How useful is the strategy of nudging for encouraging individuals to use energy sustainably?

Introduction

2012

In recent years there has been a great deal of discussion concerning the world energy consumption. The blast of the energy consumption has occurred after the first half of the past century and left behind long lasting consequences to the environment. These include serious issues like is global warming; the climate changes and the disruption and damage of remote ecosystems. As a result, the shift to a more sustainable way of living becomes extremely crucial. However, nobody expect from individuals to just use energy sustainably. Therefore, the lack of emergency for concepts, such as is the sustainable use of energy, mirror most peoples real nature. Government and civil society institutions need to take control and influence public behaviour toward sustainability. The policymakers should not try to persuade or influence them with indirect way. The behaviour change interventions should target peoples values and attitudes, and avoiding harmful side effects. The most common preferred strategy is called nudging and this strategy has great advantages but also one really major drawback. The nudging strategy External forces like psychology, politics and companies have being tried to influence peoples decision-making process throughout the years. Nudging reflects that approach and it is especially used for convincing people to use energy more sustainably. It can be described as a programme of behavior change interventions which has been firstly introduced by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in 2008. These two writers define nudging as ... any aspect of the choice architecture that alters peoples behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting the fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not. Firstly, choice architecture refers to the physical environments of the choice. House of lord suggest that the main goal of designing the environment is to change the default preference of the individual with this choice been influenced by a non-deliberative aspect .For instance, B&Q stores placed accredited One Planet Home eco-products not only in the relevant sections but throughout its stores. As mentioned above, this move was an attempt to make One Planet Home eco-products a front-of-mind consideration for shoppers. As a result, the sales of the One Planet Home eco-products experience a rapid rise and account now for about the 12% of the total sales of the stores. Another one example of the real life is a lot of multinational fastmoving consumer goods companies like are Unilever. It integrated Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance accreditation into almost all of its brands, including Ben & Jerry's, PG Tips and Lipton Tea. With this move, these companies are trying to make sustainability mainstream and also receive large volume of positive media attention. Secondly, the right information being provided to people thus that they make the correct and informed energy decision. Also, as Shipworth (2002) said, people need more personalized information presented to them. However, people have trouble integrating complex information and therefore this information must be presented to them as clearly as possible. Last, Yates (1983) mentioned that information must be presented to the individual in a way which increases the individuals sense of personal control. An example is to provide residents with feedback visualizations of their energy use or even display in a public area these feedbacks of the overall home energy use (Ai He, H., Greenberg, S (2009)). Furthermore, we have to underline that there is no element of compulsion associated with the shifts due to nudging. As the House of Lord (2011) argued nudging are not synonymous with, but rather are a subset of, non-regulatory interventions. The first point defending these argue is that not all non-regulatory interventions are nudges (House of lord, (2011)). For instance, existing policies around the world like the Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) can be described as a non-compulsion intervention. People are still free to choose where they want to live without any limitations. Another one point about the nudge approach is that people are persuaded by nudging without considering their options consciously and like

Page 1

How useful is the strategy of nudging for encouraging individuals to use energy sustainably?

2012

Professor Andy Dobson said fails to engage people at the level of principle. Likewise it is fundamentally anti-democratic in its determination to change behavior without us knowing it is being changed. Cons and pros of nudging To start with, one of the advantages is that people do not really understand the shift to a more sustainable way of consuming energy. The shift happens non-conscious and therefore people do not even understand it. As can be easily assumed this is an easy way to great outcomes because nobody needs to convince or influence indifferent people who do not really care for the common good. As a result, as John & Stoker (2010) suggest nudging consider being a great social marketing approach when a government, company or institute has a specific, limited objective for behavior change. For example a rise of 6% of household recycling food was established by the form of smiley faces only the first year (Involve, (2010)). In addition, small scale behavior change strategies, like is nudging, are focused at small action shifts from individuals. As a consequence, Defra-commissioned study (2005) found that small scale shift can ultimately affect more significant shifts in behavior towards sustainable use of energy and so nudging can play a significant role to a massive shift to sustainability (Dobson, A. (2011)). However, the nudging strategy has a major drawback. As Involve (2010) said nudging does not seek to engage or influence peoples values and attitudes and it fail to generate lasting commitment. Even more clearly Jonathan Rowson argues that the deepest problem with nudge is that it doesnt change people at any deeper level in terms of attitudes, values, and motivations. Above of this, people are usually be driven by the sense of self benefit, rather than any deeper sense of purpose. Therefore, the shift to a long term sustainable use of energy due to nudging is more likely to fail as soon as the incentive disappears. Moreover, nudging policies like is the Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) for buildings would have no effect in the end. Particularly, a lot of people see the EPC, but other needs and priorities meant they choose to take the house anyway. The other drawback focuses on the people who choose the purpose of the intervention. As I mention above, the shift happens non-consious. Therefore, if the reasons for using the nudging as a behavior change strategy are for just self-interest motives, this approach will manipulate common people toward particular , unwanted for the common good outcomes. Motivating sustainable energy use The need to move towards a more sustainable way of living becomes crucial like never before. However to achieve that goal we should first understand the whole concept of sustainable energy. As the Renewable Energy and Efficiency Partnership (2004) suggest sustainable energy is "Effectively, the provision of energy such that it meets the needs of the future without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. ...Sustainable Energy has two key components: renewable energy and energy efficiency". Therefore, the sustainable use of energy should focus on two major issues. The first pillar is using energy generated from clean sources and clean technologies. Renewable energy needs huge investments to develop and do not have a direct impact for the individuals. On the other hand, energy efficiency is divided into three categories: the Energy conversion efficiency, the Energy conservation and also the efficient energy use. It can be argued that the issue with the most direct impact on individuals is the efficient energy use and there is where we may want to focus our efforts. To start with, even if we create energy-efficient technology, it is only an important step towards sustainable living. The crucial thing is to convince people to buy or even use it (Shipworth, M. (2002)).In addition, household residence lacks awareness of the link between the energy use and their monetary or environmental consequences. As a result, if we want to see a great progress, long-term behavior changes will need to happen and as Shipworth (2002)

Page 2

How useful is the strategy of nudging for encouraging individuals to use energy sustainably?

2012

pointed Changing consumption behavior is a psychologically, socially and culturally complex problem, requiring drastic changes in how people think about and use energy. It can be said that Nudging cannot stand alone as the only way to influence public behavior to that direction. Involve (2010) suggest another two different deliberative engagement approaches, the think and the shove approach. These two different approaches, together with nudging, can have great outcomes. John and Stoker (2010) suggest that think approach is focuses on informing and educating individuals and communities about the need for, and an honest assessment of the benefits of, shifting behaviors towards sustainability. The values, attitudes and even the behavior of individuals are influenced by this approach but there is not a clear way to achieve this deliberative engagement. As a consequence, think can be a valuable complement to nudging. The first argument which supports this statement comes from Hogg (2010). He suggests that deliberative engagement can encourage a shift towards intrinsic values with these intrinsic values are required for pursuing sustainability. Secondly, the think approach helps a person to learn more about sustainability and cultivate the need for change. As a result in the end, the individual create a more long-lasting behavior change toward sustainability. Last argument which supports the think strategy is that this approach is an honest way of convincing people without patronizing them (Involve, (2010)). On the other hand, shove focus on enforcing law restrictions thus individuals significantly reduce the range of different potential behaviors. (For instance, heavily polluting vehicles are not permitted to enter the low emission zone in central London.) It can be argued that nudge and shove are closely interrelated and effective legislation or shove strategy would help for the success of a nudge. An example which demonstrates the above is the energy efficiency ratings on electrical appliances. In this nudge, they put a rating for each appliance to encourage people to buy the most energy efficient device. Nonetheless, only when the government introduces a regulation which required suppliers to offer this energy efficient appliances at lower prices, these appliances experience a rapid increase. Conclusion To conclude, the need for a shift to a more sustainable way of using the energy is necessary and nobody can argue with this statement. However, nobody knows the faster or the most direct path to that direction. Nudging represent a cleaver and easy strategy for short-term results, without the need of any mandatory rules or law. Actually most of the times, choice architecture is the only thing which it should be changed to achieve the goal. Nonetheless, strategy like is nudging cannot stand alone and make the wanted shift to a sustainable energy use. Not only because it cannot engage peoples values and attitudes but also why the sustainable use of energy surely needs law restrictions for a start. Therefore, the combination of nudging, think and shove seems to be the optimal mix to shift values and attitudes towards sustainability. With the mix of these three approaches, each strategy gives some great outcomes. Nudging give the opportunity to the people to take small individual actions for even the biggest problems like is climate change. As we can easily see, these small individual action cannot make the huge different. Consequently, this general context which we need can be offered by the think approach. Another one think strategy outcome is that this approach offers the opportunity to discuss and have easy answers on the sustainable use of energy. As for the shove, legislations give the necessary push for nudging to happen. Consequently, a combination of think and shove with the nudging can enforce the effectiveness of a behavior change toward sustainable energy use. Policymakers need to thing the optimal way to mix these three approaches, without nudging overshadows the rest. References
Ai He, H., Greenberg, S (2009) Motivating Sustainable Energy Consumption in the Home, University of Calgary, Canada. Dobson, A. (2011) Sustainability Citizenship, United Kingdom Green House.

Page 3

How useful is the strategy of nudging for encouraging individuals to use energy sustainably?

2012

Environment Canada. Energy consumption. (2005). http://www.ec.gc.ca/soerree/English/Indicator_series/new_issues.cfm?tech_id=1&issue_id=11 Retrieved Aug 14, 2008 Hogg, (2010) Do we need a deeper, more complex conversation with the public about global issues? DEA. House of lord, (2011) Behaviour Change. London: Authority of the House of Lords. Involve, Development Education Association (2010) Nudge, think or shove? Shifting values and attitudes towards sustainability , A briefing for sustainable development practitioner London. http://www.involve.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Nudge-think-or-shove.pdf Retrieved 08/01/2012 John and Stoker (2010) How experiments can help get Britain to the Big Society. Rawson, J. (2011) Nudge' is not enough, it's true. But we already knew that, The Guardians, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/nudge-is-not-enough-behaviour-change Retrieved 06-01-2012. Renewable Energy and Efficiency Partnership (2004), Glossary of terms in sustainable energy regulation, Sustainable Energy Regulation Network. http://www.reeep.org/file_upload/296_tmpphpXkSxyj.pdf , Retrieved 2008-04-19. Rotter, J. B. (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, p.80. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2005) The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, London: Grown. Shipworth, M. (2002) Motivating Home Energy Action:A Handbook of What Works. Australian Greenhouse Office. Thaler R., Sunstein G. (2008) Nudge, New Haven: Yale University Press. Yates, S. M., Aronson, E. (1983). A social psychological perspective on energy conservation inresidential buildings. American Psychologist Association Inc., p. 435-444.

Page 4