townsville residential energy demand program (tred...

Townsville Residential Energy

Demand Program (TRED Program)

Investigation by Community Survey of Behaviours to Reduce Residential Energy Demand in Townsville

Community Survey Findings Report

Completion Date:

May 2010

CitySolar Community Capacity Building Program

Townsville CitySolar Community Capacity Building Program Investigation by Community Survey of Behaviours to Reduce Residential Energy Demand in Townsville

of 83

Acknowledgements This document has been developed through funding from the Australian Government Solar Cities Program and the Townsville City Council (Townsville Queensland Solar City). The document has been developed by members of the The Natural Edge Project (TNEP), a non-profit sustainable development research and education think-tank, supported by the Griffith University Urban Research Program under the supervision of Professor Brendan Gleeson and Dr Stephen Horton. The principle researchers were Karlson ‘Charlie’ Hargroves, and Cheryl Desha and the research team included Angie Reeve, and Stacey Hargroves. The research was carried out under the direction of, and in collaboration with, Greg Bruce and the team from Townsville City Council Integrated Sustainability Services, including Rebecca Lee, Andrew Morris, Sri Suryati, and Damien Sweeny. This document is based on the methodology of ‘Community Based Social Marketing’ (CBSM) with its developer Dr Doug McKenzie-Mohr engaged by Townsville City Council to provided direct advice and review of deliverables with respect to applying the methodology in Townsville. The document draws primarily from Fink, A. (2006) How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide (3rd Edition), Sage Publications, London.

The development of the survey was greatly enhanced by James McBroome, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University.

Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of the collaborating parties: Townsville City Council; Australian Government; Australian Federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts; and Griffith University. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this document are factually correct, these parties do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.

Any enquiries about this document should be directed to: Mr Greg Bruce Executive Manager Integrated Sustainability Services Townsville City Council [email protected] www.townsville.qld.gov.au

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/�


of 83

Table of Contents

1. Surveying the Community on Residential Energy Demand Reduction .......................... 5

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5

CitySolar Context ................................................................................................................... 6

The Home Energy Use Survey .............................................................................................. 7

2. Summary of Community Survey Findings ......................................................................... 8

Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading ............................................................ 8

‘Top of Mind’ benefits and barriers ................................................................................................... 8 Ranking of focus group barriers and benefits ................................................................................... 9 Expressed value of potential program tools ................................................................................... 11

Switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system .. 12

‘Top of Mind’ benefits and barriers ................................................................................................. 12 Ranking of focus group barriers and benefits ................................................................................. 13 Expressed value of potential program tools ................................................................................... 15

Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour ....................................................................... 16

‘Top of Mind’ benefits and barriers ................................................................................................. 16 Ranking of barriers and benefits and complier status analysis ...................................................... 17 Expressed value of potential program tools ................................................................................... 19

3. Developing the ‘Home Energy Use’ Survey..................................................................... 20

Overview of key considerations ........................................................................................... 20

Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................................... 22 Ethics, Privacy and Confidentiality .................................................................................................. 23

Survey design methodology ................................................................................................. 23

Sampling methods and data collection ........................................................................................... 24 Planning for response rate .............................................................................................................. 24 Considering the format of the survey .............................................................................................. 24 Designing the open-ended questions ............................................................................................. 26 Identifying barriers and benefits for the forced choice questions ................................................... 27 Identifying potential tools for the forced choice questions .............................................................. 29 Rating scales for forced choice questions ...................................................................................... 30

Participant selection and recruitment process ..................................................................... 30

Identifying the sample ..................................................................................................................... 30 Attracting participants ..................................................................................................................... 30 Probability and non-probability sampling options ........................................................................... 31 Possible sources of sampling and survey error .............................................................................. 32 The sample size .............................................................................................................................. 32

4. Administering the ‘Home Energy Use’ Survey ................................................................ 34

Pilot-testing and administration of the survey ...................................................................... 34

Data collection and analysis notes ....................................................................................... 35

‘Top of Mind’ open questions .......................................................................................................... 35


of 83

Forced choice questions ................................................................................................................. 36

5. Expanded Survey Findings ............................................................................................... 38

‘Top of mind’ barriers and benefits investigation .................................................................. 38

Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading .................................................................... 38 Switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system ............ 39 Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour .................................................................................. 40

Forced choice barriers, benefits, and tools investigation ..................................................... 41

Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading .................................................................... 41 Switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system ............ 50 Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour .................................................................................. 61

Appendix 1: The Home Energy Use Survey Sample ............................................................. 70

Appendix 2: Codes used for the analysis of survey data ..................................................... 75

Appendix 3: Advertising materials used to promote Survey ................................................ 78


of 83

1. Surveying the Community on Residential Energy Demand Reduction

Introduction In 2006, Townsville was announced as Queensland's first Solar City under the Federal Government Solar Cities initiative. Commencing in mid-2007 Townsville’s Solar City initiative consisted of several synergistic projects, including: Magnetic Island (Solar Suburb), two Greenfield sites, and a sustainable CBD building, in addition to city-wide education and community capacity building. As part of the Townsville: Queensland Solar City project, the Townsville City Council, working closely with the consortium partners, including Ergon Energy, initiated a program focused on community capacity building, known as the CitySolar Community Capacity Building Program. This program includes a project to investigate methods of fostering sustainable behaviour related to residential energy demand.

This project, known as the ‘Townsville Residential Energy Demand Project’ (The TRED Project), seeks to identify and investigate a number of options to encourage residents (specifically home owners) to reduce household energy demand that are suitable for application in Townsville. The program is intended to provide valuable information and guidance to the Council regarding effective methods to encourage and assist residents to reduce energy demand in the home. It is proposed that encouraging residents to focus on reducing energy demand in the home can deliver two main benefits: firstly the reduction of direct energy costs and hence energy bills; and secondly, a reduction in the consumption of fossil based electricity and an associated reduction in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, such reductions can also provide a range of indirect community wide economic benefits, such as reducing costs to energy utilities to provide energy during peak times, reducing costs related to maintenance of the electricity grid, creating new industries for low energy consuming products, and reducing future anticipated liability against costs related to carbon pollution abatement. Hence with strong benefits to both residents and businesses the reduction of residential energy demand is an important consideration for the future of Townsville.

The development of the TRED Project began with an investigation of potential behaviours or actions that residents can undertake in their homes to reduce energy demand. The study, among the most comprehensive undertaken in the world, considered 241 such behaviours and investigated both the likelihood that residents would undertake the behaviour and the potential impact it would have on the energy demand of the home. These results were peer reviewed by an expert panel to create the final database. From this a short list was created based on the anticipated likelihood and impact, as per the CBSM Methodology, and a range of potential benefits and barriers were identified and investigated. Based on the findings, a workshop was held between the research team and Townsville City Council Integrated Sustainability Services to identify three behaviours to be further investigated. The selected behaviours were: i) planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading; ii) switching from an electric hot water storage system to a less energy consuming system; and iii) painting the roof white, or a reflective colour.

The next step was to undertake a series of focus groups to engage with Townsville residents to investigate perceptions around the benefits and barriers to each of the three behaviours. Focus group participants were selected to represent both those who had undertaken the behaviour and those who had not, along with an income threshold, to form four groups per behaviour. The output from the focus groups provided a list of both benefits and barriers for each behaviour and, following assessment of the findings across each of the four groups, a final list was generated. In


of 83

order to gauge the level of agreement on the lists in the greater community they were used as the basis of a community survey of Townsville residents. Participants in the survey were first asked to nominate their most influential benefits and barriers, before being shown the list from the outcome of the focus group to then indicate their level of agreement. Furthermore, the participants were invited to provide an indication of the perceived value of a selection of program tools generated through discussion in the focus group and amended by the research team. The survey was opened online from February to May 2010 and received responses from over 1200 Townsville residents, some 82% of whom were home owners. Participants were invited to indicate if they had undertaken the behaviour (a ‘complier’) of if they had not (a ‘non-complier’) to allow an investigation into any resulting differences in views between them. In the focus groups participants were further divided into two specific income brackets however as the findings were not noticeably different, and the sensitive nature of make such disclosures on a website, it was decided not to ask for this information in the survey.

This document contains the complete findings of the community survey developed and undertaken, in line with the ‘Community Based Social Marketing’ (CBSM) methodology, to investigate the three specific behaviours identified to form part of a program to encourage residents in Townsville to reduce energy consumption in the home.

CitySolar Context A key component of the CitySolar Program is to assist Townsville residents to reduce their consumption of electricity in the home. The three main reasons for this focus are: 1) residents will have reduced energy bills; 2) the amount of electricity that is generated by greenhouse gas polluting power stations will be reduced; and 3) the amount of electricity that is required to be generated by new forms of renewable energy will be reduced, hence reducing their costs and improving their viability.

According to the International Energy Authority (IEA), residential buildings consume 27.5% of the world’s electricity (some 4.3 Million GWh),1 with this consumption covering a range of end-uses such as heating and cooling, appliances and equipment, water heating, indoor lighting, and refrigeration. A focus on residential energy consumption is therefore a significant component in a nation’s greenhouse gas reduction program. It has been shown through numerous investigations, programs, and case studies, that by taking an integrated approach, residential electricity consumption can be significantly reduced, up to 80% or by a factor of 52, without loss of comfort, excessive cost or significant changes to homes. Research undertaken by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) and consultant GreenMode into the potential to significantly reduce the energy requirements for the average home in Queensland, Australia, show that using commonly available and generally off-the-shelf technologies, the operational impacts of a home can be reduced by more than 80% without any substantial redesign of the home.3

This program is important as currently the majority of electricity in Queensland is generated by coal fired power stations that produce large amounts of greenhouse gas pollution, among other pollutants. The Council, State and Federal Government, and nations around the world

1 International Energy Agency (2006) 'Electricity/Heat in World in 2006', IEA, www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=29&Submit=Submit, accessed 23 February 2009. 2 See: von Weizsäcker, E., Hargroves, K., Smith, M., Desha, C. and Stasinopoulos, P. (2009) Factor 5: Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Increase in Resource Productivity, Earthscan, UK and Droemer, Germany. 3 Undertaken by Simon Divecha (GreenMode), Lynn Whitfield (Queensland Environmental Protection Agency), Rob Ball (Lend Lease) and Andrew Carre (Centre For Design RMIT), with a summary available at http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/Factor5-QueenslandHousingCaseStudy.pdf.

http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/Factor5-QueenslandHousingCaseStudy.pdf�

http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/Factor5-QueenslandHousingCaseStudy.pdf�


of 83

acknowledge and are committing to significantly reduce this pollution in order to avoid an unstable and unpredictable climate. Part of the solution, and the focus of the Solar City Program, is to shift to renewable forms of electricity generation. However, as demand for electricity is rising rapidly, along with levels of greenhouse gas emissions, steps need to be taken urgently to reduce consumption - firstly to reduce the amount of electricity that is required to be generated and subsequently to increase the viability of new, and currently expensive, forms of generation. Essentially each household can reduce its consumption of electricity to reduce the pressure and therefore increase the viability of non-renewable sources.

The Home Energy Use Survey The Townsville Home Energy Use Survey was designed and administered as part of a multistage process of investigating, calibrating and prioritising a list of barriers and benefits to three behaviours which have been identified as being able to significantly reduce the consumption of mains electricity in Townsville residential homes. This survey follows on from several key stages of the broader Townsville Reducing Energy Demand CBSM project, including a literature review, which investigated national and international experiences with these behaviours as well as behaviour change in general to develop a list of potential benefits and barriers which could influence the ability of Townsville households to take up these behaviours. Following this, the research team conducted a series of focus groups in Townsville to calibrate these findings for Townsville residents, and to gain insights into regional specific benefits and barriers and attitudes towards these behaviours.

The survey was designed to verify the findings of these focus groups, held in November 2009, and to potentially obtain further insights into the benefits and barriers. The survey was also designed to be self administered and conducted through the Townville City Council website.

The research team determined what information was needed from the surveys, which included:

− Verifying the findings of the focus groups, in terms of the key benefits and barriers for each of the behaviours.

− Identifying any additional benefits and barriers.

− Determining if there are any differences between compliers and non-compliers in terms of perceptions of barriers, benefits or tools for each behaviour.

− Determining the ranking of benefits and barriers, as well as the significance of each and degree of unanimity within the community over this perceived significance.

To this end, the research team designed a survey which had some initial open-ended questions, to reveal the ‘top of mind’ benefits and barriers to each of the three behaviours. Following this, each participant selected to do a survey on one of the three behaviours, and answered a number of forced choice questions (meaning that there was a set of available options to choose from) which gauged their degree of agreement with the benefits and barriers identified in the focus groups, as well as some possible tools and strategies for respectively enhancing and overcoming these. Participants were asked whether they had already undertaken that behaviour, and provided some basic demographic information. Table 3.1 was used as a primary reference in ensuring that the survey included all necessary components, and that by following this stepwise method, it would be both valid and reliable and would achieve the necessary objectives.


of 83

2. Summary of Community Survey Findings

Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading ‘Top of Mind’ benefits and barriers

Benefits

The survey revealed that there were several key ‘top of mind’ benefits related to shade planting, as shown in Table 2.1, with the full details shown in Table 5.1. Of these, ‘Cool the house and provide greater comfort’ was the most common, nominated by 60% of the respondents, followed by, ‘reduced electricity consumption and cost’, nominated by 24% of respondents.

Table 2.1: Ranking of key ‘Top of Mind’ benefits to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

‘Top of Mind’ Benefit Percentage of Respondents

1. Shade / cooling / comfort 60.36%

2. Reduced electricity consumption / cost 24.32%

3. Environment (replace trees/habitat/natives – purifies air) 20.72%

4. Aesthetics – greenery, pleasant outlook 19.82%

5. Environment – absorb carbon 17.12%

6. Place for recreation/ pleasure/ enjoyment in garden, shade for kids to protect from sun

17.12%

7. Attract wildlife to the yard 16.22%

Barriers

The most commonly cited ‘top of mind’ barriers to shade planting was a ‘lack of knowledge’ of what species to plant, where to find them and how to care for them, which was nominated by 36% of respondents, followed by the ‘lack of space for plants’ nominated by 21% of the respondents, see Table 2.2 and full listing in Table 5.2. There is a greater diversity in responses for the barriers to this behaviour than observed for the other behaviours, both benefits and barriers, with the highest barrier being listed by only 36% of participants. This may indicate that the behaviour change program will need to consider a number of barriers in this case in order to reach a greater number of homes, compared to the other behaviours.

Table 2.2: Ranking of key ‘Top of Mind’ barriers to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

‘Top of Mind’ Barrier Percentage of Respondents

1. Lack of knowledge 36.04%

2. Space to plant 20.72%

3. Water use 14.41%

4. Time to select, plant - effort 14.41%

5. Cost 12.61%


of 83

Ranking of focus group barriers and benefits

Benefits

The respondents were provided with a list of potential benefits from shade planting and asked to indicate their level of agreement with each as being an attractive benefit that may encourage them to undertake the behaviour, with the findings shown in Table 2.3, and full details shown in Table 5.7. In this case the findings showed that the respondents agreed with each of the benefits identified by the research and during the focus groups to differing extent. Of the ‘top of mind’ benefits, indicated with a star in Table 2.3, each was included in an existing option, except for ‘Environment (replace trees / habitat / natives – purifies air)’ being listed by 21% of respondents. However, there are clear overlaps apart from ‘purifies air’.

Table 2.3: Ranked benefits to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Benefits (**Ranked based on percentage that ‘Strongly Agree’)

Percentage ‘Strongly Agree’ or ‘Agree’

1. Provides shading to the home, making it cooler* 94.68%**

2. Provides a pleasant and shaded area to relax and play* 96.11%

3. Encourages birds, butterflies and wildlife into the garden* 94.89%

4. Increases the visual amenity and aesthetics* 92.63%

5. Provides a privacy screen for the home 93.66%

6. Reduced energy cost* 83.02%

7. Reduced carbon footprint of home* 85.28%

8. A source of fruit and food in the garden 83.85%

9. Increases the property value 69.73%

When comparing the responses for those who identified themselves as ‘compliers’ and ‘non-compliers’ the benefit that both groups most strongly agreed on was ‘Provides shading to the home, making it cooler’. This is in keeping with the findings from the focus group, in which most participants across each focus group for this behaviour discussed this benefit. The next three top benefits for each of the two groups were as in Table 2.3, namely ‘Provides a pleasant and shaded area to relax and play’, ‘Encourages birds, butterflies and wildlife into the garden’ and ‘Increases the visual amenity and aesthetics’, suggesting that these are commonly held benefits related to shade planting for both those who have and have not done so, a finding supported by the results of the focus groups. This suggests that providing greater information on the benefits of shade planting will have limited impact on encouraging non-compliers to undertake the behaviour.

When considering the responses to the level of agreement across each of the benefits, the statistical analysis suggests that there was a ‘statistically significant’ difference between compliers and non-compliers, meaning that the analysis suggests that compliers and non-compliers may hold different attitudes towards this behaviour that may affect their response. However, such a finding needs to be balanced by the understanding that it cannot be confirmed if such attitudes are affected by the experience of undertaking the behaviour. In general however, for each benefit the non-compliers tended to more strongly agree than the compliers, although the ranking of the benefits was not greatly influenced by this difference.


of 83

Barriers

The respondents were provided with a list of potential barriers to shade planting and asked to indicate their level of agreement with each as being an influential barrier that may discourage them from undertaking the behaviour, with the findings shown in Table 2.4, and full details shown in Table 5.11. In this case the findings show that the respondents agreed with each of the benefits identified by the research and during the focus groups to differing extent. Of the ‘top of mind’ benefits, indicated with a star in Table 2.4, each was included in an existing option. Unlike the benefits, the highest level of agreement was 74%, as opposed to 95%, and responses were quite even across a number of options. This supports the observation that a program to encourage shade planting would need to consider a number of barriers to focus on, whereas it may only need to consider the top 1 or 2 benefits.

Table 2.4: Ranked barriers to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Barriers (Ranked based on percentage that ‘Strongly Agree’)


1. Cyclone/storm damage from limbs and branches 73.82%

2. Leaf litter in gutters, pools and yards 71.17%

3. Lack of knowledge on plant selection and maintenance* 66.05% 4. Potential for root damage to house 64.01% 5. Time required to grow to provide shade 67.89% 6. Location of power lines and other services 62.17% 7. Falling limbs and branches 69.53% 8. Availability of space for mature plant* 60.73% 9. Attract termites 54.19% 10. Cost of plants and soil preparation* 60.53% 11. Additional vegetation matter for disposal 62.98% 12. Time required to plant and maintain* 57.67% 13. Water requirements of plants* 55.62% 14. Attracting unwanted wildlife 30.06%

When comparing the survey responses for those who identified themselves as ‘compliers’ and ‘non-compliers’ the barrier that both groups agreed most on was the ‘Lack of knowledge on plant selection and maintenance’, which was also a common barrier listed in each of the focus groups for this behaviour. Hence this may indicate that the design of a program to encourage shade planting could investigate ways that compliers have overcome this barrier to inform its strategy for influencing non-compliers. Furthermore, a particular finding from the focus groups that is also represented in the findings from the survey is that the non-compliers seemed more concerned with the risk from branches falling during cyclones and storms than compliers, with some compliers even noting that they felt having trees protected them from high winds. When considering the responses to the level of agreement across each of the barriers the statistical analysis suggests that there was a ‘statistically significant’ difference between compliers and non-compliers for almost all of the barriers for this behaviour. Non-compliers appeared to agree more strongly across a number of barriers whereas compliers were more focused on particular ones. The ranking of the barriers also differed somewhat between the two groups, suggesting that compliers and non-compliers may differ significantly in their pre-existing values and ideas around gardening.


of 83

Expressed value of potential program tools

As can be seen from Table 2.5, with full details shown in Table 5.15, access to information, either through a website or at a nursery, was selected as a tool that would provide the most value to home owners, for both compliers and non-compliers. These findings are consistent with those of the focus groups, in which participants in all focus group sessions noted that a lack of knowledge on plant selection and maintenance was a significant barrier to their planting more shade plants.

Considering the differences between compliers and non-compliers a ‘statistically significant’ difference was found between the complier and non-complier perceptions of the effectiveness of ‘Financial assistance to purchase plants for shade planting’, with non-compliers ranking this as their second preference and compliers as their fifth. Similarly, there was a statistical difference between the complier respondents’ perception of ‘Access to information about suitable shade plants at nurseries’, with compliers ranking second and non-compliers ranking as fourth (See Section 5 for details).

Table 2.5: Ranking of the perceived value of associated tools that may be used to encourage planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Tools (Ranked based on percentage that ‘Strongly Agree’)


1. Access to information about suitable shade plant on a website

85.19%

2. Access to information about suitable shade plants at nurseries

80.77%

3. A home visit to identify the location of underground services that may be affected by shade planting

71.73%

4. Financial assistance to purchase plants for shade planting

70.19%

5. A demonstration site to show mature shade planting options

75.77%

6. A home visit to provide advice on shade planting 58.84%

7. Financial assistance in dealing with additional prunings related to shade planting

67.50%

8. A council ‘hot line’ providing advice to homes around shade planting

57.11%

The findings of this part of the survey suggests that tools that focus on the provision of specific information either through websites, at nurseries or through home visits would be of value to homes in Townsville. However, the option to provide a ‘hot-line’ did not seem to gain such strong interest. The particular information included the identification of suitable plants and the location of services that plants may interfere with.


of 83

Switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system ‘Top of Mind’ benefits and barriers

Benefits

The survey revealed that there were two stand-out ‘top of mind’ benefits related to switching hot water systems, as shown in Table 2.6, with the full listing shown in Table 5.3. The first, ‘Cost savings – reduced electricity consumption’ was the most common, nominated by 83% of respondents, followed by, ‘Environmental action / consideration / impact – climate change / reduced CO2’, nominated by 60% of respondents.

Table 2.6: Ranking of key ‘Top of Mind’ benefits for switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system

‘Top of Mind’ Benefit Percentage of Respondents

1. Cost savings – reduced electricity consumption 82.88%

2. Environmental action / consideration / impact – climate change / reduced CO2

59.46%

3. Less reliance on grid / hot water in black out 4.50%

4. Better service – faster hot water 0.90%

5. No benefits 2.70%

Barriers

The most commonly cited ‘top of mind’ barriers to switching hot water systems was the ‘Upfront Cost’, nominated by 89% of respondents, followed by ‘Concerns over the reliability of an alternative hot water system’ nominated by only 9% of respondents, see Table 2.7, with full listing in Table 5.4. Each of the other barriers were each nominated by less than 10% of respondents, and the barrier to information access was only nominated by 1.8% of survey respondents and was given much higher influence in the focus groups.

Table 2.7: Ranking of key ‘Top of Mind’ barriers to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems

‘Top of Mind’ Barrier Percentage of Respondents

1. Upfront cost 89.19%

2. Concerns over the reliability of an alternative hot water system

9.01%

3. Structural issues with the house 4.50%

4. Lack of time or not enough motivation 4.50%

5. Renting the property and landlord not interested 4.50%

6. Waiting for installation and time without hot water 3.60%

7. Reluctance to throw away existing, working system 2.70%

8. Body corporate issues 1.80%

9. Lack of knowledge / unsure of the best option 1.80%


of 83

Ranking of focus group barriers and benefits

Benefits

The respondents were provided with a list of potential benefits from switching hot water systems and asked to indicate their level of agreement with each as being an attractive benefit that may encourage them to undertake the behaviour, with the findings shown in Table 2.8, and full details in Table 5.19. In this case the findings show that the respondents agreed with each of the benefits identified by the research and during the focus groups to differing extent. Of the ‘top of mind’ benefits, indicated with a star in Table 2.8, each was included in an existing option except for ‘Better service – faster hot water’, being listed by 0.9% of respondents.

Table 2.8: Ranked benefits to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system

Benefits (Ranked based on percentage that ‘Strongly Agree’)


1. Townsville is an ideal climate for alternative systems 94.33%

2. Ongoing electricity cost savings* 95.27%

3. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions* 86.58%

4. Reduced dependence on mains electricity* 83.93%

5. Personal satisfaction for reducing environmental impact 87.33%

6. Reduces electricity consumption to increase effectiveness of solar panels

75.61%

7. Availability of rebates and government financial assistance

65.60%

8. Increases the property value 58.03%

9. Provides an environmental status symbol 48.39%

The focus groups found that there were two main benefits that were consistent across the 4 focus group sessions, namely reducing electricity costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and the personal satisfaction in doing something good for the environment, and this finding is well supported by the survey findings. It is worth noting that the availability of rebates and government financial assistance was not ranked as highly as benefits related to personal satisfaction, and given that the most significant barrier to this behaviour is the upfront costs, this is a curious inconsistency which may reflect low confidence and understanding in available rebates. When comparing the responses for those who identified themselves as ‘compliers’ and ‘non-compliers’ there was a ‘statistically significant’ difference found in how strongly they agreed that the following benefits affected their decision to switch hot water systems. Compliers tended to consider the ongoing cost savings to be of greater benefit than non-compliers. Similarly, compliers felt that the reduced consumption of electricity was more of a benefit when considering the reduced demand placed on the generation of electricity through PV panels than did non-compliers. These findings suggest that providing residents with an estimate of the amount by which this behaviour would reduce their energy bills and associated greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the impact of other possible behaviours, may simultaneously enhance this benefit while reducing the confusion over how to prioritise switching hot water systems over other options.


of 83

Barriers

The respondents were provided with a list of potential barriers to switching hot water systems and asked to indicate their level of agreement with each as being an influential barrier that may discourage them from undertaking the behaviour, with the findings shown in Table 2.9, and full details in Table 5.23. In this case the findings show that the respondents agreed with the benefits identified by the research and during the focus groups to differing extent. Of the ‘top of mind’ benefits, indicated with a star in Table 2.9, the top ranked items were included in an existing option. The upfront costs were by far the most significant barrier to switching hot water systems, with approximately 94% of survey respondents either strongly agreeing or agreeing. These costs may in fact be strongly related to other identified barriers such as the uncertainty over the length of the payback period; the existing system still working (therefore making the relative cost seem higher); and being unsure of whether to prioritise this behaviour over other energy efficiency measures.

Table 2.9: Ranked barriers to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system



1. Initial upfront costs* 93.95%

2. Existing hot water system is still working* 78.45%

3. Uncertainty about the length of payback period* 74.67%

4. Confusion around rebates and eligibility 68.44%

5. Concerns about selecting trustworthy tradespersons 65.41%

6. Lack of knowledge of alternative system* 58.23%

7. Uncertainty over how to prioritise alternative systems among other efficiency measures

62.57%

8. Concerns about the performance of new systems* 50.47%

9. Issues related to approvals from body corporate identities 26.09%

10. Unsuitability of site or building to alternate system 29.87%

11. Concerns about the way the new system will look 20.99%

These findings reinforce those from the focus groups, in which the upfront costs and lack of knowledge were consistent barriers, along with a high level of frustration with an inability to compare different hot water system technologies and models and to determine which would be most appropriate. There was a clear call for reliable, consistent and preferably individualised information to reduce the complexity and confirm various suppler claims. There was similarly a high level of uncertainty over how much electricity and money would be saved on a regular basis from having switched systems. When comparing the responses for those who identified themselves as ‘compliers’ and ‘non-compliers’ there was a ‘statistically significant’ difference between agreement on a number of barriers, including: ‘Existing hot water system is still working’, with non-compliers feeling that this was more important; ‘Lack of knowledge of alternative system’, with compliers feeling that this was more important; and ‘body corporate issues’, with compliers feeling that this was more important.


of 83


As can be seen from Table 2.10, with full details in Table 5.27, access to financial assistance, information on rebates and the provision of an option to recycle old systems, were selected as tools that would provide the most value to home owners, for both compliers and non-compliers. Considering the differences between complier and non-compliers there was a ‘statistically significant’ difference found between the complier and non-complier perceptions of the effectiveness of ‘The provision of a recycling option for electric storage hot water systems’ and ‘A demonstration site to show performance of various alternative hot water systems,’ with compliers ranking the demonstration option third and non-compliers ranking it sixth. Furthermore, non-compliers were more interested in being able to recycle their old systems. This may reflect the possibility that many compliers may have switched their hot water systems at the end of the useable life, and this was hence a lesser concern. Having now switched and been able to appreciate the benefits of a less energy consuming hot water system, compliers appear to believe that if non-compliers could be shown how these work and how much energy they save, they will make the switch.

Table 2.10: Ranking of the perceived value of associated tools that may be used to encourage switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system



1. Financial assistance to change to an alternative hot water system

91.12%

2. Access to information on related rebates and eligibility related to changing electric storage hot water systems

87.86%

3. The provision of a recycling option for electric storage hot water systems

79.34%

4. Access to information about alternative hot water systems on the market on a website

82.60%

5. A demonstration site to show performance of various alternative hot water systems.

75.72%

6. Access to information on council requirements related to changing hot water systems

82.97%

7. A home visit to provide advice on alternative hot water systems

65.58%

8. Access to information about alternative hot water systems at retail stores

69.21%

9. A council 'hot line' providing advice to homes around alternative hot water systems

55.98%

The findings for the barriers to this behaviour within the survey suggests that the cost barrier is the most significant, and further that households feel confused and uncertain about rebates for the behaviour. Around the time of the survey the available rebate for the behaviour was reduced which may have influenced the responses to this barrier.


of 83

Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour ‘Top of Mind’ benefits and barriers

Benefits

The survey revealed that there were two stand out ‘top of mind’ benefits related to roof painting, as shown in Table 2.11, with the full details shown in Table 5.5. Firstly, ‘Cooler/more comfortable/lower temperature’ was the most common, nominated by 79% of respondents, followed by, ‘Reduced electricity consumption/cost’, nominated by 43% of respondents. Each of the other benefits were nominated by less than 10%.

Table 2.11: Ranking of key ‘Top of Mind’ benefits for painting the roof white, or a reflective colour

‘Top of Mind’ Benefits Percentage of Respondents

1. Cooler / more comfortable / lower temperature 79.28%

2. Reduced electricity consumption / cost 43.24%

3. Better for the environment 7.21%

4. Reduced need for insulation 4.50%

5. Adds value to the house / aesthetics 1.80%

6. Protects roof 1.80%

Barriers

The most commonly cited ‘top of mind’ barriers to roof painting was ‘Cost’, nominated by 77% of respondents, followed by ‘Aesthetics – doesn’t match house’ nominated by 21% of the respondents, see Table 2.12, with full listing in Table 5.6.

Table 2.12: Ranking of key ‘Top of Mind’ barriers for painting the roof white, or a reflective colour

‘Top of Mind’ Barriers Percentage of Respondents

1. Cost 77.48%

2. Aesthetics – doesn’t match house 20.72%

3. Time and effort 10.81%

4. Can’t find / trust tradespersons 9.01%

5. Lack of knowledge 8.11%

6. Glare – neighbours, pilots 5.41%

7. Unsure of benefits 4.50%

8. Availability of paints 3.60%

9. Not regulated 1.80%

10. Lack of campaign / advertising / awareness of this behaviour

1.80%

11. Colourbond can’t be painted / tiled roof 1.80%

12. White roofs get dirty 0.90%


of 83

Ranking of barriers and benefits and complier status analysis

Benefits

The respondents were provided with a list of potential benefits from roof painting and asked to indicate their level of agreement with each as being an attractive benefit that may encourage them to undertake the behaviour, with the findings shown in Table 2.13, and full details in Table 5.31. In this case the findings show that the respondents agreed with each of the benefits identified by the research and during the focus groups to differing extent. Of the ‘top of mind’ benefits, indicated with a star in Table 2.13, each was included in an existing option except for ‘Reduced need for insulation’, being listed by 4.5% of respondents, however, there is a clear overlap with a reduced cost due to the reduced need to install insulation.

Table 2.13: Ranked benefits for painting the roof white, or a reflective colour

Benefits (Ranked based on percentage that ‘Strongly Agree’)


1. Cooler inside temperatures* 90.82%

2. Reduced electricity consumption and cost* 86.35%

3. Increases the energy rating of home 75.69%

4. Improves the lifespan of roof materials* 57.07%

5. Personal satisfaction from environmentally inspired efforts*

71.71%

6. Increases the property value* 49.13%

When comparing the responses for those who identified themselves as ‘compliers’ and ‘non-compliers’ on the ranking of benefits there was a ‘statistically significant’ difference for the top three benefits in Table 2.13, which was also in line with the findings of the focus groups. However, for this behaviour the compliers more strongly agreed with each of the benefits than the non-compliers. For instance, over 80% of complier respondents strongly agreed that ‘cooler inside temperatures’ was a significant benefit of this behaviour, as opposed to only 58% of non-compliers. This may imply that the benefits are greater than expected once the behaviour has actually been undertaken. Alternatively, non-compliers may not value this benefit as highly if their houses are already cool through the use of an air-conditioner. Although the focus groups did not use any statistical methods to compare the findings from each group, it was noted that there did not appear to be any difference between compliers and non-compliers during the focus group sessions.

Although ‘Increases the energy rating of the home’ was not included as a key ‘top of mind’ benefit, it was well ranked in the survey. This was also the experience in the focus groups (with one of the four groups having it related to improving home value), as even though it was not initially discussed in the focus group participants’ ‘top of mind’ lists, it was added by a number of participants after it was raised by the research team.


of 83

Barriers

The respondents were provided with a list of potential barriers to roof painting and asked to indicate their level of agreement with each as being an influential barrier that may discourage them from undertaking the behaviour, with the findings shown in Table 2.14, and full details shown in Table 5.35. In this case the findings show that the respondents agreed with each of the benefits identified by the research and during the focus groups to differing extent. Of the ‘top of mind’ barriers, indicated with a star in Table 2.14, each was included in an existing option except for ‘Availability of paints’, being listed by 3.6% of respondents, ‘Not regulated’ by 1.8%, and the ‘Lack of campaign/advertising/awareness of this behaviour’ by 1.8%. However, as these barriers were nominated by less than 5% of respondents they are not considered significant.

Table 2.14: Ranking of rated barriers for ‘Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour’, based on the responses of all survey participants



1. Upfront costs* 89.33%

2. Lack of information on suitable products* 77.42%

3. Concerns about selecting trustworthy tradespersons* 71.46%

4. Costs and time required to prepare roof for painting* 68.99%

5. Cost of maintenance when painting unpainted roofs* 64.77%

6. Hassle and inconvenience of organising the roof painting* 58.81%

7. Cost of cleaning a white or light coloured roof* 57.56%

8. Issues related to warranty/guarantee of roof 51.61%

9. Uncertainty over how to prioritise roof painting among other efficiency measures 63.28%

10. Uncertainty over the benefits* 51.86%

11. Concerns around the way the new roof will look* 40.94%

12. Paint and runoff causing environmental problems 37.23%

13. Glare affecting neighbours* 32.76%

14. Asbestos related concerns 23.57%

When comparing the responses for those who identified themselves as ‘compliers’ and ‘non-compliers’, a ‘statistically significant’ difference was found between the responses to almost all of the listed barriers, although the top five were the same for each and ranked differently. In general the non-compliers felt that the barriers were more influential on their decision than the compliers. During the focus groups, many participants discussed being unsure of the benefits of this behaviour and the difference it would make to their home. And this may have also influenced respondents of the survey.

The top five barriers relate to either costs or the need for better information, which reflects the findings of the focus groups, in which upfront costs and a lack of information were by far the most influential barriers dominating discussions in the groups.


of 83


As can be seen from Table 2.15, with full details in Table 5.39, access to financial assistance, information and the provision of a demonstration site, were selected as tools that would provide the most value to home owners, for both compliers and non-compliers, and no ‘statistically significant’ difference was identified between the responses given by the compliers and the non-compliers in this regard. The prioritised list of tools averaged across all behaviours is shown in Table 2.15 below, with ‘Financial assistance to undertake white/reflective roof painting’ being the most popular tool nominated by 83% of respondents, followed by ‘Access to information about white/reflective roof painting on a website’, also nominated by 83%.

Table 2.15: Ranking of the perceived value of associated tools that may be used to encourage painting the roof white, or a reflective colour



1. Financial assistance to undertake white/reflective roof painting

83.34%

2. Access to information about white/reflective roof painting on a website

83.82%

3. A demonstration site to show performance of white/reflective roof painting

74.16%

4. Access to information on warranty/guarantee issues related to roof painting

77.77%

5. Access to information on council requirements related to changing to a white/reflective roof

78.50%

6. Access to information about white/reflective roof painting at paint stores

74.15%

7. Assistance to select and engage tradespersons 66.42%

8. A home visit to provide advice on white/reflective roof painting

58.21%

9. A council 'hot line' providing advice to homes around white/reflective roof painting

57.00%

10. A home visit to assess asbestos related risks to roof painting

51.45%

The findings of this part of the survey suggest that both the cost and information barriers are the most significant, and furthermore that homeowners would prefer to experience the benefits through a demonstration.


of 83

3. Developing the ‘Home Energy Use’ Survey

Overview of key considerations The survey aimed to verify the findings of the focus groups in which the benefits and barriers to the three specific behaviours were explored. It sought to assess the degree to which Townsville residents felt a selection of potential program tools would provide them value when seeking to undertake the behaviour. Expanding the community engagement from the focus groups through the use of a community survey enabled the research team to gain input from a greater number of Townsville residents. Although the some 1200 residents that completed the survey do not represent the more than 150,000 residents in Townsville, this sample provides a strong indication of trends and attitudes in Townsville. The results further inform efforts to understand better the associated benefits and barriers for the behaviours and the perceived value of a selection of tools and strategies that may be used to enhance and reduce them respectively. The findings of the survey will also inform a community-wide program to assist residents in taking up these behaviours.

The survey was designed as a list validation survey to investigate if the list of benefits and barriers developed through the literature review and focus groups is representative of the attitudes and opinions of a broader cross-section of Townsville residents. The intent of this form of survey was to assist in understanding the level of agreement with the various items produced from the focus groups as either benefits or barriers to inform the program design, along with the level of agreement that a particular type of program element would be of value. This information was gained through both an open ended initial question to identify ‘top of mind’ benefits and barriers, as well as by asking participants to note how strongly they agree or disagree with each of the key benefits and barriers that were identified in the focus groups (although these were not shown until the ‘top of mind’ items where inputted into the survey). The research team developed a detailed specification for the survey based on ‘How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide’,4

Table 3.1 (Survey Specification Table 3): Survey Components (with reporting)

as recommended by Dr Macenzie-Mohr, which outlined the various steps to be undertaken to ensure that the survey was objective and credible, as well as reliable and valid, as outlined and reported on in Table 3.1 - Table 1 of the survey specification.

Component Detail CitySolar Survey

Sampling and Design

– Sampling refers to the number and characteristics of people undertaking the survey.

– Design often refers to how often the survey takes place (i.e. once ‘cross-sectional’, or over time ‘longitudinal’), and defines whether the participants will be selected at random, and how many groups will be included (i.e. whether the survey will be ‘comparative’)

– The survey is designed to be cross sectional, to be available to the entire community, and will attempt to attract as many participants as possible.

– All homeowners in Townsville are assumed to have equal opportunity to participate in the survey through the use of ubiquitous promotional mechanisms such as rates notices and the Townville Bulletin.

Questions – Sometimes called ‘items’, may be ‘forced-response’ choices, or ‘open-ended’.

– Selection, wording and ordering of

– The survey contains both open-ended questions and forced response choices, in order to gauge both the ‘top of mind’ barriers and benefits, as well as the degree of agreement with those found

4 Fink, A. (2006) How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide (3rd Edition), Sage Publications, London.


of 83

Component Detail CitySolar Survey questions and answers require careful thought and a reasonable command of language

in the focus groups, respectively. – Survey questions are worded in order to

be quickly read and understood.

Instructions – Surveys contain instructions for completion (e.g. Time limit? Answer all questions?)

– The instructions can also include a ‘Survey Consent Form’ which alerts participants to the nature of the survey, any privacy issues, and how the information will be used

– The survey contained information on how the survey was to be conducted in order for participants to be eligible for the prize draw, including that only one of the three surveys needed to be completed, and that all questions within that survey required a response.

– The survey stated that it would take around 10 minutes to complete, which was estimated to be a generous allocation of time.

– The survey form stated that personal information was only collected to contact prize winners and details would not be stored with the responses.

Pilot Testing – A tryout, to help produce a survey form that is usable and that will provide information that is needed

– Pilot testing helps improve the response rate (below), by eliminating potential sources of difficulty such as poorly worded questions, and no place to record data.

– The survey was pilot tested internally by staff from Townsville City Council and from the research team from TNEP.

Data Gathering – Administering the survey, within a certain timeframe

– Attempts to get a good ‘response rate’ i.e. the number of invited participants who complete the survey. The ideal response rate can be computed statistically in large surveys, but may rely on subjective judgement for smaller surveys. The general rule is ‘higher is better’

– The team from Townsville City Council Integrated Sustainability Services used a number of methods to promote the survey, as well as offering a generous and relevant incentive. The response to the focus groups had been high, indicating a high level of support for the program in Townsville.

Data Processing, Analysis & Interpretation

– During survey design, the research team needs to plan for data analysis

– Decide whether the results will be in percentages, averages, a comparison of groups, looking for relationships, changes over time etc.

– The survey was designed to facilitate analysis by minimising the number of open-ended questions and using predominately forced answer questions. The research team also took time to determine what key information was needed from the survey, and limited the questions to these aspects.

– The desired results from the survey are a ranking of barriers and benefits, as well as an indication of the significance of each, as indicated by the percentage of participants who listed the benefit or barrier, and the spread of responses in the forced choice questions.

Source: Adapted from Fink (2006) pp4-65



of 83

Before designing the survey, the research team worked with Townville City Council integrated Sustainability Services to clearly define the required outcomes from the survey to be certain that the survey would be targeted in achieving these outcomes. For instance, in order to investigate differences between those who do the behaviour (i.e. compliers) and those who don’t (i.e. non-compliers) participants in the survey were asked if they had already undertaken the behaviour. However, despite there being a range of such sub-categories that could have been investigated, in order to avoid overloading the survey the research team limited the questions asked to those which were essential for this stage of the project, which included noting their ‘top of mind’ barriers and benefits to each of the behaviours, assessing the benefits and barriers that were found during the previous stages of the project, and indicating whether they feel any of the tools and strategies which were suggested during the focus groups would be of value to them in undertaking the behaviour. The survey predominately used closed questions, to facilitate the use of multivariate statistical analysis to provide an indication of which benefits and barriers are most important, and whether there is a significant difference between compliers and non-compliers.

Reliability and Validity

Table 3.2 (Survey Specification Table 2 from the specification) was used as a guide to increase the reliability and validity of the survey. Being a community-wide survey with the primary aim of validating and prioritising an existing list of options it was beyond the scope and requirements to undertake all steps listed in the following tables, and thus the research team focused on several key considerations as reported in the following tables.

Table 3.2 (Survey Specification Table 2): Ensuring quality – Reliability

Tasks Completed? CitySolar Survey

Test-Retest: – Does the survey have test-retest reliability? Usually computed by testing the same group of participants on two different occasions, then correlating the scores.

– A survey is considered reliable if the correlation between results is high – that is people who have good (or poor) attitudes on the first occasion also have the same attitudes on the second occasion.

– The survey was not tested for test-retest reliability. However, the survey was pilot tested internally by staff from TCC, including staff from Integrated Sustainability Services and from corporate communications, along with the research team.

Equivalence: – Are alternative forms equivalent? – Only one form of the survey was used.

Internal Consistency:

– How internally consistent are the questions on a survey, in measuring the characteristics, attitudes, or qualities that they are supposed to measure?

– Many surveys are not interested in internal consistency, rather they are interested in the responses to each item.

– The survey was not interested in internal consistency, as each question served an independent purpose and was not directly correlated with any other question.

Source: Adapted from Fink (2006) p386

6 Fink, A. (2006) How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide (3rd Edition). Sage Publications, London.


of 83

Table 3.3 (Survey Specification Table 3): Ensuring quality – Validity

Validity Types Completed? CitySolar Survey

Predictive – A measure of the survey’s ability to forecast performance

– The survey was not predictive, it was used to gain an indication of the strength of attitudes and preferences in the Townsville community at this time.

Concurrent – A measure of how the survey and some other measure agree on the outcome

– The survey was used to validate the findings of the focus groups. The focus groups were not, however, used to validate the survey methodology.

Content – A measure of the accuracy with which the questions represent the characteristics they are supposed to survey

– A survey can be validated by proving that its items or questions accurately represent the characteristics or attitudes they are intended to measure

– The survey assessed attitudes and levels of agreement with possible barriers and benefits to 3 energy efficient behaviours. Through a pilot testing process, the research team was able to determine that participants understood the questions, and gave responses that reflected their stated attitudes and opinions.

Construct – Experimentally obtained proof that a survey intended to measure a specific feeling, attitude, belief or behaviour truly measures it

– The survey measured relatively straightforward attitudes and levels of agreement. No inference was needed in assessing these attitudes and it was deemed unlikely that survey responses would not be indicative of how respondents actually felt.

Source: Adapted from Fink (2006) p397

Ethics, Privacy and Confidentiality

A consent form was not used for the survey, however, the confidentiality of all participants was preserved and the data used only for the purposes outlined in this report. Survey participants were informed that their personal information would only be used to notify prize winners and would not be stored with their responses.

Survey design methodology In order to design the survey, the research team needed a variety of competencies, including those related to: how to ask questions; how to design the survey; how to sample respondents; how to collect reliable and valid information; and how to analyse and report on the findings. As the survey was based on a specification developed by the research team, in line with the CBSM methodology, and the TCC had a well established method for contacting residents and attracting participants, it was decided that the design and implementation of the survey would be done by the research team and TCC. This meant that external specialist services were not required. Table 3.4 (Survey Specification Table 5) outlines the key survey tasks to be completed in order to develop, administer and report on the survey, as reported in the amended version of the table below.



of 83

Table 3.4 (Survey Specification Table 5): Survey Planning Tasks

Tasks Responsibility Completed?

1. Decide on the Type of Survey TNEP/TCC yes

2. Select the Survey Content (Questions) TNEP yes

3. Decide Who should Participate and When (Survey Sampling) TCC yes

4. Administer the Survey TCC yes

5. Process the Data TNEP yes

6. Analyse and Interpret the Results TNEP yes

7. Report the Results Orally or in Writing TNEP yes

Source: Adapted from Morgan (1998) vol 2, p10

Sampling methods and data collection

An online survey was used as it was determined that the vast majority of residents would be familiar with, and have access to, a computer (all of the Townsville libraries have free internet which library members can use for one hour a day). This type of survey was selected as it was the simplest to administer, the data would be automatically collected, and it would be easy for residents to complete the survey. It was also anticipated that this would have the lowest cost of the survey types.

Planning for response rate

One of the aims in conducting the survey was to engage with the Townsville community and provide evidence for the level of interest and support for the overall goal of the program to reduce Townsville’s pressure on the environment through reduced energy consumption (assuming that such energy is fossil based and results in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions). As such, the response rate to the survey was of particular importance. Given the strong response rate to the focus groups, demonstrated by registration levels exceeding the minimum requirements for the 12 focus groups, it was anticipated that there would similarly be interest from the community in the survey. Hence, many of the same mechanisms used in focus group recruitment were used to contact participants, including advertising the survey in the Townsville Update sent with rates notices to homeowners, an advert in the Townsville Bulletin (a free, local newspaper), listing on the TCC website homepage, and through related email networks, with the potential for on-forwarding of the emails to further networks and friends. In addition there were several news items related to the program which specifically mentioned the survey component (as shown in Appendix 3). In addition to this, focus group participants were advised of the upcoming survey and were sent a brief summary email of the findings from the focus group, letting them know that they could encourage family and friends to participate. Over 1200 respondents participated in the survey, providing evidence of a strong level of engagement with the community. Based on the expected high response rate, as well as the survey type, a refusal survey, as suggested in the specification, was not necessary.

Considering the format of the survey

The key aims of the survey largely guided the content, and included: to investigate the level of agreement on the findings from the focus groups related to benefits and barriers; to identify


of 83

additional benefits and barriers that may be top of mind; and to investigate the level of agreement that particular tools and strategies may provide value and may encourage the uptake of the behaviour. The use of open-ended questions as the first item for respondents to consider enabled the research team to capture the most common ‘top of mind’ barriers and benefits to each behaviour, and compare with the findings of the focus groups. Following this, forced choice questions for each behaviour then investigated the level of agreement that the item was an attractive benefit or influential barrier, and as the forced questions allowed a quantitative assessment this enabled the research team to statistically analyse the responses by complier status. The guidelines shown in Table 3.5 (Survey Specification Table 7 of the specification) were used in the content development process as well as informing the survey formatting, as reported in the following table.

Table 3.5 (Survey Specification Table 7): Practical considerations used in designing the survey

Guide Comments The Survey

Length will vary with budget and respondent availability

- Depends on how many questions are needed so that the results are credible

- Depends on the time availability of respondents

- The survey was designed to be 10 minutes in length to increase participation, and as such only critical questions were asked.

- The survey was designed to ensure that all key aims could be achieved from the data.

Ensure layout is appropriate

- Put one question on a line - Avoid abbreviating questions - Leave plenty of space for responses - Avoid many items that look alike - Keep questions independent to avoid

bias

- Layout was reviewed and revised to be useable and readable. The layout was developed by TCC using a format that had been shown to be easily used by participants.

Put questions in order

- The first question should be clearly connected to its purpose

- Place questions logically - Objective questions should come before

subjective questions - Put relatively easy questions at the end - Put ‘sensitive’ questions in the middle - Questions should be ordered from

material most to least familiar to the audience

- Questions involving recall should follow the natural sequence of time

- Questions clearly flowed from asking about barriers and benefits, to what tools are most useful for participants, as in the focus groups.

- Demographic questions were at the end of the survey.

- It was assumed that participants would be reasonably familiar with all questions, as they relate to attitudes and personal experiences.

Clearly plan ‘branching questions’

- Often called ‘skip’ questions, which allow some respondents to move forward in the survey without answering a number of questions that do not relate to them

- There were no skip or branching questions.




of 83

Designing the open-ended questions

Open-ended questions were used at the beginning of the survey to investigate the participants’ ‘top of mind’ perceptions of the potential benefits and barriers to each of the behaviours, before they were prompted and potentially biased by seeing the list of suggested benefits and barriers in the survey. This is important information as it provides an indication of what is sitting in the forefront of participants’ mind when considering the various behaviours, as well as whether there are other benefits and barriers which aren’t commonly considered initially. The survey participants were all asked to note what they felt the biggest barrier and biggest benefit was for them in undertaking each of the three behaviours, as shown in Appendix 1.

It is important to understand that these responses are an indication of the perception of the participant and may not reflect the facts or reality of the particular behaviour. The top of mind perception is influenced by media, conversations, assumptions around implementing various behaviours and a range of other factors that are difficult and/or unable to be qualified. The value of the open-ended questions is to provide an indication of the general perception of the participants as a potential representation of the Townsville community, as distinct from another community. The findings from this part for the survey will influence the design of the pilot program through being cross-referenced with the forced choice questions that follow.

As survey participants all use their own words in answering these questions, it is more difficult to score and collate their responses. The following steps were used to treat, and then analyse the data:

1. Obtain Data: The survey participants were asked to list their top benefit and barrier to each of the behaviours by typing in to a blank entry space, allowing them to use their own language.

2. Code Data: Codes were created for similarly themed benefits and barriers, such as upfront costs, lack of information, increase in property value etc. The categories were nominated to be as precise as possible to minimise the amount of detail that was lost by aggregating items. This was considered appropriate as it was assumed to be easier to combine categories at a later stage if required rather than separating categories out into sub-groups. To ensure that this process was reliable, the research team randomly cross-checked the coding and categorisation to ensure that they arrived at the same results.

3. Count Data: The data was counted in two ways: 1) the number of responses related to each code was counted; and 2) the number of participants whose answers were related to each category was counted. For instance, a particular category may have 35 items related to it that have been contributed by 32 respondents, as respondents were able to add as many items as they liked and may have added more than one item for a particular code. The decision to undertake this two-part counting system was informed by the findings of the focus groups that found that participants had listed as many as 4 items related to a particular benefit.


of 83

Identifying barriers and benefits for the forced choice questions

In the survey, a series of forced choice questions were used - meaning that respondents were given a set of options to choose from - to investigate the level of agreement with the various lists of benefits and barriers, as identified in the focus groups. As each participant in each focus group created their own list of benefits and barriers, in their own wording, it was necessary to summarise these using consistent language by identifying common themes and concepts. Outlined below is the process which was used to create summarised lists of the most commonly nominated benefits and barriers for each behaviour:

− Following the focus groups, the notes from the participants, moderator, and assistant moderator where collated and compared to the audio recordings of the session to create an anonymous list of both barriers and benefits for each participant. The items that were considered influential were identified by being underlined, and the items that were added only following discussion were identified by being in brackets, as shown in the sample table below. (See Section 7, ‘Individual participants’ written contributions’, of the Focus Group Report for each of the behaviours.)

Participant 1D

− Invasive roots − Leaves in gutters − Shallow roots/damage of falling/cyclones − Neighbour’s needs − Trees higher/larger than anticipated

− Leaves on pathways/slippery − Time to grow − (Cost) − (Water) − (Red tape to remove)

− The items for each of the participants were then combined to make a single list for each focus group, with the items clustered into groups of similar barriers or benefits. Each item carried an identifier to show which participant they came from to allow tracking, such as (D) to identify the anonymous participant from the table above. This was done to ensure that the table could identify if an item was from a participant that had added other times or if it was a new item, furthermore it indicated the level of coverage of the participants in each of the clusters, as shown in the sample below. (See Section 7, ‘Participant written contributions clustered under main topic areas’, of the Focus Group Report for each of the behaviours.)

Barriers nominated as most influential Additional Barriers Barriers added

following discussion

Leaf litter − Leaf drop (C) − Leaves in gutter (A) − Leaves in gutters (D) − Leaf litter on rooves and in

guttering (E)

− Leaves on pathways/slippery (D)

− (Paths – falling leaves) (B)

− From this list, a summary was developed of each of the clusters that indicated how many participants had listed an influential item related to this cluster, how many had listed it as an additional item, and how many had added an item after discussion, for example in the case of the sample above: ‘Leaf litter: 5 participants listed items, with 4 influential barriers from 4


of 83

participants, 1 additional barrier from a participant that listed an influential barrier, and 1 additional barrier added following discussion by a new participant.’

− Based on the discussion during the focus groups, a summary of topics raised were then listed, such as the links and potential synergies between items. As in the case of the sample focus group above: ‘between the need to get rid of large pruning’s, the issue of leaf litter and the ability of the council to provide mulch for gardens.’

− Based on the tables created, a series of observations were then made, such as, ‘Each of the participants were concerned about the impact of leaves on gutters and pathways. Only one participant mentioned the time required for maintenance, and this was not highlighted as a key barrier, hence the barrier appears to relate more to the impact it will have on the gutters and the safety issue of slippery leaves (although the time needed for maintenance may have been implied).’ The final area of observation was in the use and recurrence of key words that participants had heard from other participants and added to their list, such as the word ‘prunings’ being specifically added by 2 participants.

− Based on the findings of the focus groups, the lists were investigated for items that received nomination in only one or two of the sessions, and by only one or two participants being assessed, in order to determine whether they were in fact encompassed within other benefits/barriers already listed, and if not, a decision was made whether these could be removed from the list depending on whether they were likely to be highly individual benefits/barriers experienced by one household, or whether they were likely to be more general in scope. Although this process was highly iterative and time consuming, it was necessary to ensure that the research team did not impose their own ideas or expectations on the final list of barriers and benefits.

− The outcome of the process was to generate a list of barriers and benefits that were then used in the survey, for instance in the case of the sample from above, the full list was:

− Cyclone/storm damage from limbs and branches

− Lack of knowledge on plant selection and maintenance

− Leaf litter in gutters, pools and yards

− Falling limbs and branches

− Potential for root damage to house

− Attract termites

− Availability of space for mature plant

− Time required to grow to provide shade

− Cost of plants and soil preparation

− Time required to plant and maintain

− Location of power lines and other services

− Additional vegetation matter for disposal

− Water requirements of plants

− Attracting unwanted wildlife


of 83

Table 3.6 (Survey Specification Table 8) re-presented below, was then used as a guide when developing the ‘forced choice’ or ‘closed’ questions for the survey to assess whether the barriers and benefits found through the focus groups were representative of the attitudes and experiences of the wider Townsville Community.

Table 3.6 (Survey Specification Table 8): Rules for constructing ‘forced choice’ or ‘closed’ questions in surveys

Rule Comments

1. Each question should be meaningful to respondents

- Any question that is not obviously related to the topic of the survey should be explained

2. Use standard English - Avoid specialised words (unless their meaning is being tested), abbreviations and lengthy sentences

- Any potentially ambiguous terms should be defined for the respondent

3. Make questions concrete - The further the question is removed from the respondent’s direct experience, the greater the problems with remembering

- Ensure that there is no reason for the respondent’s answer to be non-representative (for example due to an unusual circumstance)

4. Avoid biased words and phrases

- Be careful of words, names, and views that might automatically bias the results

5. Check your own biases - Make sure the wording will be acceptable to persons holding contrary opinions

6. Use caution when asking for personal information

- Ensure that the questions will not offend the respondent, who then may withdraw from the survey

- Categories of responses (for example salary ranges) are preferred for sensitive questions

7. Each question should have just one thought

- Do not use questions where a respondent’s truthful answer could be both yes and no, or disagree and agree at the same time

- Write more questions than are planned for use, as several will likely be rejected during the review process as unsuitable


Identifying potential tools for the forced choice questions

In order to investigate a respondent’s views on the value of different options for tools and strategies that could be incorporated into the community program, a series of options were presented as forced choice questions for each behaviour. It was intended that the options presented did not resemble existing or past efforts to avoid direct comparison with previous programs. Furthermore, it was intended that the description of the various tools was not too prescriptive as to indicate a future direction by the council, but rather to investigate the perceived value of different options focused on, for example: providing information via a website, at point of sale, or by telephone; enabling a home visit to identify issues or provide advice; providing direct financial assistance; and/or providing a demonstration site.



of 83

Rating scales for forced choice questions

A five-point ordinal scale (this would also be considered an interval scale) was used for the forced choice questions, with possible responses being:

1. Agree strongly; 2. Agree; 3 Unsure; 4. Disagree; 5. Disagree strongly

This number of categories was chosen as it provides adequate indication of the participant’s level of agreement without overloading survey participants with too many choices. This ranking system was selected from a number of possible scales.

Participant selection and recruitment process Identifying the sample

When considering the findings from a sample of a population to gain insight into the potential nature of the greater population, it is important to consider the level of representation that can be expected from the sample, and that both the population and sample are clearly defined. For the ‘Home Energy Use’ survey, the population was all Townsville residents, some 175,500 people as of June 2008, and the sample consisted of those residents who voluntarily participated in the survey, some 1,250 persons (a less than 1% participation rate). It was assumed that all residents in Townsville had an equal opportunity to be notified and then participate in the survey. This was informed by an appreciation of the various mechanisms used to inform households of the survey which were anticipated to reach all homes and the availability of internet services at public facilities to allow those who were not connected to the internet to participate.

Sampling requires the clear definition of eligibility criteria, where ‘Inclusion Criteria’ are the characteristics a person must have to be eligible for participation, and ‘Exclusion Criteria’ are the characteristics that rule out certain people from participating. In this case there was no inclusion criteria and all residents were able to participate, however, the exclusion criteria was set to being a resident of Townsville. As the focus groups were restricted to homeowners it was considered that this inclusive approach may affect the results, however, participants were asked if they were homeowners, and in the survey 82% identified themselves as homeowners. However, it was decided that any ‘top of mind’ barriers related to those renting their home would be removed from the investigation, such as ‘landlord requirements’.

Attracting participants

To facilitate a high response rate on the survey, Townsville residents were advised of the survey through the Townsville Update, which is received by all homeowners in their letterboxes, as well as through the Townsville Bulletin (a local, free newspaper), and through existing email lists and networks. The survey was also promoted through flyers and posters around town (See Appendix 3). Additionally, focus group participants were emailed following the analysis of the focus group data with a brief summary of the findings, and were also alerted that the survey would soon be online. To further encourage participation, the survey was linked to the Townsville City Council website, where the possibility of winning a $1,000 voucher for energy efficient appliances from the ‘Good Guys’ in Townsville for doing the survey was clearly advertised. The research team ensured that the survey would be completed in 10 minutes, and would be easy for all residents to understand and complete. The research team also made certain that it was clearly noted that the entry to the prize draw would only occur after the whole survey had been completed, as shown in the graphic below from the Council website for the survey.


of 83

Probability and non-probability sampling options

The ‘sampling frame’ for the survey (i.e. a list of all eligible units that compose the population) is all households in Townville. This sampling frame is the same as the population, and as noted above, all households in Townsville were contacted about the survey. There are two methods for obtaining a sample from this sampling frame, including probability sampling (all households have an equal chance of being included in the sample) or non-probability sampling (researchers deliberately select a sample to ensure it will meet the survey needs) - the survey used probability sampling. The survey was advertised through mechanisms which were highly likely to have reached all households in Townsville, and no particular sub-groups of the population were targeted. Considering that the survey was designed to be short, there is a financial incentive for participation, and that previous experience with Townsville residents suggests that they are active and engaged in the area, the research team estimated that a sample from this population would be representative and not discriminating or favouring against certain demographics or interest groups.

The survey participants were self-selected. All Townsville residents were invited to participate in the survey, with participants voluntarily choosing to take the survey themselves. As with all self-selected samples, there is a potential for some bias to exist within this group. For instance, participants may have chosen to take the survey due to a strong interest in energy efficiency or other environment related issues, due to high levels of community involvement, or due to the prize being offered. However, due the variety of incentives for participating and the relatively large sample size it was assumed that this sample provides a strong indication of the views of the Townsville community in so much as it informs the development of a community program.


of 83

Possible sources of sampling and survey error

The two main categories of error sources in sampling, ‘sampling error’ and ‘non-sampling error’ were both considered during the survey. Potential non-sampling errors may have been caused by:

- Renters and non-homeowners responding to the survey. The research team decided it would be politically and practically difficult to exclude renters and non-homeowners and hence did not attempt to do this. Even though the focus of the behaviour change program will be targeted towards options more suitable to homeowners it will be offered to all residents.

- In the case of one of the behaviours(switching hot water systems), the level of government financial assistance available to Townsville residents to encourage this behaviour changed on the 19th February 2010, immediately before the survey began. There was additionally a sudden withdrawal of the Federal insulation rebate scheme, and changes to the Green Loans scheme that may have affected resident’s perceptions of the value of government programs or the influence of rebates and financial assistance from the government. These changes were likely to have had some impact on the responses of participants, however, this is not possible to qualify, though it has been given consideration where possible during the data analysis.

- Participants may not have understood the survey questions being asked, which would affect the data. However, as the survey questions were reviewed and tested the researchers assert that this is unlikely to have been the case for this survey.

- Some participants appeared to have responded to the survey several times due to an issue with the online survey system. These multiple responses are easily identified and have been removed for the data analysis.

Some potential sources of sampling error may include:

- Survey participants were self-selected, and may have participated in the survey due to an existing bias.

- Some Townsville residents may not have had access to the internet to complete the survey, or may not be experienced with online interfaces. There is free internet available at all Townsville libraries, however, this may not have been convenient for some residents.

The sample size

There were two considerations when determining the sample size for the survey. The first was to have enough participants to allow for a meaningful investigation of the data such that the findings could be used to indicate the views of the greater Townsville community. The second was to provide evidence for the level of interest in participating in an environmentally motivated program within the community. For the first item the data investigation was undertaken based on the findings of the first 700 responses, as this was considered a representative sample and a greater number would not enhance the findings available from the data. However, for the second aim, the survey continued to be available online even after the analysis phase had begun in order to further investigate the level of interest in the topic of the community and to demonstrate the viability of such investigations to inform programs in Townsville.

The checklist of factors shown in Table 3.7 (Specification Table 14) below influenced the design of the sample considerations for the survey. The minimum number of survey participants which


of 83

was necessary to allow a meaningful investigation was set at 700 respondents. For the open-ended ‘top of mind’ questions, a random sample of the 100 items were selected for consideration due to the lengthy process of coding entries.

Table 3.7 (Survey Specification Table 14): Checklist of factors to consider when calculating the sample size

Step Considerations The Survey

1. Assemble and clarify all survey objectives, questions, hypotheses

Each objective, question, and hypothesis contains the survey’s independent and dependent variables (‘Do household members of different ages differ in their attitude towards turning off standby power?’), where: - Dependent Variables are the attitudes,

behaviours, and knowledge the survey is measuring. They are the ‘variables’ for which estimates are to be made, or inferences drawn. They signal the content of the survey. e.g. Dependent variable is attitude towards turning off standby power.

- Independent Variables (‘grouping variables’) are used to predict or explain the ‘dependent’ variables. They specify the conditions under which estimates of or inferences about the dependent variables are to be made. e.g. Independent variable is age.

Survey objectives: - To investigate focus group findings - To determine the ranking of benefits

and barriers for each behaviour - To determine the preference for tools

to assist in the uptake of behaviours - To determine whether a significant

difference exists between compliers and non-compliers for each behaviour

Variables: - Dependent: Attitudes towards barriers,

benefits and tools - Independent: Complier status, age,

postcode.

2. Identify subgroups

Look at the independent variables to identify the subgroups e.g. Different age brackets.

Subgroups: Compliers and non-compliers

3. Identify survey type and data collection methods

There will be specific and general data collection needs: - Specific: may include the need to be

anonymous, translated into several languages etc

- General: inherent in the survey method, for example including interviewer training, mail out logistics etc

Specific: Anonymity of responses General: Monitoring data collection and survey analysis

4. Check the survey’s resources and schedule

Cost and time varies with the number of subgroups and type of survey. Large numbers of subgroups and measures increase the costs and time needed.

Time constraints exist for the collection and analysis of data – (collection by mid-April for analysis)




of 83

4. Administering the ‘Home Energy Use’ Survey

Pilot-testing and administration of the survey Throughout the design process, the survey was pilot-tested by Townsville City Council staff and the research team. Due to time constraints, the survey was not tested outside of these organisations, however, as it was reviewed by at least five different members of the team, it was felt that any potential issues had been identified and dealt with.

The survey was self administered online, with the completed checklist in Table 4.1 (Survey Specification Table 15) outlining the key considerations in the administration process.

Table 4.1 (Survey Specification Table 15): Checklist for planning self-administered questionnaires

Item Comments The Survey

1. Send Advance Letter

- Send respondents an advance letter (mail/ email) advising the purpose, why it is important, and who is being surveyed

- If possible have the letter authored by someone of high regard to the audience (for example the lord mayor)

- The survey was advertised with the Townsville Update, which is sent to all residents. It was also circulated through email networks, and advertised in the Townsville Bulletin newspaper.

2. Include a short explanation with the survey

- At the front of the survey, include a brief summary of the contents of the Advance Letter

- Keep concise, and clearly separate from the survey questions

- The survey had a brief, 13 line explanation of the purpose of the survey including an endorsement from a prominent local Council member.

3. Consider offer respondents a summary of results and/or incentives

In the advance letter and survey explanation: - consider including an offer to send the

results to the respondent - consider offering an incentive to the

respondent for participating (to be claimed after survey completion)

- The survey participants were not offered to have the results sent to them.

- Participants were offered an entry into a prize draw to win $1,000 worth of energy efficient appliances for their home.

4. Explain any sensitive questions

- Consider providing a short introduction in the survey, to any sensitive questions, or a sensitive section of questions

- This text should explain why the question is necessary

- The survey had no questions that were likely to be sensitive for participants.

5. Keep the response procedure simple

- Keep page folding and page turning to a minimum

- Do not crowd the questions together – leave enough room for completion

- Provide a self-addressed and stamped envelope for returning the survey

- The survey was online, and used a standard TCC format which is easy to read and use. There was a minimum of questions, most of which were forced choice, so overcrowding and confusion were not likely to be a problem.

6. Keep the questionnaire short

- Ask only questions that are absolutely needed

- For printed surveys, consider double-sided printing if this can be read without being confusing

- For online surveys, have a permanent counter that the respondent can see,

- Survey questions were limited to those which were necessary for this stage of the project.

- The survey was conducted over two pages, with a third page in which participants entered their details so that they could enter the prize draw.


of 83

Item Comments The Survey

so they know how far through the survey they are (for example “Page 1 of 5”, or “20 Percent”)

7. Consider follow-up reminders

- Keep these brief and to the point - Avoid over-reminding participants

- The survey continued to be promoted online, and through the media and through advertisements around town for the duration of the survey.


Data collection and analysis notes The survey was conducted online, allowing for the real-time collection of data in excel spreadsheets. The analysis process had several stages, and is summarised below.

‘Top of Mind’ open questions

Survey participants were asked to list their ‘top of mind’ top barriers and benefits to each of the three behaviours, as shown in Appendix 1. The purpose of these questions were to enable the research team to gauge the most common, and hence potentially the most influential, barriers and benefits experienced by survey participants before being prompted or influenced by the lists of barriers and benefits generated through the literature review and focus groups. The process of preparing and analysing this data was an important learning process for the research team, and was largely guided by the advice of James McBroome from the Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University. Having begun the process, as outlined below, it became clear that this was going to be highly time consuming, particularly within the context of the information being sought. Hence the research team decided to take a random sub-set sample of the data for investigation, reducing the number of entries to be coded from over 1200 to around 112. The process of analysing this data is outlined in Section 3 above, noting that initially there were 27 individual codes generated that were reduced to 15 to encompass the most common responses, with a miscellaneous code used for all remaining responses. Each code was identified by a number to avoid the possibility of a data entry error and facilitate the analysis of the data (see Appendix 2 for a list of codes).

The investigation of the findings of the ‘top of mind’ responses focused on a number of areas, including:

− Indentifying the benefits/barriers that were most often nominated by participants.

− Identifying the similarity of the findings to that of the focus groups, noting that:

1. The focus group participants were restricted to nominating the 3 most influential benefits/barriers, and the survey participants were not restricted.

2. The focus group participants nominated their most influential benefits/barriers following group discussions during which they heard the benefits/barriers of other participants as well as the research team, unlike the survey, and thus their selection is likely to have been biased.



of 83

3. The codes used in the survey were not explicitly the language used to identify the clusters in the focus groups, as the research team was mindful of not forcing the survey data to conform to the focus group findings. Hence, the data was ‘eyeballed’ to determine commonly listed barriers and benefits, some preliminary codes developed, and additional codes developed as needed during the coding process.

Despite this, it is still possible to comment on clear similarities or differences between the findings from the focus groups and survey, however, the research team did not conduct statistical analysis to compare the focus groups and survey participants. There are a large number of variables which could account for the differences between the two groups and there would be no way of determining whether variations in the data can be explained by any one of these.

Forced choice questions

The second part of the survey asked participants to respond to a number of forced choice questions, in which they are to show the degree to which they agree that the benefits and barriers which were found to be influential in the focus groups would affect their decision over whether to undertake the behaviour or not, as shown in Appendix 1.

The participants were then also asked to provide some additional information to assist the research team in categorising their responses, including:

− whether they are a complier for that behaviour

− their postcode

− their age bracket

− if they or their family member owns the home

The research team determined that it was not necessary to run an analysis on all of these variables, however, a focus was put on the complier status to determine whether there was a statistical difference between the responses given by the compliers for each behaviour, and the non-compliers. The data was primarily analysed by a statistical analysis software program to determine the mean score, standard deviation and the percentage of respondents who selected each response, as well as to determine if there were statistical differences between the responses given by compliers and non-compliers.12 The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (MWW) non-parametric t-test was used to compare the complier participants in the survey to the non-compliers. This test does not make the assumption of normality in the data, which underlies parametric t-tests, and enables this to be used to test ordinal data (i.e. 1. Agree Strongly; 2. Agree; 3. Unsure; 4. Disagree; 5. Disagree Strongly). It is, however, not as powerful as the parametric t-test as it uses the ranks of the data rather than the raw values. The MWW test compares two populations to test whether two populations have equally distributed functions (the null hypothesis), or otherwise said, whether the two samples come from the ‘same population’. In this case, the test would determine whether there is a statistical difference between the sample group of compliers, from the sample group of non-compliers, based on their rating of the benefits and barriers for the behaviour in question.13

12 SAS Institute Australia (nd) SAS Version 9.1.3 for Windows. support.sas.com/index.html, accessed 20 May 2010.

In determining whether there is a statistical difference between the compliers and the non-compliers, a significance level of 0.05 has been used to assess the Normal Approximation score.

13 Texasoft (2008) Mann-Whitney Test, Winks Statistical Software, USA. texasoft.com/winkmann.html, accessed 25 February 2010.


of 83

The responses to the forced choice questions were recorded as numbers from 1 to 5, corresponding to each of the possible responses for those questions (i.e. ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, etc). The barriers, benefits and tools were ranked based on the percentage of survey participants who ‘strongly agreed’ that the barrier or benefit would influence their decision to undertake the behaviour, or whether the tool would assist them in doing so.

There were several key assumptions made in the data analysis of the forced choice questions, including:

− The average response of participants to each of the benefits and barriers was indicated by calculating the mean of the data set. Fink14

− The ranking of the benefits and barriers for each behaviour was based on the percentage of participants who ‘strongly agreed’ with the benefit/barrier as the primary determinant, with the percentage who ‘agreed’ as the second determinant.

suggests that a mean is most appropriate when the distribution of responses is fairly symmetric, and the research is seeking numerical values. To provide additional detail, the percentage of participants who selected each possible response was also given. In most cases, additive percentages of the response were also provided, for example: “76% of participants either agreed or strongly agreed with this benefit”.

− It was determined that it was not meaningful or necessary for this project to investigate whether the ranking of the benefits and barriers was statistically similar to the findings from the focus groups.

− It was decided to investigate the potential difference in responses between respondents that identified themselves as being compliers and non-compliers.

14 Fink, A. (2003) How to Manage, Analyze, and Interpret Survey Data, (2nd ed), Sage Publications, California.


of 83

5. Expanded Survey Findings

‘Top of mind’ barriers and benefits investigation Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Benefits: By far the most common ‘top of mind’ benefit for this behaviour was that it would cool the house and provide greater comfort (see Table 5.1) with some 60% of respondents listing the benefit, and accounting for about a third of the overall entries for this question.

Table 5.1: Ranked ‘Top of Mind’ benefits to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Coded ‘Top of Mind’ Benefit Frequency of response

Percentage of responses

Percentage of respondents

1. Shade / cooling / comfort 67 32.21% 60.36% 2. Reduced electricity consumption / cost 27 12.98% 24.32% 6. Environment – replace trees / habitat / natives – purifies air 23 11.06% 20.72%

3. Aesthetics – greenery, pleasant outlook 22 10.58% 19.82% 5. Environment – absorb carbon 19 9.13% 17.12% 8. Place for recreation/ pleasure/ enjoyment in garden; shade for kids to protect from sun 19 9.13% 17.12%

4. Attract wildlife to the yard 18 8.65% 16.22% 7. Water retention 7 3.37% 6.31% Other 4 1.92% 3.60% 12. Noise barrier – privacy 2 0.96% 1.80%

TOTAL 208

Barriers: The most commonly cited ‘top of mind’ barrier to shade planting was the lack of knowledge of what species to plant, where to find them and how to care for them, listed by just over a third of respondents and accounting for about a quarter of the overall entries for this question.

Table 5.2: Rank ‘Top of Mind’ barriers to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Coded ‘Top of Mind’ Barrier Frequency of response



5. Lack of knowledge 40 23.81% 36.04% 7. Space to plant 23 13.69% 20.72% 2. Water use 16 9.52% 14.41% 4. Time to select, plant - effort 16 9.52% 14.41% 1. Cost 14 8.33% 12.61% 6. No barriers 9 5.36% 8.11% 8. On-going maintenance 9 5.36% 8.11% 10. Risk of storm damage 9 5.36% 8.11% Other 6 3.57% 5.41% 3. Time to grow 5 2.98% 4.50% 15. Trees dying 5 2.98% 4.50% 17. Risk of roots to foundations etc 5 2.98% 4.50% 11. Termites 4 2.38% 3.60% 18. Leaf littler – gutters etc 4 2.38% 3.60% 9. Cost/effort in dealing with prunings 3 1.79% 2.70% TOTAL 168


of 83

Switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system

Benefits: By far, the most commonly cited ‘top of mind’ benefit for installing an alternative hot water system was the ongoing cost savings due to reduced electricity consumption, with some 80% of respondents listing the benefit and it accounting for about a half of the overall entries for this question. It was also noted that some 3% of respondents listed that they felt there was no benefit to this behaviour.

Table 5.3: Ranking of all ‘Top of Mind’ benefits for switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system




1. Cost savings – reduced electricity consumption 92 55.09% 82.88% 2. Environmental action / consideration / impact – climate change / reduced CO2 66 39.52% 59.46%

3. Less reliance on grid / hot water in black out 5 2.99% 4.50% 4. Better service – faster hot water 1 0.60% 0.90% 5. No benefits 3 1.80% 2.70% TOTAL 167

Barriers: The most common ‘top of mind’ barrier for this behaviour was the upfront cost, with some 90% of respondents listing the benefit, and it accounting for about two thirds of the overall entries for this question.

Table 5.4: Ranking of all ‘Top of Mind’ barriers to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems




1. Upfront cost 99 66.89% 89.19% 2. Payback period 2 1.35% 1.80% 3. Lack of knowledge 2 1.35% 1.80% 4. Lack of rebates or issues with rebates 2 1.35% 1.80% 5. Concerns over the reliability of an alternative hot water system 10 6.76% 9.01%

6. Structural issues with the house 5 3.38% 4.50% 7. Body corporate issues 2 1.35% 1.80% 8. Lack of time or not enough motivation 5 3.38% 4.50% 9. Renting the property and landlord not interested 5 3.38% 4.50% 10. Reluctance to throw away existing, working system 3 2.03% 2.70%

13. Lack of knowledge / unsure of the best option 2 1.35% 1.80% 19. Waiting for installation and time without hot water 4 2.70% 3.60% Other 7 4.73% 6.31% TOTAL 148


of 83

Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour

Benefits: Most survey respondents listed having a cooler, more comfortable house as one of the top benefits to be gained from painting the roof white, or a reflective colour, with some 80% of respondents listing the benefit, and it accounting for just over a half of the overall entries for this question. Following this, reduced electricity consumption and cost was the next most commonly cited. There were only 6 benefits which were commonly listed for this behaviour, with the responses heavily attributed to these top two.

Table 5.5: Ranking of all ‘Top of Mind’ benefits for painting the roof white, or a reflective colour




1. Cooler / more comfortable / lower temperature 88 57.52% 79.28% 2. Reduced electricity consumption / cost 48 31.37% 43.24% 3. Better for the environment 8 5.23% 7.21% 6. Reduced need for insulation 5 3.27% 4.50% 4. Adds value to the house / aesthetics 2 1.31% 1.80% 5. Protects roof 2 1.31% 1.80%

TOTAL 153

Barriers: Cost was the most common ‘top of mind’ barrier to painting the roof white or a reflective colour, with some 75% of respondents listing the benefit, and it accounting for just over a half of the overall entries for this question, with aesthetics as the next most influential barrier. As with the benefits, these two barriers were by far the most common responses, with other barriers listed accounting for a much smaller proportion. Hence respondents were mostly worried about the costs involved and if a white or reflective roof would match the rest of their house or the type of roof (i.e. tiled roof).

Table 5.6: Ranking of all ‘Top of Mind’ barriers for painting the roof white, or a reflective colour




1. Cost 86 53.09% 77.48% 7. Aesthetics – doesn’t match house 23 14.20% 20.72% 2. Time and effort 12 7.41% 10.81% 6. can’t find / trust tradespersons 10 6.17% 9.01% 3. Lack of knowledge 9 5.56% 8.11% 5. Glare – neighbours, pilots 6 3.70% 5.41% 4. Unsure of benefits 5 3.09% 4.50% 12. Availability of paints 4 2.47% 3.60% 8. Not regulated 2 1.23% 1.80% 10. Lack of campaign / advertising / awareness of this behaviour

2 1.23% 1.80%

11. Colourbond can’t be painted / tiled roof 2 1.23% 1.80% 9. White roofs get dirty 1 0.62% 0.90%

TOTAL 162


of 83

Forced choice barriers, benefits, and tools investigation In analysing the data from the forced choice questions the percentages for responses across the five point ordinal scale (1 corresponding to ‘strongly agree’ and 5 corresponding to ‘strongly disagree’), were considered to allow a ranking of the barriers, benefits and perceived value of tools for each behaviour. Survey respondents were also asked to indicate whether or not they had already undertaken the behaviour, allowing the research team to statistically analyse whether there was a difference between the responses given by compliers, and by non-compliers. The survey data was analysed to investigate whether there was a ‘statistically significant’ difference between the responses given by the compliers, and those of the non-compliers, to investigate if there is a tendency for compliers and non-compliers to hold different attitudes towards the item that may affect their response. Considering the perceived value of tools by respondents it is understood that the survey findings are not intended to be used as a prescriptive measure to determine the selection of tools for the program, but rather to give an indication of the relative perceived value of a range of delivery options for the program. The items developed in the survey were informed by the discussions and suggestions from the focus group discussions. Additionally, the analysis of the differences between the compliers and the non-compliers for each group may provide insights into potential underlying differences between individuals in these groups, or to possible shifts in perception which might occur during the process of undertaking each behaviour.

Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Findings related to Benefits

There was a statistically significant difference in the ratings given to all benefits by the compliers and non-compliers (Table 5.10 below). In all cases, the compliers more strongly agreed with each of the benefits than the non-compliers, although the ranking of the benefits is not greatly different between the two subgroups. This may suggest that many of the benefits for this behaviour are only ‘realised’, or at least more highly valued, once the behaviour has been undertaken. The top benefit for both compliers and non-compliers was that this behaviour would provide shading to the home and make it cooler. This is in keeping with the findings from the focus group, in which most participants across the four focus groups for this behaviour discussed this benefit. Some focus groups participants had displayed in-depth knowledge of the processes by which plants can keep a house cooler, which may have assisted other participants in understanding the extent of this benefit. The next three most influential benefits included: ‘Provides a pleasant and shaded area to relax and play’, ‘Encourages birds, butterflies and wildlife into the garden’ and ‘Increases the visual amenity and aesthetics’, suggesting that households value having a natural setting near their house, also found in the focus groups.

The economic benefits that might be derived from this benefit were not as highly valued by survey respondents, suggesting that the perceived benefits from this behaviour come from concepts of aesthetics, lifestyle and connection with nature rather than financial considerations. The findings also suggest that in selecting tools to assist households in undertaking this behaviour, it is likely that tools which assist households in selecting and maintaining plants which they find visually appealing and which attract wildlife would be of greater use than those which are purely practical for providing shade, also found in the focus groups. Participants noted that this behaviour would result in a cooler and more comfortable home, but did not often note that this might translate to reduce air conditioner use or cost savings. It is possible that this finding


of 83

reflects an assumption that having shade plants would not reduce indoor temperatures by a significant enough amount to allow them to switch off their air conditioners, or it may simply reflect the households’ priorities in having comfort in the home over financial benefits.

Table 5.7: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on benefits to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Benefits (All Respondents) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

St. disag.

(%)

Provides shading to the home, making it cooler 1.33 0.72 76.07 18.61 2.86 1.02 1.43

Provides a pleasant and shaded area to relax and play 1.31 0.65 75.46 20.65 2.25 0.61 1.02

Encourages birds, butterflies and wildlife into the garden 1.35 0.68 73.21 21.68 2.66 1.84 0.61

Increases the visual amenity and aesthetics 1.40 0.72 69.73 22.9 5.52 0.82 1.02

Provides a privacy screen for the home 1.50 0.76 60.74 32.92 3.68 1.23 1.43

Reduced energy cost 1.66 0.89 56.03 26.99 12.88 3.07 1.02

Reduced carbon footprint of home 1.66 0.88 53.99 31.29 10.63 2.66 1.43

A source of fruit and food in the garden 1.71 0.89 51.33 32.52 11.66 3.07 1.43

Increases the property value 1.98 0.95 38.24 31.49 24.95 4.29 1.02

Table 5.8: Descriptive statistics for ‘Complier’ survey respondents for levels of agreement on benefits to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Benefits (Compliers Only) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Provides shading to the home, making it cooler 1.26 0.62 68.31 25.14 2.73 1.09 2.73

Provides a pleasant and shaded area to relax and play 1.23 0.58 63.39 32.24 2.19 0.55 1.64

Encourages birds, butterflies and wildlife into the garden 1.23 0.56 58.47 33.33 3.83 3.28 1.09

Increases the visual amenity and aesthetics 1.30 0.63 57.92 31.15 8.74 0 2.19

Provides a privacy screen for the home 1.39 0.67 48.63 42.62 4.37 1.64 2.73


Reduced energy cost 1.53 0.82 41.53 37.7 15.3 2.73 2.73

A source of fruit and food in the garden 1.58 0.82 39.34 37.7 16.39 4.37 2.19



of 83

Table 5.9: Descriptive statistics for non-complier survey respondents for levels of agreement on benefits to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Benefits (Non-Compilers Only) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Provides a pleasant and shaded area to relax and play

1.45 0.72 82.68 13.73 2.29 0.65 0.65

Encourages birds, butterflies and wildlife into the garden

1.55 0.81 82.03 14.71 1.96 0.98 0.33

Provides shading to the home, making it cooler

1.45 0.84 80.72 14.71 2.94 0.98 0.65

Increases the visual amenity and aesthetics

1.57 0.83 76.8 17.97 3.59 1.31 0.33

Provides a privacy screen for the home

1.67 0.86 67.97 27.12 3.27 0.98 0.65

Reduced energy cost 1.87 0.96 64.71 20.59 11.44 3.27 0


A source of fruit and food in the garden

1.92 0.96 58.5 29.41 8.82 2.29 0.98


Table 5.10: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for levels of agreement on benefits to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to

provide shading

Benefits (Comparing Compliers and Non-Compliers)

Mean – Comp.

Mean - Non-

Comp. T score Z score

Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Provides shading to the home, making it cooler 1.26 1.45 0.0011 0.0011 yes 0.05

Reduced energy cost 1.53 1.87 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Encourages birds, butterflies and wildlife into the garden

1.23 1.55 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Provides a pleasant and shaded area to relax and play

1.23 1.45 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Increases the visual amenity and aesthetics 1.30 1.57 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

A source of fruit and food in the garden 1.58 1.92 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Increases the property value 1.81 2.28 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Provides a privacy screen for the home 1.39 1.67 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Reduced carbon footprint of home 1.57 1.83 0.0004 0.0004 yes 0.05


of 83

Findings related to Barriers

There was a statistically significant difference in the ratings given to all but three of the barriers by the compliers and non-compliers (Table 5.10). Hence both compliers and non-compliers seemed to agree on the influence of ‘time required to grow to provide shade’, ‘location of power lines and other services’, and ‘water requirements of plants’, as barriers. The ranking of the barriers also differed somewhat between the two groups (see Table 5.12 and Table 5.13). As suggested above when discussing the benefits, the compliers and non-compliers for this behaviour may differ significantly in their pre-existing values and ideas around gardening. Households may imagine that there will be large inconveniences or risks before undertaking this behaviour, however those who have actually used shade planting appear less concerned by these aspects. This may suggest that there is a degree of misconception surrounding the impacts of trees and shrubs in the garden, creating a significant barrier to households, which are not reinforced by the experiences of the compliers.

Table 5.11 shows the ranking of the barriers for shade planting based on the responses of all survey participants. The most significant barrier was the risk of damage from limbs and branches falling during cyclones or storms, and the second most significant was the tendency of leaf litter to accumulate in gutters, pools and yards. Providing information and assistance in how to select appropriate plants, and to then locate them in the garden, may allow these barriers to be addressed. The third most common barrier was a lack of knowledge on how to select and care for plants. The focus groups found that non-compliers seemed more concerned with the risk from branches falling during cyclones and storms than compliers, with some compliers even noting that they felt having trees protected them from high winds. The lack of knowledge on how to select and look after plants was also a common barrier listed in all focus groups for this behaviour, with some participants noting suggestions for how this could be overcome for them.

The survey findings suggest that the location of powerlines and other services may be a reason for which many non-compliers have not planting shade plants (ranked 4th for non-compliers, and 11th for compliers). Again, providing advice as to which plants will not grow too high as to interfere with powerlines, or have roots that will interfere with underground services, may assist these households in obtaining some shade on the walls of the house even if it is not possible to shade the roof. This was noted as an influential barrier in 2 of the 4 focus groups for this behaviour, and noted as a barrier in a third.


of 83

Table 5.11: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on barriers to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Barriers (All Respondents) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Cyclone/storm damage from limbs and branches

2.11 1.09 33.74 40.08 10.43 13.29 2.45

Leaf litter in gutters, pools and yards 2.21 1.14 30.47 40.70 9.61 15.75 3.48

Lack of knowledge on plant selection and maintenance

2.32 1.21 29.24 36.81 12.68 15.54 5.73

Potential for root damage to house 2.31 1.13 27.81 36.20 16.56 16.36 3.07

Time required to grow to provide shade

2.32 1.15 25.56 42.33 11.04 16.56 4.50

Location of power lines and other services

2.44 1.22 24.95 37.22 12.68 19.22 5.93

Falling limbs and branches 2.30 1.13 24.74 44.79 9.82 16.97 3.68

Availability of space for mature plant 2.45 1.19 23.72 37.01 14.93 19.22 5.11

Attract termites 2.51 1.16 22.70 31.49 21.27 20.86 3.68

Cost of plants and soil preparation 2.47 1.18 22.29 38.24 13.70 21.47 4.29

Additional vegetation matter for disposal

2.49 1.18 19.63 43.35 10.22 21.47 5.32

Time required to plant and maintain 2.57 1.20 19.63 38.04 13.50 23.11 5.73

Water requirements of plants 2.58 1.17 18.81 36.81 15.75 24.34 4.29

Attracting unwanted wildlife 3.25 1.25 11.04 19.02 19.63 34.36 15.95

Table 5.12: Descriptive statistics for compliers for levels of agreement on barriers to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Barriers (Compliers Only) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)


2.29 1.16 43.72 40.44 9.29 6.01 0.55


2.47 1.25 35.52 39.89 9.84 12.02 2.73







of 83


2.40 1.22 25.68 46.45 13.66 11.48 2.73




2.49 1.27 22.95 43.72 14.21 13.66 5.46


2.61 1.25 19.67 49.73 13.66 14.21 2.73



Table 5.13: Descriptive statistics for non-compliers for levels of agreement on barriers to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Barriers (Non-Compliers Only) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)



1.79 0.88 27.78 39.87 11.11 17.65 3.59



2.35 1.14 26.14 33.33 11.76 22.55 6.21


2.19 1.03 25.49 39.87 9.48 19.61 5.56


2.07 1.09 25.49 34.97 14.38 17.65 7.52






2.31 1.03 19.61 39.54 8.17 25.82 6.86





of 83

Table 5.14: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for levels of agreement on barriers to planting appropriate trees/shrubs to

provide shading

Barriers (Comparing Compliers and Non-Compliers)

Mean – Comp.

Mean - Non-


Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Leaf litter in gutters, pools and yards 2.33 2.01 0.0073 0.0071 yes 0.05

Time required to plant and maintain 2.73 2.31 0.0002 0.0002 yes 0.05

Additional vegetation matter for disposal 2.61 2.31 0.0118 0.0116 yes 0.05

Falling limbs and branches 2.48 2.01 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05


2.29 1.79 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Attract termites 2.64 2.30 0.0015 0.0015 yes 0.05


2.47 2.07 0.0003 0.0003

yes 0.05

Time required to grow to provide shade 2.40 2.19 0.0758 0.0755 no 0.05

Cost of plants and soil preparation 2.59 2.27 0.0027 0.0026 yes 0.05

Potential for root damage to house 2.43 2.10 0.0045 0.0044 yes 0.05

Location of power lines and other services 2.49 2.35 0.1746 0.1744 no 0.05

Water requirements of plants 2.60 2.55 0.4115 0.4115 no 0.05

Attracting unwanted wildlife 3.46 2.90 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Availability of space for mature plant 2.55 2.28 0.0159 0.0157 yes 0.05

Findings related to program tools

The overall ranking of tools is shown in Table 5.15 below, with having access to information, either through a website or at a nursery, being the most highly ranked tools, and Tables 5.16 and 5.17 show that this was the case for both the complier and non-complier participants. These findings are consistent with those of the focus groups, in which participants noted that a lack of knowledge on plant selection and maintenance was a significant barrier to their planting more shade plants.15

15 TNEP (2010) Fostering Sustainable Behaviour Project: ‘Townsville Reducing Energy Demand’, Qualitative Investigation by Focus Groups Actioned Specification and Outcomes Report, The Natural Edge Project, Australia.

Compliers and non-compliers seemed to agree on the value of most of the tools, with a trend towards non-compilers seeing more value in the tools. However in two cases there was a statistically significant difference between the complier and non-complier perceptions of the value of the tool. Firstly in the case of ‘access to information about suitable shade plants at nurseries’ ranked as the second most perceived value overall the compliers ranked it second and non-compliers ranked it fourth. Secondly in the case of ‘financial assistance to purchase plants for shade planting’ ranked fourth overall the compliers ranked it fifth and the non-compliers ranked it second.


of 83

Table 5.15: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on tools to encourage planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Tools (All Respondents) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Access to information about suitable shade plant on a website

1.76 0.92 47.69 37.5 7.5 6.15 1.15

Access to information about suitable shade plants at nurseries

1.87 0.97 42.31 38.46 10.58 7.12 1.54

A home visit to identify the location of underground services that may be affected by shade planting

2.05 1.16 39.81 31.92 15 10 3.27

Financial assistance to purchase plants for shade planting

2.12 1.18 39.23 30.96 11.15 15.77 2.88

A demonstration site to show mature shade planting options

2.04 1.04 35 40.77 12.5 9.04 2.69

A home visit to provide advice on shade planting

2.37 1.21 30.19 28.65 19.81 16.35 5

Financial assistance in dealing with additional prunings related to planting

2.24 1.13 29.81 37.69 14.62 14.62 3.27

A council ‘hot line’ providing advice to homeowners around shade planting

2.45 1.23 27.88 29.23 19.23 17.88 5.77

Table 5.16: Descriptive statistics for compliers for levels of agreement on tools to encourage planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Tools (Compliers Only) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Access to information about suitable shade plant on a website

1.77 0.84 50 33.02 8.02 8.02 0.93

Access to information about suitable shade plants at nurseries

1.83 0.91 46.6 35.19 8.02 8.64 1.54


2.07 1.04 40.74 29.94 14.51 10.8 4.01

A demonstration site to show mature shade planting options

2.03 0.96 38.27 37.04 11.73 9.88 3.09

Financial assistance to purchase plants for shade planting

2.08 1.15 38.27 31.79 10.8 15.43 3.7

A home visit to provide advice on shade planting

2.43 1.1 30.86 26.54 18.21 17.9 6.48

A council ‘hot line’ providing advice to homeowners around shade planting

2.46 1.12 30.25 26.23 18.83 16.67 8.02

Financial assistance in dealing with additional prunings related to planting

2.32 1.02 28.09 37.35 13.58 16.36 4.63


of 83

Table 5.17: Descriptive statistics for non-compliers for levels of agreement on tools to encourage planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Tools (Non-Compliers Only) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Access to information about suitable shade plant on a website 1.74 0.84 43.88 44.9 6.63 3.06 1.53

Financial assistance to purchase plants for shade planting 2.08 1.15 40.82 29.59 11.73 16.33 1.53


2.01 1.04 38.27 35.2 15.82 8.67 2.04

Access to information about suitable shade plants at nurseries 1.93 0.91 35.2 43.88 14.8 4.59 1.53

Financial assistance in dealing with additional prunings related to shade planting

2.1 1.02 32.65 38.27 16.33 11.73 1.02

A demonstration site to show mature shade planting options 2.06 0.96 29.59 46.94 13.78 7.65 2.04

A home visit to provide advice on shade planting 2.29 1.1 29.08 32.14 22.45 13.78 2.55

A council ‘hot line’ providing advice to homeowners around shade planting 2.42 1.12 23.98 34.18 19.9 19.9 2.04

Table 5.18: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for levels of agreement on the value of tools to encourage planting

appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading

Tools (Comparing Compliers and Non-Compliers)

Mean – Comp

Mean - Non-

Comp T score Z score

Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Access to information about suitable shade plant on a website 1.77 1.74 0.3323 0.3322 no 0.05

Access to information about suitable shade plants at nurseries 1.83 1.93 0.0221 0.0218 yes 0.05

A council ‘hot line’ providing advice to homeowners around shade planting 2.46 2.42 0.4743 0.4743 no 0.05

A home visit to provide advice on shade planting 2.43 2.29 0.1844 0.1842 no 0.05


2.07 2.01 0.4344 0.4343 no 0.05

Financial assistance to purchase plants for shade planting 2.08 2.08 0.0361 0.0358 yes 0.05

Financial assistance in dealing with additional prunings related to shade planting 2.32 2.1 0.295 0.2949 no 0.05

A demonstration site to show mature shade planting options 2.03 2.06 0.1505 0.1502 no 0.05


of 83

Switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system


Both compliers and non-compliers seemed to agree on the influence of ‘availability of rebates and government financial assistance’, ‘reduced greenhouse gas emissions’, ‘personal satisfaction for reducing environmental impact’, ‘reduced dependence on mains electricity’, and ‘Townsville is an ideal climate for alternative systems’, as benefits. However there was a statistically significant difference between compliers and non-compliers for ‘ongoing electricity cost savings’, ‘reduces electricity consumption to increase effectiveness of solar panels’, ‘provides an environmental status symbol’, and ‘increases the property value’ as to the influence of the benefit of switching hot water systems. The findings suggest that compliers considered ongoing cost savings to be of greater benefit than non-compliers, and may reflect either the circumstances which caused them to install the low energy consuming system (such as high usage, high awareness of electricity prices), or it may reflect a benefit which has been realised following its installation. Similarly, compliers felt that the reduced consumption of electricity through the hot water system was more of a benefit as due to the impact it had on the generation of electricity through PV panels than did non-compliers, potentially for similar reasons.

The top two benefits for this behaviour were ‘Ongoing electricity cost savings’ (highest ranking by compliers) and ‘Townsville is an ideal climate for alternative systems’ (highest ranking by non-compliers). These two benefits may be related in that residents recognise the availability of the solar resource in Townsville, resulting in optimal performance of alternative systems (producing better cost savings). Households may also feel that they should capitalise on the natural advantage of having so much solar irradiation. As noted in the following section, one of the key barriers to this behaviour was a lack of knowledge over how well alternative systems would perform and the length of the payback period. There may be a synergy between promoting Townsville’s climate as ideal for alternative systems, and informing residents on the average payback periods based on expected performance of each alternative.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions was noted as significant benefit (with just under 90% of respondents who ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’) of this behaviour. Further some 63% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that not being sure of how to prioritise this behaviour over other energy efficiency behaviours was a barrier for them (see Table 5.23 below). This suggests that providing residents with an estimate of the amount by which this behaviour would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the impact of other possible behaviours, may simultaneously enhance this benefit while reducing the confusion over how to prioritise switching hot water systems. It should be noted that the current Federal assistance package for solar hot water systems is through providing Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) to households. Once these have been sold, however, this does not produce an additional greenhouse gas reduction, as these are sold to companies in order to meet their requirements under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. This hence offsets the need for electricity providers to otherwise invest in other renewable energy projects.16

16 ORER (2009) MRET The Basics, Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, Australian Government.

It may be worthwhile considering alternative options to compensate households for voluntarily surrendering their RECs (as opposed to selling them) to ensure that they gain the maximum benefit from reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

www.orer.gov.au/publications/pubs/mret-thebasics-0709.pdf, accessed 27 April 2010.

http://www.orer.gov.au/publications/pubs/mret-thebasics-0709.pdf�


of 83

The focus groups found that there were two main benefits that were consistent across the 4 focus group sessions, including reducing electricity costs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions or personal satisfaction in doing something good for the environment. These findings appear to be supported by the survey findings.

It is worth noting that the availability of rebates and government financial assistance was not a highly ranked benefit by survey respondents (with two thirds of respondents who ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’). Given that the most significant barrier to this behaviour is the upfront costs, this is a curious inconsistency. This may reflect recent (and unexpected) changes to the federal and state rebates which are likely to have frustrated and confused residents.

Table 5.19: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on benefits to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Townsville is an ideal climate for alternative systems

1.34 0.70 74.48 19.85 3.59 0.95 1.13

Ongoing electricity cost savings 1.38 0.72 70.32 24.95 2.08 1.32 1.32

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions 1.66 0.86 52.36 34.22 9.64 2.27 1.51

Reduced dependence on mains electricity

1.71 0.90 51.42 32.51 10.59 4.35 1.13

Personal satisfaction for reducing environmental impact

1.67 0.84 50.66 36.67 8.70 2.65 1.32

Reduces electricity consumption to increase effectiveness of solar panels

1.88 1.01 45.18 30.43 17.77 3.97 2.65

Availability of rebates and government financial assistance

2.11 1.02 33.46 32.14 26.65 5.10 2.65


Provides an environmental status symbol

2.63 1.21 21.17 27.22 26.28 17.77 7.56


of 83

Table 5.20: Descriptive statistics for compliers for levels of agreement on benefits to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)



1.34 0.78 77.68 16.07 2.68 1.79 1.79


1.70 1.02 58.93 23.21 8.93 7.14 1.79


1.64 0.88 56.25 28.57 10.71 3.57 0.89


1.71 0.97 55.36 27.68 9.82 5.36 1.79



2.11 1.09 36.61 30.36 21.43 8.93 2.68



2.48 1.27 27.68 28.57 19.64 16.07 8.04

Table 5.21: Descriptive statistics for non-compliers for levels of agreement on benefits to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems

Benefits (Non-Compliers Only) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)


1.35 0.68 73.62 20.86 3.84 0.72 0.96




1.72 0.87 49.40 35.01 11.03 3.60 0.96


1.68 0.84 49.16 38.85 8.15 2.40 1.44


1.93 1.01 42.45 31.18 19.90 3.60 2.88


2.12 1.00 32.61 32.61 28.06 4.08 2.64



2.67 1.19 19.42 26.86 28.06 18.23 7.43


of 83

Table 5.22: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for levels of agreement on benefits to switching from an electric storage hot

water system to a less energy consuming systems


Mean – Comp.

Mean - Non-


Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Ongoing electricity cost savings 1.29 1.41 0.0037 0.0035 yes 0.05


2.11 2.12 0.3614 0.3613 no 0.05

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions 1.68 1.66 0.3913 0.3913 no 0.05


1.71 1.93 0.0068 0.0067 yes 0.05


1.64 1.68 0.1998 0.1996 no 0.05

Reduced dependence on mains electricity 1.70 1.72 0.1297 0.1294 no 0.05

Provides an environmental status symbol 2.48 2.67 0.05 0.0497 yes 0.05



1.34 1.35 0.2241 0.2239 no 0.05


Both compliers and non-compliers seemed to agree on the influence of ‘initial upfront costs’, ‘uncertainty about the length of payback period’, ‘concerns about the way the new system will look’, ‘confusion around rebates and eligibility’, ‘unsuitability of site or building to alternate system’, and ‘concerns about the performance of new systems’ as barriers. However there was a statistically significant difference between compliers and non-compliers for ‘existing hot water system is still working’ (non-compliers felt this was more important), ‘lack of knowledge of alternative system’ (compliers felt this was more important), and ‘issues related to approvals from body corporate identities’ (compliers felt this was more important), as to the influence of the barrier on switching hot water systems. By far, survey respondents felt that the ‘initial upfront costs’ were the most significant barrier to switching hot water systems, with as many as 95% either ‘agreeing’ or ‘strongly agreeing’..These costs may in fact be related to other barriers such as the uncertainty over the length of the payback period; the existing system still working (therefore making the relative cost seem higher); and being unsure of whether to prioritise this behaviour over another energy efficiency measures.

The high upfront costs create greater risk to households in undertaking this behaviour, as the consequences of the alternative hot water system not producing the expected outcomes are higher than they would be for a behaviour with a lower economic investment. This is possibly reflected in other barriers related to risk mitigation such as the need to contract ‘trustworthy’ tradespersons; seeking additional knowledge about the systems and their alternatives; seeking additional information about how the systems will perform and how quickly the investment will be paid back; and requiring additional guidance over rebate eligibility and availability. This risk is exacerbated by this behaviour not yet being the ‘norm’, hence households are paying a premium


of 83

to undertake a behaviour which may not be reinforced through social networks. The reality that this behaviour is frequently touted as making good environmental and economic sense is confounded by the reality that the majority of households are yet to undertake it. This may confuse households and cause them to wonder whether alternative systems aren’t as good an investment as they are presented as being.

The findings suggest that programs focused on addressing barriers to switching hot water systems need to consider options to reduce or mitigate the upfront costs, along with reducing the level of risk associated with these costs. The cost of replacing a still functioning electric hot water system with an alternative system seems relatively high when the majority of households are still using the electric storage systems that they have purchased previously. The cost may seem relatively lower if households were actively aware that when their hot water system fails they may be required to replace it with an alternative system. Hence, making an early switch before the requirement to do so could provide a saving on energy bills and reduce the risk of such a change.

These findings reinforce those from the focus groups, in which the upfront costs and lack of knowledge were consistent barriers across the associated focus group sessions. Discussions during the focus groups revealed a high level of frustration with an inability to compare and contrast different hot water system technologies and models and to determine which would be most appropriate for each household. Lack of information was not the issue in itself, indeed most participants felt overwhelmed by the amount of information and choice available, which created complexity and choice and uncertainty over the validity of most claims. Rather, there was a call for a source of reliable, consistent and preferably individualised information. There was similarly a high level of uncertainty over how much electricity and money would be saved on a regular basis from having switched systems.

Table 5.23: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on barriers to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Initial upfront costs 1.36 0.75 74.10 19.85 3.02 1.51 1.51

Existing hot water system is still working

1.98 1.10 40.26 38.19 9.07 8.32 4.16

Uncertainty about the length of payback period

2.00 0.99 36.48 38.19 16.45 6.99 1.89

Confusion around rebates and eligibility

2.21 1.11 30.25 38.19 16.26 11.34 3.97

Concerns about selecting trustworthy tradespersons

2.32 1.22 30.25 35.16 13.80 14.37 6.43

Lack of knowledge of alternative system

2.53 1.23 22.31 35.92 14.18 21.17 6.43

Uncertainty over how to prioritise alternative systems among other efficiency measures

2.38 1.10 22.12 40.45 19.85 12.85 4.73

Concerns about the performance of 2.77 1.22 13.61 36.86 18.71 20.23 10.59


of 83

new systems

Issues related to approvals from body corporate identities

3.29 1.26 9.83 16.26 32.14 18.34 23.44

Unsuitability of site or building to alternate system

3.16 1.16 8.70 21.17 29.30 27.41 13.42

Concerns about the way the new system will look

3.60 1.20 6.43 14.56 17.77 35.54 25.71

Table 5.24: Descriptive statistics for compliers for levels of agreement on barriers to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)



2.08 1.02 34.82 34.82 18.75 10.71 0.89


2.31 1.27 33.04 31.25 14.29 14.29 7.14


2.14 1.11 31.25 42.86 10.71 10.71 4.46


2.11 1.04 29.46 47.32 8.93 11.61 2.68


2.35 1.21 26.79 39.29 12.50 15.18 6.25


2.27 0.95 20.54 46.43 18.75 14.29 0.00

Concerns about the performance of new systems

2.67 1.22 16.96 36.61 16.96 21.43 8.04


3.05 1.24 12.50 23.21 23.21 28.57 12.50


3.04 1.21 8.93 26.79 32.14 15.18 16.96


3.54 1.20 7.14 16.07 14.29 41.07 21.43


of 83

Table 5.25: Descriptive statistics for non-compliers for levels of agreement on barriers to switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)



1.89 1.03 42.21 40.05 7.67 6.71 3.36


1.97 0.98 36.93 39.09 15.83 6.00 2.16


2.23 1.13 30.46 35.73 18.23 11.27 4.32


2.36 1.25 29.98 33.09 14.63 15.35 6.95


2.41 1.14 22.54 38.85 20.14 12.47 6.00


2.59 1.23 21.10 35.01 14.63 22.78 6.47


2.80 1.22 12.71 36.93 19.18 19.90 11.27


3.36 1.27 10.07 13.43 32.13 19.18 25.18


3.18 1.14 7.67 20.62 30.94 27.10 13.67


3.61 1.20 6.24 14.15 18.71 34.05 26.86

Table 5.26: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for levels of agreement on barriers to switching from an electric storage hot

water system to a less energy consuming systems


Mean – Comp.

Mean - Non-


Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Initial upfront costs 1.43 1.35 0.1498 0.1495 no 0.05

Uncertainty about the length of payback period 2.08 1.97 0.161 0.1607 no 0.05

Existing hot water system is still working 2.31 1.89 0.0009 0.0008 yes 0.05


3.54 3.61 0.2729 0.2727 no 0.05


of 83

Confusion around rebates and eligibility 2.11 2.23 0.1659 0.1657 no 0.05

Lack of knowledge of alternative system 2.35 2.59 0.0306 0.0303 yes 0.05


3.05 3.18 0.179 0.1788 no 0.05


3.04 3.36 0.0056 0.0054 yes 0.05


2.67 2.80 0.1565 0.1562 no 0.05


By far, the tool considered to be of greatest value from the options presented was ‘Financial assistance to change to an alternative hot water system’, with over 90% of survey respondents either ‘agreeing’ or ‘strongly agreeing’ that this would assist them in switching their hot water system (see Table 5.27 below). However there was a ‘statistically significant’ difference in the perceived value of compliers and non-compliers with non-comliers seeing greater value. These results are interesting in that the survey was undertaken following an unexpected reduction in the size of the rebate available to Townsville households through the Federal Government rebate system and the accompanying State Government Solar Hot Water Program, however a reduced rebate is still available. This strong response may have been in response to these changes, and it may indicate that the current rebate is not large enough to encourage households. During the Barriers and Benefits investigation,17

Table 5.22

it was found that there can be a ‘rebound effect’ following the withdrawal of rebates as individuals compare the current price to the price under the rebate, and are reluctant to pay the increased amount. There was a statistically significant difference between the responses given by compliers to those of non-compliers for this tool with non-compliers seeing more value in the tool than compliers (see 30).

The tool considered to be of second most value from the options was ‘Access to information on related rebates and eligibility related to changing electric storage hot water systems’, with just under 90% of all respondents ‘agreeing’ or ‘strongly agreeing’) and no statistical difference between compliers and non-compliers. This may further suggest that residents feel confused and frustrated by recent changes to rebates. The next three most popular tools included: ‘The provision of a recycling option for electric storage hot water systems’ (79% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’); ‘Access to information about alternative hot water systems on the market on a website’ (83%); and ‘A demonstration site to show performance of various alternative hot water systems’ (76%). In the latter cases, there was a statistical difference between the how complier and non-compliers rated both ‘The provision of a recycling option for electric storage hot water systems’ and ‘A demonstration site to show performance of various alternative hot water systems’ (Table 5.30). Compliers ranked the demonstration site as the third most useful tool (

17 Refer to point of contact for this report for access to further details.


of 83

Table 5.28), while non-compliers were more interested in being able to recycle their old systems (Table 5.29). This may reflect the possibility that many compliers may have switched their hot water systems at the end of the useable life, and this was hence a lesser concern. Having now switched and been able to appreciate the benefits of a less energy consuming hot water system, compliers appear to believe that if non-compliers could be shown how these work and how much energy they save, they will make the switch.

Both compliers and non-compliers ranked ‘A council 'hot line' providing advice to homeowners around alternative hot water systems’ as the least beneficial tool, followed by ‘Access to information about alternative hot water systems at retail stores’ and ‘A home visit to provide advice on alternative hot water systems’ (see Table 5.28 and Table 5.29).

Table 5.27: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on tools to encourage switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming

systems


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Financial assistance to change to an alternative hot water system

1.45 0.77 67.57 23.55 5.98 2.17 0.72

Access to information on related rebates and eligibility related to changing electric storage hot water systems

1.68 0.85 50.36 37.50 7.43 3.62 1.09

The provision of a recycling option for electric storage hot water systems

1.83 0.91 44.38 34.96 15.40 4.17 1.09

Access to information about alternative hot water systems on the market on a website

1.85 0.92 41.30 41.30 9.60 6.70 1.09

A demonstration site to show performance of various alternative hot water systems.

1.95 1.02 41.12 34.60 15.22 6.70 2.36

Access to information on council requirements related to changing hot water systems

1.84 0.88 40.22 42.75 11.78 3.80 1.45

A home visit to provide advice on alternative hot water systems

2.16 1.13 36.05 29.53 20.47 10.51 3.44

Access to information about alternative hot water systems at retail stores

2.19 1.03 27.54 41.67 17.03 11.96 1.81

A council 'hot line' providing advice to homeowners around alternative hot water systems

2.47 1.12 21.92 34.06 23.55 16.49 3.99


of 83

Table 5.28: Descriptive statistics for compliers for levels of agreement on tools to encourage switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)


1.61 0.85 57.76 28.45 8.62 5.17 0.00


1.68 0.82 49.14 38.79 6.90 5.17 0.00


1.76 0.85 45.69 37.07 13.79 2.59 0.86


1.89 0.87 37.07 43.97 12.07 6.90 0.00


1.98 0.95 36.21 37.93 18.10 6.90 0.86


1.97 0.96 34.48 44.83 12.93 5.17 2.59


2.27 1.11 30.17 30.17 25.86 10.34 3.45


2.17 1.02 26.72 43.97 17.24 9.48 2.59


2.53 1.14 18.97 36.21 22.41 17.24 5.17

Table 5.29: Descriptive statistics for non-compliers for levels of agreement on tools to encourage switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)


1.41 0.74 70.18 22.25 5.28 1.38 0.92


1.67 0.85 50.69 37.16 7.57 3.21 1.38


1.78 0.90 46.56 34.17 14.68 3.44 1.15


of 83


1.84 0.94 42.43 40.60 8.94 6.65 1.38


1.80 0.86 41.74 42.20 11.47 3.44 1.15


2.00 1.06 39.91 33.94 15.60 7.80 2.75


2.13 1.13 37.61 29.36 19.04 10.55 3.44


2.19 1.03 27.75 41.06 16.97 12.61 1.61


2.45 1.12 22.71 33.49 23.85 16.28 3.67

Table 5.30: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for levels of agreement on the value of tools to encourage switching from an

electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming systems


Mean – Comp.

Mean - Non-


Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Access to information about alternative hot water systems on the market on a website 1.89 1.84 0.1786 0.1784 no 0.05

Access to information about alternative hot water systems at retail stores 2.17 2.19 0.4388 0.4388 no 0.05


2.53 2.45 0.2477 0.2478 no 0.05

Access to information on council requirements related to changing hot water systems 1.97 1.80 0.0514 0.0512 no 0.05


1.68 1.67 0.4044 0.4044 no 0.05

A home visit to provide advice on alternative hot water systems 2.27 2.13 0.0801 0.0798 no 0.05

The provision of a recycling option for electric storage hot water systems 1.98 1.78 0.0156 0.0153 yes 0.05

Financial assistance to change to an alternative hot water system 1.61 1.41 0.0037 0.0036 yes 0.05

A demonstration site to show performance of various alternative hot water systems. 1.76 2.00 0.032 0.0317 yes 0.05


of 83

Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


For this behaviour the compliers more strongly agreed with each of the benefits than the non-compliers (statistical significance in the difference in the rankings for each benefit, see Table 5.34). For instance, over 80% of complier respondents strongly agreed that cooler inside temperatures was a significant benefit of this behaviour, as opposed to only 58% of non-compliers. This may imply that the benefits are greater than expected once the behaviour has actually been undertaken. Alternatively, it may, as for other behaviours discussed above, reflect underlying values within each group. For example, non-compliers may not value this benefit as highly if their houses are already cool through the use of an air conditioner. Although the focus groups did not use any statistical methods to compare the findings from each group, it was noted that there did not appear to be a marked difference between compliers and non-compliers during the sessions.

The ranking of benefits was the same between the two groups, with the most significant benefits including having a cooler house (91% of all respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’), reduced electricity consumption and cost (86%), and increasing the energy rating of the home (76%). This reflects the findings of the focus groups, in which most participants noted that this behaviour would cool their house, and reduce electricity bills and these were generally nominated as being the most influential benefits. They also dominated the discussions during the focus groups, with several participants outlining additional reasons for which a white roof would provide a better cooling service than an air conditioner. The focus groups found that ‘increases the energy rating of the home’ may be a largely unrealised benefit for this behaviour, as it was originally noted by only one participant in each of the 4 focus groups however then added to the lists of a number of other participants.

Table 5.31: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on benefits to painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Cooler inside temperatures 1.49 0.78 63.52 27.30 6.45 1.74 0.99

Reduced electricity consumption and cost

1.64 0.85 54.59 31.76 9.43 3.47 0.74

Increases the energy rating of home 1.85 0.89 43.18 32.51 21.34 1.99 0.99

Improves the lifespan of roof materials

2.15 1.01 35.98 21.09 36.23 5.71 0.99

Personal satisfaction from environmentally inspired efforts

2.08 1.05 34.74 36.97 15.63 10.67 1.99



of 83

Table 5.32: Descriptive statistics for compliers for levels of agreement on benefits to painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)


Reduced electricity consumption and cost 1.53 0.93 66.99 20.39 6.80 3.88 1.94


Improves the lifespan of roof materials 1.89 0.97 45.63 25.24 24.27 3.88 0.97

Personal satisfaction from environmentally inspired efforts 1.82 0.92 44.66 36.89 10.68 7.77 0


Table 5.33: Descriptive statistics for non-compliers for levels of agreement on benefits to painting the roof white, or a reflective colour

Benefits (Non-Compliers Only) Mean score St. Dev.

St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)


Reduced electricity consumption and cost 1.68 0.82 50.33 35.67 10.33 3.33 0.33


Improves the lifespan of roof materials 2.23 1.01 32.67 19.67 40.33 6.33 1.00

Personal satisfaction from environmentally inspired efforts 2.17 1.08 31.33 37.00 17.33 11.67 2.67


Table 5.34: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for agreement on benefits to painting the roof white, or a

reflective colour


Mean – Comp.

Mean - Non-


Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Reduced electricity consumption and cost 1.53 1.68 0.007 0.0068 yes 0.05

Cooler inside temperatures 1.31 1.56 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Improves the lifespan of roof materials 1.89 2.23 0.0012 0.0011 yes 0.05

Increases the energy rating of home 1.67 1.91 0.0032 0.0031 yes 0.05

Personal satisfaction from environmentally inspired efforts 1.82 2.17 0.0016 0.0015 yes 0.05



of 83


There was a statistical difference between the responses of compliers and non-compliers to almost all of the listed barriers (see Table 5.38). However both compliers and non-compliers seemed to agree on the influence of ‘concerns about selecting trustworthy tradespersons’, ‘paint and runoff causing environmental problems’, and ‘asbestos related concerns’ as barriers. In all of these cases the non-compliers felt that the barriers were more influential on their decision than the compliers. During the focus groups, many participants discussed being unsure of the benefits of this behaviour and the difference it would make to their home. This may underpin the difference found between the ratings given to each of these barriers, as the behaviour may be viewed with uncertainty or caution by non-compliers. Although all non-compliers in the focus groups stated that they had heard that painting a roof white can help cool the house, this may yet be a relatively novel behaviour in comparison to installing insulation or creating air flow through the house. Hence, many focus group participants expressed an interest in having a demonstration site.

The top five barriers were the same for both compliers and non-compliers (although the ranking differed somewhat between groups, see Table 5.3636 and Table 5.37), including:

- Upfront costs (89% of all survey respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’)

- Lack of information on suitable products (77%)

- Concerns about selecting trustworthy tradespersons (71%)

- Costs and time required to prepare roof for painting (69%)

- Cost of maintenance when painting unpainted roofs (65%).

As the most influential barriers relate to either additional costs or a need for information, a program to reduce such barreiers may focus on these two areas. This reflects the findings of the focus groups, in which upfront costs and a lack of information were by far the most influential barriers. Although many other barriers were discussed, these dominated both the participant’s lists and selections as well as the discussions.

Table 5.35: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on barriers to painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Upfront costs 1.61 0.91 58.56 30.77 3.97 4.96 1.74

Lack of information on suitable products

2.02 1.06 36.23 41.19 10.42 8.93 3.23


2.14 1.13 34.24 37.22 11.91 13.40 3.23

Costs and time required to prepare roof for painting

2.27 1.17 28.54 40.45 12.41 12.90 5.71

Cost of maintenance when painting unpainted roofs

2.29 1.08 25.56 39.21 19.11 12.90 3.23

Hassle and inconvenience of 2.49 1.21 23.08 35.73 16.13 18.86 6.20


of 83

organising the roof painting

Cost of cleaning a white or light coloured roof

2.46 1.11 20.84 36.72 21.09 18.11 3.23

Issues related to warranty/guarantee of roof

2.63 1.22 19.35 32.26 23.08 16.63 8.68

Uncertainty over how to prioritise roof painting among other efficiency measures

2.41 1.09 18.61 44.67 19.11 12.16 5.46

Uncertainty over the benefits 2.71 1.23 17.37 34.49 15.14 25.56 7.44

Concerns around the way the new roof will look

3.07 1.34 14.39 26.55 13.65 28.78 16.63

Paint and runoff causing environmental problems

2.92 1.18 13.90 23.33 28.54 25.56 8.68

Glare affecting neighbours 3.14 1.25 12.66 20.10 21.84 31.51 13.90

Asbestos related concerns 3.47 1.26 8.93 14.64 22.58 28.29 25.56

Table 5.36: Descriptive statistics for compliers for levels of agreement on benefits to painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Upfront costs 1.83 1.03 47.57 35.92 4.85 9.71 1.94


2.25 1.22 33.01 34.95 10.68 16.50 4.85


2.28 1.15 28.16 38.83 13.59 15.53 3.88


2.50 1.15 20.39 36.89 19.42 18.45 4.85


2.78 1.35 19.42 32.04 13.59 21.36 13.59

Hassle and inconvenience of organising the roof painting

2.87 1.31 19.42 23.30 18.45 28.16 10.68


2.90 1.37 18.45 26.21 18.45 20.39 16.50


2.86 1.21 15.53 28.16 16.50 33.98 5.83


2.73 1.20 14.56 35.92 20.39 20.39 8.74


3.05 1.20 12.62 20.39 27.18 29.13 10.68


of 83




3.48 1.31 6.80 24.27 11.65 29.13 28.16


Table 5.37: Descriptive statistics for non-compliers for levels of agreement on benefits to painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Upfront costs 1.53 0.85 62.33 29.00 3.67 3.33 1.67


1.93 1.01 39.00 42.00 9.33 6.67 3.00


2.10 1.09 34.67 38.00 12.33 12.33 2.67


2.09 1.05 31.67 43.33 12.00 10.00 3.00


2.22 1.05 27.33 40.00 19.00 11.00 2.67

Hassle and inconvenience of organising the roof painting

2.36 1.15 24.33 40.00 15.33 15.67 4.67


2.32 1.03 22.67 39.67 22.67 12.67 2.33


2.30 1.03 20.00 47.67 18.67 9.33 4.33


2.54 1.15 19.67 34.33 24.67 15.33 6.00



2.93 1.32 17.00 27.33 14.33 28.67 12.67



2.87 1.17 14.33 24.33 29.00 24.33 8.00



of 83

Table 5.38: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for agreement on barriers to painting the roof white, or a

reflective colour


Mean – Comp.

Mean - Non-


Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Upfront costs 1.83 1.53 0.0023 0.0022 yes 0.05

Lack of information on suitable products 2.28 1.93 0.0023 0.0022 yes 0.05

Uncertainty over the benefits 3.04 2.60 0.001 0.001 yes 0.05

Concerns around the way the new roof will look 3.48 2.93 0.0002 0.0001 yes 0.05

Issues related to warranty/guarantee of roof 2.90 2.54 0.0114 0.0112 yes 0.05

Cost of maintenance when painting unpainted roofs 2.50 2.22 0.0147 0.0144

yes 0.05

Cost of cleaning a white or light coloured roof 2.86 2.32 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Concerns about selecting trustworthy tradespersons 2.25 2.10 0.1921 0.1918

no 0.05

Hassle and inconvenience of organising the roof painting 2.87 2.36 0.0003 0.0003

yes 0.05

Paint and runoff causing environmental problems 3.05 2.87 0.0921 0.0918

no 0.05

Uncertainty over how to prioritise roof painting among other efficiency measures 2.73 2.30 0.0007 0.0007

yes 0.05

Glare affecting neighbours 3.58 2.99 0.0001 0.0001 yes 0.05

Asbestos related concerns 3.55 3.44 0.1544 0.1541 no 0.05

Costs and time required to prepare roof for painting 2.78 2.09 0.0001 0.0001

yes 0.05


For this behaviour, there was no ‘statistical significance’ identified between the responses related to the received value of the tools given by the compliers and the non-compliers (Table 5.42). The prioritised list of tools averaged across all behaviours is shown in Table 5.31 below, with ‘Financial assistance to undertake white/reflective roof painting’ the most popular, with over 80% that ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the tool would be of value.

On the whole non-compliers considered the tools to be more valuable to encourage them to undertake the behaviour except in the case of ‘A council 'hot line' providing advice to homeowners around white/reflective roof painting’ and 'A home visit to assess asbestos related risks to roof painting’ where these were perceived as being more valuable to compliers.


of 83

Table 5.39: Descriptive statistics for all survey respondents for levels of agreement on tools to encourage painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Financial assistance to undertake white/reflective roof painting

1.76 0.99 51.21 32.13 7.73 7.25 1.69

Access to information about white/reflective roof painting on a website

1.84 0.93 41.55 42.27 7.97 6.76 1.45

A demonstration site to show performance of white/reflective roof painting

2.04 1.06 36.96 37.20 14.01 8.94 2.90

Access to information on warranty/guarantee issues related to roof painting

1.97 1.00 36.71 41.79 12.32 6.52 2.66

Access to information on council requirements related to changing to a white/reflective roof

1.97 0.99 36.71 41.06 13.53 6.04 2.66

Access to information about white/reflective roof painting at paint stores

2.08 1.05 33.09 41.06 14.01 8.70 3.14

Assistance to select and engage tradespersons

2.26 1.15 29.71 36.71 15.46 13.77 4.35

A home visit to provide advice on white/reflective roof painting

2.44 1.23 27.78 30.43 17.63 18.60 5.56

A council 'hot line' providing advice to homeowners around white/reflective roof painting

2.44 2.23 26.81 30.19 22.71 12.56 7.73

A home visit to assess asbestos related risks to roof painting

2.70 1.34 22.71 28.74 16.91 19.32 12.32

Table 5.40: Descriptive statistics for compliers for levels of agreement on tools to encourage painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Financial assistance to undertake white/reflective roof painting 1.91 1.14 48.18 30.00 8.18 10.00 3.64

Access to information about white/reflective roof painting on a website 1.96 1.00 37.27 41.82 10.00 9.09 1.82

A demonstration site to show performance of white/reflective roof 2.05 1.10 36.36 39.09 10.91 10.00 3.64


of 83

painting

Access to information on warranty/guarantee issues related to roof painting 2.05 1.07 36.36 38.18 12.73 10.00 2.73

Assistance to select and engage tradespersons 2.29 1.28 36.36 26.36 15.45 15.45 6.36

Access to information on council requirements related to changing to a white/reflective roof 2.01 0.99 34.55 40.91 16.36 5.45 2.73

Access to information about white/reflective roof painting at paint stores 2.15 1.16 34.55 36.36 14.55 9.09 5.45

A council 'hot line' providing advice to homeowners around white/reflective roof painting 2.41 1.27 30.91 25.45 24.55 10.00 9.09

A home visit to provide advice on white/reflective roof painting 2.54 1.31 27.27 30.00 11.82 23.64 7.27

A home visit to assess asbestos related risks to roof painting 2.65 1.40 26.36 28.18 11.82 20.91 12.73

Table 5.41: Descriptive statistics for non-compliers for levels of agreement on tools to encourage painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


St. Agree

(%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Str. disag.

(%)

Financial assistance to undertake white/reflective roof painting 1.71 0.92 52.30 32.89 7.57 6.25 0.99

Access to information about white/reflective roof painting on a website 1.80 0.91 43.09 42.43 7.24 5.92 1.32

Access to information on council requirements related to changing to a white/reflective roof 1.95 0.99 37.50 41.12 12.50 6.25 2.63

A demonstration site to show performance of white/reflective roof painting 2.03 1.05 37.17 36.51 15.13 8.55 2.63

Access to information on warranty/guarantee issues related to roof painting 1.94 0.97 36.84 43.09 12.17 5.26 2.63

Access to information about white/reflective roof painting at paint stores 2.05 1.01 32.57 42.76 13.82 8.55 2.30

A home visit to provide advice on 2.40 1.20 27.96 30.59 19.74 16.78 4.93


of 83

white/reflective roof painting

Assistance to select and engage tradespersons 2.25 1.10 27.30 40.46 15.46 13.16 3.62

A council 'hot line' providing advice to homeowners around white/reflective roof painting 2.45 1.21 25.33 31.91 22.04 13.49 7.24

A home visit to assess asbestos related risks to roof painting 2.71 1.32 21.38 28.95 18.75 18.75 12.17

Table 5.42: Summarised results of comparison of responses from complier and non-complier survey respondents for levels of agreement on the value of tools to encourage

painting the roof white, or a reflective colour


Mean – Comp.

Mean - Non-


Reject null

hypoth.

Signif. level

Access to information about white/reflective roof painting on a website

1.96 1.80 0.0719 0.0716 no 0.05

Access to information about white/reflective roof painting at paint stores

2.15 2.05 0.3601 0.3600 no 0.05

A council 'hot line' providing advice to homeowners around white/reflective roof painting

2.41 2.45 0.3199 0.3198 no 0.05

Access to information on council requirements related to changing to a white/reflective roof

2.01 1.95 0.2591 0.2590 no 0.05

Access to information on warranty/guarantee issues related to roof painting

2.05 1.94 0.2423 0.2421 no 0.05

A home visit to provide advice on white/reflective roof painting

2.54 2.40 0.2154 0.2152 no 0.05

A home visit to assess asbestos related risks to roof painting

2.65 2.71 0.2979 0.2978 no 0.05

Assistance to select and engage tradespersons 2.29 2.25 0.4089 0.4088 no 0.05

Financial assistance to undertake white/reflective roof painting

1.91 1.71 0.2063 0.2056 no 0.05

A demonstration site to show performance of white/reflective roof painting

2.05 2.03 0.4755 0.4755 no 0.05


of 83

Appendix 1: The Home Energy Use Survey Sample

Home Energy Use Survey Step 1 Questions

Please complete the Step 1 questions and submit before proceeding to Step 2.

1. Switching from an electric hot water storage system to a less energy consuming system:

What do you believe are the biggest barriers?

2. Switching from an electric hot water storage system to a less energy consuming system:

What do you believe are the most important benefits?

3. Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading


4. Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading:


5. Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour:


6. Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour:



of 83

Sample Survey Questions - Switching from an Electric Storage Hot Water System to an Alternate System (Lower Mains Electricity)

Thank you for selecting this topic to provide your feedback.

Please complete each of the following questions to go into the prize draw.

Questions marked with a * are required.

*1. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following benefits.

1=Agree strongly. 2=Agree. 3=Unsure. 4=Disagree. 5=Disagree strongly.

1 2 3 4 5

Ongoing electricity cost savings


Reduced greenhouse gas emissions





Increases the property value


*2. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following barriers.


1 2 3 4 5

Initial upfront costs




of 83









*3. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that the following would be of use to you.


1 2 3 4 5











of 83

*4. Have you switched from an Electric Storage Hot Water System to an alternate (lower mains electricity) system?

Yes

No

*5. Name

*6. Postcode

7. Email address

8. Phone number

9. Please select your age bracket.

18-40

41-65

65+


of 83

10. Are you, or a member of your family, owners of the home that you live in?

Yes

No

11. Would you like to receive news from Integrated Sustainability Services, or get involved with future projects or forums? Choose all that apply below and ensure you have provided your email address.

I would like to join the "Sustainable Townsville" mailing list to find out more about local sustainability issues and projects.

I would like to be involved in other local initiatives such as the adoption of innovative energy management technologies in the home.

I would like to be involved in other community based sustainability initiatives and forums.


of 83

Appendix 2: Codes used for the analysis of survey data

Switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system barriers

1. Cost – upfront

2. Cost - payback

3. Lack of knowledge

4. Lack of rebates/issue with rebates

5. Reliability of supply

6. Structural issues with house

7. Body corporate

8. Time – getting around to it

9. landlord/rental

10. Reluctance to throw away existing system/ existing system still works/ relative cost of replacing higher

11. Aesthetics

12. Not knowing who to talk to/ask about/where to find info/info on tradies and suppliers

13. lack of knowledge – best option

14. lack of knowledge – where to purchase

15. concerns over quality of workmanship

16. prioritising

17. inconvenience while system is being installed

18. trusting tradespersons / getting a tradie

19. waiting for installation / time delay without hot water

20. gas not available

21. calcium content of water

22. no barriers

23. difficult installation

24. lack of legislation to ensure changes to home buildings

25. change plumbing/wiring

26. government/council charges

27. potential for system damage in storms

28. not knowing how long system will last

29. willingness/acceptance of change

(Other = 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20-25)


of 83

Switching from an electric storage hot water system to a less energy consuming system benefits

1. Cost savings – reduced electricity consumption

2. Environmental action/consideration/impact – climate change/ reduced CO2

3. less reliance on grid/ hot water in black out

4. better service – faster hot water

5. no benefits

Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading barriers

1. cost

2. water use

3. time to grow

4. time to select, plant - effort

5. lack of knowledge

6. no barriers

7. space to plant

8. on-going maintenance

9. cost/effort in dealing with prunings

10. risk of storm damage

11. termites

12. unwanted wildlife

13. grass wont grow

14. fire risk

15. trees dying

16. impact on solar PV

17. risk of roots to foundations etc

18. leaf littler – gutters etc

Planting appropriate trees/shrubs to provide shading benefits

1. shade / cooling / comfort

2. reduced electricity consumption / cost

3. aesthetics – greenery, pleasant outlook

4. attract wildlife to the yard

5. environment – absorb carbon

6. environment – replace trees/habitat/natives – purifies air

7. water retention

8. place for recreation/ pleasure/enjoyment in garden – shade for kids to protect from skin cancer


of 83

9. food source

10. reduced maintenance/work in garden

11. stop erosion

12. noise barrier – privacy

Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour barriers

1. cost

2. Time – effort

3. Lack of knowledge

4. Unsure of benefits

5. Glare – neighbours, pilots

6. can’t find / trust tradespersons

7. Aesthetics – doesn’t match house

8. Not regulated

9. white roofs get dirty

10. lack of campaign/advertising/awareness of this behaviour

11. colourbond can’t be painted / tiled roof

12. availability of paints

Painting the roof white, or a reflective colour benefits

1. Cooler / more comfortable / lower temperature

2. reduced electricity consumption / cost

3. better for the environment

4. Adds value to the house / aesthetics

5. protects roof

6. reduce need for insulation


of 83

Appendix 3: Advertising materials used to promote Survey

Figure A3.1: Article in the Townsville City Update, letter box dropped to all residents


of 83

Figure A3.2: Screen shot from the Townsville City Council website, promoting the survey


of 83

Figure A3.3: Brochure and poster advertising the survey, distributed around Townsville


of 83

Example article from the Townsville Bulletin which promotes the survey

Raggart, T. (2010) ‘City’s power play in battle with Sydney’, Townsville Bulletin, Townsville. April 3rd.

City's power play in battle with Sydney

TONY RAGGATT

April 3rd, 2010

TOWNSVILLE, the Solar City, is vying to add the moniker, Smart City, to its resume in an energy efficiency scheme that could cut people's electricity bills by up to 40 per cent.

The city is the centrepiece for Queensland's bid to the Federal Government's Smart Grid Smart City program where $100 million is up for grabs to fund innovations in the electricity sector.

Townsville is understood to be a front runner along with a NSW bid focused on the former Olympic Village of Homebush in western Sydney among four application now under consideration.

Townsville Enterprise economic development general manager Lisa McDonald said the program opened huge opportunities for the city to attract leading technologies and the companies driving them as well as cut basic living expenses for people and reduce carbon pollution.

She said Townsville should stand out as a clear winner given its selection as a Solar City several years ago, testing solar generation efficiency and demand management.

However, she said there were ways the city could convince Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to select Townsville by demonstrating the community's engagement with the Solar City program.

One way to do that would be for as many residents as possible to take part in the Townsville City Council's home energy use survey now being run on the council's website as part of the Solar City program.

People taking part in the survey go into a draw to win one of five prizes from Troy Williams the Good Guys valued at up to $1000 to replace older appliances with energy efficient models.

''Townsville should stand out as a winner but we really need the community to show how much they want it,'' Dr McDonald said.

''It's great to have all the technology in the world but if no one is using it, it's a waste of money.

''By entering the survey you will be showing your support for energy efficiency and we'll send survey numbers to Kevin Rudd to show we mean business.''

The Smart Grid Smart City program is taking the Solar City project to the next level challenging electricity distributors on how to get large amounts of renewable energy into the network and how to manage that flow.

Distributor Ergon Energy is leading Queensland's bid although it also involves the State's other distributor Energex, the State Government's Office of Clean Energy, Townsville City Council, Townsville Enterprise, Toowoomba Regional Council and Brisbane City Council.

Developers Urbex, Parkside Development, Stockland and Delfin - all with major residential projects in Townsville - and companies looking to roll out their technologies, the Korean Electric Power Corporation and Samsung C&T Corporation, are also backing the bid.

Other bids are being led by NSW distributors Energy Australia (Homebush) and Country Energy and a joint bid from Victorian distributors. Stockland has estimated the Smart Grid Smart City technologies would reduce energy use at its North Shore residential project in Townsville by between 25 and 40 per cent as well as cut carbon pollution by 25 per cent.

North Shore project manager Ben Simpson said greater carbon pollution reductions were possible with more use of alternative energy sources.


of 83

Dr McDonald said the use of smart appliances, particularly in air-conditioning, had the potential for big savings.

This was a key reason why Townsville, a growing area in the tropics, could provide such an excellent testing ground.

The wider use of air-conditioning is driving billions of dollars' investment in infrastructure used for a handful of hours a year just to meet peak demand periods.

''We can be that testing ground and the world will be watching Townsville,'' Dr McDonald said.

An announcement on a winner for the Smart Grid Smart City program is expected this month.

It is understood technical assessment has been undertaken and that an independent assessment panel is considering the applications.

A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said a winning bid was yet to be determined.


of 83

Example article from the Townsville Bulletin which promotes the survey

Strutton, A. (2010) ‘Smart Grid gives power to the people’, Townsville Bulletin, Townsville. April 22.

Smart Grid gives power to the people

ANDREW STRUTTON

April 22nd, 2010

A TEN-MINUTE survey could clinch a $100 million energy-saving windfall for Townsville.

Townsville Enterprise is appealing for locals to support the city's bid for the Smart Grid Smart City program, the winner of which will be announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong within a week.

Townsville, as part of a wider Queensland proposal, is understood to be a front runner alongside a dual Sydney-Newcastle bid to snare the energy efficiency scheme.

A Victorian tender for the Melbourne suburb of Frankston is also in contention.

But TEL economic development general manager Lisa McDonald said nothing should be taken for granted.

''I think we've got a very good chance,'' she said.

''And if we're going to be the second capital (of Queensland), and to combat the rapid growth we're already seeing, we need this infrastructure in place.

''But, while it's a bit of a sport's cliché, the competition is very tough and we can't take anything for granted.

''We need to speak to Mr Rudd and Ms Wong and show that we, as a community, want this.''

Dr McDonald said the simplest support barometer was Townsville City Council's energy efficiency survey.

While Ergon Energy is spear-heading Queensland's bid, the application involves Energex, the Office of Clean Energy, Townsville City Council, TEL, Toowoomba Regional Council and Brisbane City Council.

''The survey's been going for about a month now, and we've already had more than 1100 households respond,'' Dr McDonald said.

''That's very positive, but we're hopeful we can get that to 2000 before a decision is made.

''It's not only a way of helping to secure the program for Townsville, it can also help individuals identify energy savings in their homes.''

If Townsville is successful, Dr McDonald said a smart-grid city would allow homeowners to better manage electricity flows, potentially saving between 25 and 40 per cent on their monthly bill.

She said the use of smart appliances, particularly airconditioners, had the potential for big savings.

''It's all about giving tools that as a customer you can really minimise your electricity bill,'' she said.

''It's a great initiative.''

The survey is located online at www.townsville.qld.gov.au.

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.townsvilleonline.com.au/�

http://www.smartgridaustralia.com.au/�

http://www.ergon.com.au/�

http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/�