Agency, Capacity and Community Electricity

Demand Reduction

Yael Parag School of Sustainability, IDC, Herzliya, Israel

Shai Zur Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, Haifa

University, Israel

Nadav Raz Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, Haifa

University, Israel

Behave Conference, 3-4 September, Said Business School, Oxford

A few definitions and concepts

Middle-out approach to socio-technical changes • Actor: individual, organization, institution, group, etc.;

depending on the social context

• Agency: actor’s capability and willingness to make his/her own free choices

• Capacity: actor’s capability to perform the choices he/she made

• Both agency and capacity are contextual and influenced by technical, institutional, financial, political, social, psychological and other factors

Not interested in change but capable of

performing it – action is less

likely

Interested in change and capable of

performing it - action is likely

Not interested in change and incapable of performing

change - action is unlikely

Interested in change but incapable of

preforming it – action is less

likely Agenc

y Low

Capacity

Low

High

High

Hypothesis on agency, capacity and the likelihood of action

Middle actors Middle actors: neither the regulator, the energy supplier nor the consumer, but rather actors who influence various aspects of the ways in which energy is produced, delivered or consumed Due to their own agency and capacity and due to their position between top and bottom actors, middle actors are in a good position to influence other actors agency and capacity and to enable and facilitate change

MIDDLE OUT

BOTTOM UP

TOP DOWN

upstream

downstream

sideways

sideways

Middle-out approach to socio-

technical change

Parag & Janda 2014

Research objectives

• Testing the relations between agency, capacity and likelihood of change in the case of electricity demand reduction

 

• Identifying middle actors and platforms that are perceived as influential on energy decision making by bottom actors

Population: Kibbutz Ein-Harod

• A rural collective community of ~210 hh in Israel, of which 79 hh participated in this study

• Established on 1921

• Members are informed on their monthly electricity consumption but the Kibbutz – and not consumers –pays the electricity bill

Data collection• (1) Households’ actual monthly electricity consumption was metered in 2012

and on the same period in 2013• (2) 79 members of the Kibbutz filled a questionnaire

o (a) Self reported agency: participants were asked to rank (on a scale of 1-5) their interest and willingness to undertake 13 actions to reduce their household electricity consumption. (e.g., changing light bulbs, changing thermostat setting, turning off computers and television sets, replacing old and inefficient appliances). If they had already carried out the activity, they were asked to provide their motivation for so doing.

o (b) Self reported capacity: participants were asked to rank (on a scale of 1-5) their ability to actually perform the same 13 actions. If they responded that they were completely incapable, they were asked to explain what prevented them from doing so.

o (c) Other information: age, number of people in household, number of children in household, years of membership in the Kibbutz. Information about the dwelling physical condition included the size of the house, number of rooms. Information was also collected on the age of 14 specific appliances (e.g., fridge, freezer, washing machine, drier, dish-washer, air-conditioning in each room, etc.).

Data collection• (d) Middle actors and enabling platforms: participants were

presented with 14 types of actors (for example the Kibbutz energy officers, the Kibbutz electrician, electrician not from the Kibbutz, the Kibbutz management committee, the Kibbutz building and planning officer, neighbors, etc.) and with 3 types of information communication platforms (periodic information about electricity use, written information provided by the Kibbutz electrician, professional brochures). They were asked to indicate how much their energy saving decisions are influenced (on a scale of 1-5) by the recommendations provided by the specific actor or platform. Participants could also indicate that the actor or platform is ‘not relevant’. Aside from the pre-defined list of 17 actors and platforms, participants could add other influencing actors and channels.

Analysis• Dependent variable:• % change in cumulative electricity consumption

(in kWh) between the two periods (degree days adjusted with references to 2011and base temperature of 25ºC)

• Independent variable:• Level of agency: recoded to ‘high’ and ‘low’• Level of capacity: recoded to ‘high’ and ‘low’

Findings I

  NMean

%(change)Std. Median Sig

AgencyLow 15 +2.19 14.36 1.99

0.0343High 35 -7.23 13.28 -7.97

Capacity

Low 17 +3.55 11.93 3.390.0039

high 33 -8.50 13.59 -8.54

Levels of agency and capacity and rate of change in electricity consumption

Non-parametric Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test

Findings II

 Participants with the combination of:

N

Mean (% change)

StdMedian

Sig

low agency and low capacity 9 +6.6712.82

5.02

0.0092

high agency and high capacity 27 9.39-13.41

10.15-

Mismatch*: low agency and high capacity; high agency and low capacity

14 1.91-12.31

1.32

Combination of agency and capacity and rate of change in electricity consumptionKruskal-Wallis Test between 3 independent groups

* Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test found no significant differences (p = 0.6514) between the categories low agency & high capacity and high agency & low capacity and change in electricity consumption. Therefore these categories were combined into mismatch.

No significant differences were found between: Number of people in household and • levels of agency (high / low), or• levels of capacity (high / low), or • the combinations of agency and capacity Size of house and • levels of agency (high / low), or • levels of capacity (high / low), or • the combinations of agency and capacity

No significant correlation was found between % of change in electricity consumption and • number of people in household, or • size of house

Findings III

Findings IV

 

Kibbutz energy officer

Kibbutz local electrician

Kibbutz plumbing officer

Kibbutz building officer

Kibbutz engineer

Electrician not from the Kibbutz

Kibbutz Purchase officer

% influenced

79 67 48 38 36 34 33

% not influenced

17 32 49 48 44 27 49

% not relevant

4 1 3 14 19 38 18

Relevant middle-actors and level of influencePresented in the table are only those who influence 33% or more

Neighbors were not found to be influential actors on energy saving decision making.

Summary: agency and capacity

• Initial validation to the middle out hypothesis on agency, capacity and change

Further research: • How variables such as values, beliefs, norms and

attitudes are correlated with people self-perceived agency?

• How variables such as access to resources, infrastructures and regulation are correlated with self-perceived capacity?

• Are self-perceived agency and capacity correlated with actual agency and capacity?

Summary: middle actors

• We identified middle actors which are relevant to the community o Some of them are the obvious ‘usual suspects’ (e.g., energy

officers, local electrician), other are less obvious, (e.g., plumbing officer, purchasing officer)

Further research: • Test the middle-out strategy which suggests that

working with middle actors might be more effective in enabling changes compared to working only with end-users.

Summary: social setting

• Ein-Harod is a unique community, which does not represent the wider population in Israel or elsewhere o It is a small and cohesive rural community with clear and

formal organizational structure and managemento Members do not pay for their electricity consumption

Further research: • Test the middle-out in different social contexts

and settings.

Parag, Y., & Janda, K. B. (2014). More than filler: Middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the “middle-out”. Energy Research & Social Science, 3(0), 102-112. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.011