Insights from psychology about the design and implementation of energy interventions using the Behaviour Change Wheel

Abstract

Improving the design and implementation of interventions to encourage end-use energy efficiency has the potential to contribute a substantive reduction in carbon emissions. A plethora of behaviour change frameworks is available to guide policymakers and designers but none have been found to be comprehensive or well-used. A new framework -the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) -purports to be a useful aid for developing all types of behaviour change interventions. This paper assesses whether the BCW comprehensively describes programmes attempting to reduce energy consumption.To do this, components of behaviour change programmes as identified in four EU guidance documents were mapped onto the BCW. Most of the components discussed in the guidance could be readily coded to the BCW framework. The main energy policy under-represented in the BCW was energy price. Based on our work in this paper, we believe that the BCW offers a useful aid for the systematic design and development of behaviour change around end-use energy efficiency. We also propose that it may support development of a common lexicon for activities that can be rather vaguely described currently in energy efficiency guidance. KeywordsEnergy; consumption; behaviour; intervention; policy. IntroductionEnd-use energy efficiency is generally seen as the most cost-effective way to reduce CO 2 emissions [1,2]. It offers potentially the largest reduction opportunity [3]. The gap between what savings are possible, and what are currently being realised, warrants the identification of effective strategies to seize this opportunity [4,5] . As such, changing energy demand and improving energy efficiency is now key to helping the UK and the EU meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions (e.g. UK ClimateChange Act 2008, Directive 2012/27/EU). Some interventions to alter consumption levels operate above the level of the end-user (e.g. market regulation), whilst others depend on altering end-user choice or practice. Efforts to reduce emissions in the early 2000s were dominated largely by ideas from the economics and engineering disciplines, ignoring the promise offered dimensions such as the sociological and psychological [6]. Specifically, much energy research has downplayed the role of the human dimension and choice [7].Coordinated sets of activities designed to alter usage choices and practices can be understood as behaviour change interventions [8]. New models of behaviour change are now emerging in the energy literature, based on multi-disciplinary work [9], but these are not yet widely used in practice [10].Further, many existing frameworks either analyse only limited aspects of behaviour, or are not reliable in leading to successful interventions [11].A recent review of the energy studies field concluded that it needed to reach out to other disciplines for useful insights [7]. Insight is potentially available from the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW), a framework for the systematic design and development of behaviour change interventions. The BCW is drawn from psych...

Reducing meat consumption: Identifying group-specific inhibitors using latent profile analysis

“…Behaviour-change techniques are presented to address each missing component in the behaviour system (e.g., training to help increase physical capability). The COM-B model has been applied to recycling, energy-reduction, and dietary interventions (Gainforth, Sheals, Atkins, & Michie, 2016;Handley et al, 2016;McEvoy et al, 2018;Nour, Rouf, & Allman-Farinelli, 2018;Wilson & Marselle, 2016).…”

The work is never ending: uncovering teamwork sustainability using realistic evaluation

“…The TDF and the BCW are based on psychological theory and developed for analyzing behavior change mechanisms in implementation. They have had a substantial impact on the use of theory in implementation research (Atkins et al, 2016;Francis et al, 2012;McSharry et al, 2016;Sinnott et al, 2015;Steinmo et al, 2015;Suntornsut et al, 2016;Wilson and Marselle, 2016) and serve as a description of the current state of behavior change theory in implementation. At the end of the section, similarities and differences between the theoretical frameworks are reflected upon.…”

“…The interventions and policy categories were developed out of an analysis of 19 intervention frameworks that each alone describes a limited aspect of intervention and policy but when added together gives a comprehensive picture. Since first presented in 2011, the BCW has been used to design implementation interventions in health care (Atkins et al, 2016;McSharry et al, 2016;Sinnott et al, 2015;Steinmo et al, 2015;Suntornsut et al, 2016) and other areas of human behavior, such as energy efficiency (Wilson and Marselle, 2016).…”

Pro-Environmental Energy Behavior in the Military: Assessing Behavior Change Factors at a Selected Military Unit

“…According to this model, all three conditions must be met in order to make an influence on individual's energy behavior: the individual's physical and social capability, individual's social and physical ability to explore new opportunities, and self-motivation as the crucial part of the behavior change [18]. This model was theoretically grounded and applied in a wide variety of contexts: nutrition [19], smoking [20], physical activity [21], as well as for energy use by households [22] and other end-users [23]. The COM-B model was applied to improve energy behavior in the military too [14,24].…”