmen now have more time to do what they love best: making wooden clogs and picking tulips. The end.
  35. 35. The story of neoclassical economics in building retrofits Money makes the world go round! You need to change your home’s energy use and we will help you pay (part of) its retrofitting By the way, you need to pay up first and it might take a while before we pay you back, if ever The info we need from you will teach you all you need to know You only need to make a one-off decision to invest We have the technology you need, contractors or installers (you will need to find/choose) will put it in If you don’t understand the technology just don’t touch the buttons! You will save money for a nice weekend in Marbella You only need to give us a bill from your installer, we probably won’t check how much energy you saved Neither will we tell you, you need to figure that out yourself What counts for us is how many m2 we get insulated, how many homes we retrofitted or how much money has been spent against the budget. We will do the number crunching, don’t worry, we don’t need to know what you actually saved, that’s what national models are for But if you do want to know how much energy you saved, buy a metering device!
  36. 36. The story of systemic approaches in building retrofits Together we’ll make the world go round! We will co-create and co-design our interventions with you You embody what we need to know and change: what you do, feel, learn… We will help you understand and use the technology and train those that install and sell it to you to tailor it to your needs We will create a supportive material, institutional and social environment Your needs are important so we need to do this together, as if this were your kitchen Your life will change It’s all about us now, our grandchildren and their future we have in our hands Quality matters, and we will keep learning and sharing those learnings with you If we need to be flexible, we will This is only the start and your home is only the first step We will monitor, calculate and report on energy, money, health, welfare, comfort, wellbeing And learnings based on qualitative and quantitative inputs will be shared (with you) We will help you figure out what your impact is to be able to make sure you get where we all collectively want to!
  37. 37. The pros and cons of each approach • They do well with what they intend to do and fit well within the current economic and political system and way of thinking • The programmes are relatively easy to evaluate in quantitative terms and often show good results • The (retrofitting) market can grow • Subsidies are often used up to the max • Many homes do get insulated • Behavioural economics does manage to nudge a certain percentage • Free riders upgrade their plans and retrofit more comprehensively • Sometimes even a new norm seems to be emerging… • These types of interventions are very complex with many partners who have different mandates, needs and restrictions • They cannot be driven by policy alone, need all levels collaborating • Not everyone wants to change everything or their lifestyle • Not everyone wants to engage but it is important to ensure that the naysayers are not becoming the over-riding voice • The flexibility of changing goals, aims and interrelatedness of issues etc makes it difficult to evaluate  But people tend to like them much more! For more information, visit Economic approaches Systemic approaches
  38. 38. Different energy efficiency stories *See Janda &Topouzi (2013). Closing the Loop: Using Hero Stories and Learning Stories to Remake Energy Policy ECEEE Summer Study Proceedings.
  39. 39. Examples of a love and a horror story in Building Retrofits
  40. 40. The New Zealand love story with insulation Once upon a time... there was a beautiful country called New Zealand,which had very cold, damp houses. Every day...Kiwis shivered and froze, but they just told each other to stop being a sissy and put on another jumper. But, one day...the new right-wing Government decided it needed to show it wasn’t uncaring and evil and created a programme called Warm Up New Zealand. It was meant to insulate a quarter of the housing stock, create many jobs and a new market, and reduce energy use, energy bills and CO2. Because of that...the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority set about tendering for the best contractors in the country to fulfil this lofty goal. But then...they realised that people weren’t that interested in insulation, they rather spent their money on a new kitchen and kept putting on those jumpers! Because of that... they concentrated on using Third Party Providers and other community groups to ensure that at least the most needy and vulnerable people got free insulation and clean heating installed. So, finally... they did an evaluation and found that the real benefits - $5 for every $1 spent, lay in the health improvements, not a new market or energy savings or lower bills. And, ever since then... The other Kiwis also slowly realised that being warm and cozy in your home was maybe just as important as having a new kitchen. The End.
  41. 41. The Great Australian horror story of insulation
  42. 42. What’s the morale of the story? A mix of interventions that are tailored to different (national, local, organisational, domestic) levels; tailored at both the individual and social level; aiming at changing both the investment and habitual behaviour; targeting multiple motivations (not only economic and informational ones); adding strong quantitative and qualitative evaluation (of actual and perceived/modelled behaviour changes) into project design; making sure that intermediaries are well- trained and customer-focused; and focusing on the lifestyle in which energy is key to performing functions will probably get you long-term success.
  43. 43. The main lessons of Subtask 1 A helicopter overview of models of understanding behaviour is/not: A great way to provide a general understanding/overview Good representation of different models/disciplines Collection of international best practice (but snapshot) Good storytelling platform Creating a ‘monster’ that keeps on growing X An in-depth review of all literature on the subject X Adhering to a ‘subjective’ disciplinary or sectoral view X Easy to read, hence the Wiki and ST8 decision-making tool  It will continue to grow as a ‘living monster’ on the Wiki throughout the Task 24 extension (and ST8 tool)
  44. 44. Subtasks For more information, visit Subtask 2 – In depth analysis in areas of greatest need (buildings, transport, SMEs, smart metering)
  45. 45. Subtask 2 – Norwegian Finnfjord Case For more information, visit
  46. 46. Subtask 2 – Norwegian Finnfjord Case For more information, visit Duration 2007-13 Country Norway (Finnsnes) Type Project Cost Initially: NOK850m (€108m), incl ENOVA grant of NOK175m (€22m) Overrun: NOK100m (€16m) Specification/Goal Become world’s first carbon neutral smelter by installing innovative heat recovery system and other energy efficiency measures Behavioural model/s or theories of change Not individual, but organisational culture Rogers diffusion of innovation Context Almost 100% RES, subsidies for intensive industry, national policy on EE including national funding that takes on some risk, small family-owned business
  47. 47. Subtask 2 – Norwegian Finnfjord Case For more information, visit Becoming the world’s first carbon neutral ferro-silicon smelter is/not: A massive goal that needs buy-in from all levels Proof that company culture is everything That a performative vision is essential A technologically innovative showcase/best practice A forerunner that breaks down hurdles for fast followers (replicable) Possible because of strong CBA (barriers/drivers) X Easy, cheap or straightforward X Without a very large level of shared risk X Possible without behavioural change in management
  48. 48. Subtask 2 – Austria’s Smart metering Cases €CO2 Management For more information, visit
  49. 49. Subtask 2 – Austria’s Smart metering Cases Die Energiejagd (the Energy Hunt) For more information, visit
  50. 50. Subtask 2 – Austria’s Smart metering Cases For more information, visit social approach individualistic approach social norm (MoU)social learning (ToC)Freezing/unfreezing (ToC) classical economics (MoU) Gamification, competition, feedback, tailored advice, champions Feedback, Advice & Incentive (iPod!) Goal: CO2 savings Huge success Unexpected failure
  51. 51. Subtask 2 – Main lessons For more information, visit An in-depth review of case studies is/not: A great way to drill deeper into most interesting cases Showing impact of country-specific contexts Providing some comparison between cases and countries A way of standardising the analysis across countries Important to collect different points of view X In-depth as it focuses only on one issue per country X Quantitative analysis, as it is empirical research by nature X Available to countries that provided in-kind expertise only  We will continue to collect case studies for ST6 of the extension
  52. 52. Subtasks For more information, visit Subtask 3 – Evaluation tool for Behaviour Changers
  53. 53. Subtask 3 – Evaluation Tool, definitions For more information, visit What is it? • Monitoring: measuring progress and achievements and production of planned outputs • Evaluation: structured process of assessing success in meeting goals and reflect on learnings. Explicitly places a value judgement on the data and information gathered in an intervention Why do it the way we do now? Establish effect of policies Assess need for improvements Assessing value for money Contribution to evidence base for effectiveness of behavioural interventions at population level How to do it…….???
  54. 54. Subtask 3 – Evaluation Tool, outputs For more information, visit - Individual evaluation and monitoring metrics for each domain can be found in the Subtask 1 Monster/Wiki - Subtask 3 Deliverable 3 - Methodological review of the scientific literature (smart meter/feedback and building retrofits only) called ‘What do we know about what we know?’ which will feed into Subtask 9 - An overview of how different disciplines evaluate behaviour, main challenges and recommendations on monitoring and evaluation can be found in Subtask 3 Deliverable 3A report ‘Did you behave as we designed you to?’ - Specific guidelines and fact sheets for 3 main intervention tools in the building retrofit area (Energy Performance Certificates, Mass Marketing and Subsidies and Loans) can be found in Subtask 3 Deliverable 3B From “I think I know” to “I understand what you did and why you did it”
  55. 55. Subtask 3 – Deliverable 3 ‘What do we know about what we know?’ For more information, visit - Methodological review of behaviour-based energy intervention studies in the customer feedback and residential building retrofit areas, which were conducted over the past 10 years to determine what data has been collected and how it has been collected (out of 315 papers, 85 were coded in detail for analysis). - No standard way of measuring behaviour change, which means no ability to compare across studies and incorporate questions about context, attitudes, knowledge and user experience. - In future we should make better use of mixed methods for data collection, eg surveys, focus groups, interviews, scales to allow for triangulation. - Also need better transparency into the methods used to evaluate (only 4 out of 85 published their actual evaluation instrument). - Need to create and share validated data collection instruments which facilitate a consistency of measurement  This will be done in Subtask 9
  56. 56. Subtask 3 – Deliverable 3A ‘Did you behave as we designed you to?’ For more information, visit Positioning Paper providing an overview of: - Definitions used in Task 24, particularly around monitoring and evaluation (M&E) - Evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of behaviour interventions - Disciplinary basis for interventions and consequences on M&E - Multiple challenges of M&E (benchmarking, mismatch of needs, M&E team not included in design, no longitudinal M&E, based on proxies and models not actual measures, multiple benefit analyses, how do other stakeholders assess success, monitoring individuals not practices, no feedback loops, no shared learning) - How to open up interventions to include end users - A collective learning process: single vs double-loop learning
  57. 57. Subtask 3 – Deliverable 3A ‘Did you behave as we designed you to?’ For more information, visit Single-loop learning is about the effectiveness and/or efficiency of a technology, measure, instrument, arrangement, or intervention to achieve pre-defined goals. Double-loop learning is process-oriented, focused on the how, when, where, how, how long, for whom and is about questioning goals and the prevailing norms and rules underlying these goals. In addition, double-loop learning is focused on interactions, the quality of participation, learning by doing and doing by learning, aligning expectations, in short, double-loop learning is about reflexive governance of interventions.
  58. 58. Subtask 3 – Deliverable 3B From “I think I know” to “I understand what you did and why you did it? For more information, visit Guidelines and Factsheets in Building Retrofits: - Identification and development of context-sensitive indicators, metrics and ways to monitor and evaluate both short- and long-term, identifiable and/or measurable (one-off investment- and more frequent habitual) behaviour change outcomes of DSM tools (being elements of larger interventions) - Focus on investment vs habitual behaviours - Examining different tools of building retrofit interventions - Detailed factsheets of M&E in single- and double-loop learning processes of three tools (Energy Performance Certificates, Mass Marketing and Subsidies and Loans)  This work will be continued in Subtask 8
  59. 59. Subtask 3 – Deliverable 3B From “I think I know” to “I understand what you did and why you did it? For more information, visit
  60. 60. Subtask 3 – Main lessons For more information, visit A behavioural evaluation tool for stakeholders is/not: Something everyone wants but no one has created yet Important, as it is the only way to show impact and compare between studies Usually dependent on models and estimates, not measures Collection of different metrics ‘beyond kWh’ Methodological review of behavioural interventions Positioning paper recommending double-loop learning Guidelines and factsheet examples of building intervention tools X Possible to complete in the scope of Task 24’s Phase I X Easy, as different Behaviour Changers have different needs/outcomes X Finished, but created important building blocks  Will be developed as ST9 and become part of ST8 toolbox
  61. 61. Subtasks For more information, visit Subtask 4 – Country-specific recommendations, to do’s and not to do’s
  62. 62. Subtask 4 – Do’s and don’t’s For more information, visit Intervention Phase DO DON'T DESIGN PHASE  use models of understanding behaviour and theories of change to design interventions  spend some time pre-intervention researching your audience, its motivations, needs and heterogeneity  collaborate with other Behaviour Changers, especially researchers and intermediaries to design your interventions  segment your audience where you can as it will help tailor the intervention  design evaluation into the intervention up front, including the evaluation team (if different)  learn from mistakes and (re)iterate your intervention  put a lot of thought into dissemination and don't be afraid to use unusual means like social media, group learning and storytelling  believe that there is one silver bullet model for behaviour change  always use the same model, neoclassical economics is a valid model that fits our socio- economic and political reality but it does not explain peoples' mostly habitual energy-using behaviour well enough  be afraid to mix models and create a toolbox of interventions  think you can design, implement, evaluate and disseminate a (national) behaviour change programme all by yourself  think all people are rational, utility-maximising automatons, even in each household you will find very different attitudes, behaviours and motivations  think you can leave evaluation til after the programme is finished  just think in kWh and cost savings, most people don't think of energy in this way but of the services they derive from it IMPLEMENTATION PHASE  collaborate with other behaviour changers in rolling out the intervention  use trusted intermediaries and messengers  target your audience with tailored information and feedback that makes sense to them  keep learning during the implementation by evaluating ex durante  listen to peoples' stories and especially the nay-sayers and laggards  not underestimate the power of moments of change, use them wisely  operate in a silo, you need help  stop looking in unusal places for allies  let your (conflicting) mandates stop you from working with other Behaviour Changers  let technology overwhelm the intervention, it is a means to an end  ever forget that you are dealing with people and their homes are their castles and their cars their steeds  think you know better than your audience how they should use energy  keep a successful intervention to yourself, share it widely EVALUATION PHASE  evaluate ex ante, ex durante and ex post  put 10-15% of your resources into evaluation, it's worth it  benchmark!  think of the most relevant metrics and indicators, not just for you but for your target audience and the other Behaviour Changers  use double-loop learning methods  provide strong, ongoing, targeted feedback to your audience  think it's just about kWh, evaluate beyond it (eg health, comfort, safety...)  think you need to do all evaluation yourself, use your collaborators to evaluate the bits they know best  leave evaluation til the end or ignore its importance in showing that your intervention worked  just model, measure as well  ignore the pathway of behaviour change that led to a kWh change – ask people (RE)-ITERATION PHASE  (re)iterate your intervention often  learn from your mistakes  listen to your collaborators and end users  ignore your evaluation  hide your mistakes and horror storries, they are often the ones we can learn the most from DISSEMINATION PHASE  understand your audience, collaborators and stakeholders, tailor your dissemination accordingly  tell stories, use social media and word of mouth  use trusted intermediaries to tell your story  spend all your money on (social) marketing campaigns  keep doing the same thing, peoples' willingness or brand awareness doesn't usually translate to behaviour change  tell a boring story about kWh  think you know better, ever
  63. 63. Subtask 4 – Country context in form of stories For more information, visit
  64. 64. Subtask 4 – Summary of recommendations For more information, visit - Design Phase (Subtask 1) Q: What are the best models and theories to underpin intervention design? A: It depends on the intervention, there is no silver bullet. - Intervention Phase (Subtask 2) Q: What can we learn from best practice in Task 24 countries? A: Context is everything, but there is opportunity for shared learning. - Evaluation Phase (Subtask 3) Q: How shall we monitor and evaluate behaviour change outcomes? A: By using double-loop learning processes and standardised data collection. - (Re)iteration Phase (Subtask 4) Q: What can we do better? A: Some things we do well, others can be improved on a lot. - Dissemination Phase (Subtask 5) Q: How can we best share our learnings? A: Close network of experts, building on relationships and storytelling.
  65. 65. Subtask 4 – Reiteration of case studies based on recommendations from ST1 analysis For more information, visit
  66. 66. Subtask 4 – Pilots and research questions For more information, visit Building Retrofits: How to deal with the Split Incentives/Principal Agent issue in rental properties? SMEs: How to deal with the Split Incentives/Principal Agent issue in a chosen SME segment? Smart Metering/Feedback: How to link smart meters to better feedback, using ICT? Transport: How to get people out of their cars and into healthier and/or more environmentally-friendly modes of transport?
  67. 67. Subtask 4 – Main lessons For more information, visit A country-specific list of recommendations is/not: A major drawcard of Task 24 A collection of country-specific contexts, based on stories Different for the different countries But has some similarities, and overall conclusions Based on country experts’ knowledge and stakeholder analyses A detailed summary of each country’s involvement in Task 24 X Conclusive X Entirely objective, may miss some sector and disciplinary views X Available to countries that are not financially participating  Recommendations will form basis for Subtasks 6 and 7
  68. 68. Subtasks For more information, visit Subtask 5 – Expert Platform
  69. 69. Subtask 5 – Join our Expert Platform For more information, visit 230 members 137 videos and presentations 115 photos 6 blogs 21 Events 21 Discussion Fora
  70. 70. Subtask 5 – Main lessons For more information, visit A social media platform is/not: A good place to collect experts and information about the Task A good broadcasting tool A good way of measuring impact X A silver bullet for making people talk X A way of making busy experts use social media X A way of easily managing files  We created a Wiki to make case studies more accessible, will continue this Subtask during Phase II
  71. 71. Our main methodology– Storytelling For more information, visit Storytelling is/not: A valid social science tool A great way to break down silos and jargon Something we all innately do, and do well Fun, engaging, social and importantly: memorable Universally understood A way to reduce bias by removing complexity? X A way of getting around ‘proper’ analysis  We will continue to use narratives and investigate ways of measuring the impact of storytelling
  72. 72. So… what’s the story? For more information, visit • There is no silver bullet anywhere but the potential remains huge • Homo economicus doesn’t exist (in energy) • Habits are the most difficult thing to break • This means we have to get even smarter & embrace complexity • We are at a crossroads, and shouldn’t turn back • We need to look at whole-system, societal change • This can’t be done in isolation by one sector - collaboration is key • Social media and networks are really good (theoretically) for it • But: professionals are weary to use them, face-to-face still key • It’s also hard to find the right Behaviour Changers and break down the silos • Everyone has a piece of the puzzle but we haven’t fit it together • We need a shared learning and collaboration platform that works • We also need a shared language based on narratives  It’s all about the people!
  73. 73. IEA DSM Task 24 Phase II Helping the Behaviour Changers
  74. 74. The Subtasks of Phase II 5 – Expert Platform (upgraded) 6 – Understanding Behaviour Changer Practices inTop DSM Areas ‘The Issues’ 7 – Identifying Behaviour Changers in these areas ‘The People’ 8 – Developing a toolbox of interventions to help Behaviour Changers ‘TheTools’ 9 – Standardising Evaluation beyond kWh ‘The Measures’ For more information, visit 10 –Telling an Overarching Story ‘The Story”
  75. 75. Task 24 – Phase II Objective in a tweet (or two) To develop, in collaboration with the Behaviour Changers, a toolbox of interventions that works for their specific DSM issues, contexts (sectoral and national), mandates and needs. We also aim to extract cohesive, overarching themes to tell a coherent international story.
  76. 76. Task 24 – Phase II How it all fits together What? Subtask 6 ‘The Issues’ Who? Subtask 7 ‘The People’ How? Subtask 8 ‘The Tools’ Why? Subtask 9 ‘The Measure’ So what? Subtask 10 ‘The Story’ Subtask 1 Subtask 2 Subtask 4 Subtask 5 Subtask 1 Subtask 4 Subtask 3
  77. 77. Thank you very much for your attention! Any comments or questions? For more information, visit