Environmental motivations behind individuals’ energy efficiency investments and daily energy-saving behaviour: evidence from Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium

Abstract

The impact of environmental motivations on the individual’s decisions regarding investments in energy efficiency and the adoption of energy-saving habits are analysed on the basis of a representative online survey carried out in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Various energy efficiency investments and daily energy-saving activities are considered. Accounting for endogeneity in the basic estimation model, in particular regarding energy conservation activities, the subject’s experience with extreme weather events are used as an instrument for environmental motivations. This study provides empirical evidence that individual energy efficiency investments are generally driven by environmental motivations. Additionally, for the Dutch and the German sub-samples environmental motivations positively affect daily energy-saving activities. The findings suggest that policy programmes aimed at raising environmental awareness and forming pro-environmental motivations can lead to an increase in energy efficiency investments and daily energy-saving activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Instrumental variables analysis is a method of estimation that is widely used in many economic applications when correlation between the explanatory variables and the error term is suspected.

  2. 2.

    However, it should be noted that the Netherlands has a relatively flat and even countryside and is thus more used to flooding which particularly in Germany might already count as a serious natural disaster. It can be also argued that the variable measuring extreme weather events is unsuitable to be used as an instrumental variable as it stems from the same survey as all other data and is thus indirectly linked to the energy efficiency measures. While this argument holds, it can be argued that the bias resulting from all variables coming from the same survey is rather small as weather events per se are exogenous and identical for interviewees and non-interviewees, and only their classification as ‘extreme’ might result in any bias at all. However, as this variable remains the most suitable variable available and does not report any significant correlation even considering sub-samples its bias is considered to be negligible.

  3. 3.

    Probit regressions are performed for binary outcomes, while ordered probit regressions are performed for ordinal dependent variables.

References

  1. Abrahamse W, Steg L (2009) How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households' direct and indirect energy use and savings? J Econ Psychol 30:711–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bamberg S (2003) How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J Environ Psychol 23:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brody SD, Zahran S, Vedlitz A, Grover H (2008) Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environ Behav 40(1):72–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brounen D, Kok N, Quigley JM (2012) Energy literacy, awareness, and conservation behavior of residential households. Energy Econ 38:42–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dai J, Kesternich M, Löschel A, Ziegler A (2014) Do Chinese individuals believe in global climate change and why? An econometric analysis. Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics No 28-2014

  6. Dexter LA (1964) Communications—pressure, influence or education? In: Dexter LA, White DM (eds) People, society and mass communications. Collier MacMillan Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  7. EEA (2010) Energy efficiency and energy consumption in the household sector. European Environment Agency

  8. EG (1987) Single European act. Off J Eur Communities L 169/1

  9. Egan PJ, Mullin M (2012) Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans' perceptions about global warming. J Polit 74(3):796–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. EIA (2016) International energy outlook 2016. Independent Statistics & Analysis

  11. Ek K, Söderholm P (2010) The devil is in the details: household electricity saving behavior and the role of information. Energy Policy 38(3):1578–1587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eriksson L, Garvill J, Nordlund AM (2006) Acceptability of travel demand management measures: the importance of problem awareness, personal norm, freedom, and fairness. J Environ Psychol 26(1):15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. European Commission (2013) The 7th environmental action Programme. Off J Eur Union L354/171

  14. Eurostat (2013) Manual for statistics on energy consumption in households. European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fischer C (2008) Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energ Effic 1:79–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fomby T, Ikeda Y, Loayza N (2013) The Growth aftermath of natural disasters. J Appl Econ 28:412–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Frederiks ER, Stenner K, Hobman EV (2015) Household energy use: applying behavioural economics to understand decision-making and behaviour. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41:1385–1394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gardner GT, Stern PC (1996) Environmental problems and human behavior. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gatersleben B, Steg L, Vlek C (2002) Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environ Behav 34:335–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guagnano GA, Stern PC, Dietz T (1995) The new ecological paradigm in social psychological context. Environ Behav 27:723–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Henryson J, Ha°kansson T, Pyrko J (2000) Energy efficiency in buildings through information—Swedish perspective. Energy Policy 28:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jansson J, Marell A, Nordlund A (2010) Green consumer behaviour: determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. J Consum Mark 27(4):358–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Howe P (2013) Extreme weather and global climate change in the American mind. Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CT, Yale Project on Global Climate Change Communication

  24. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S, Marlon J, Howe P (2014) Extreme weather and global climate change in the American mind.Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CT, Yale Project on Global Climate Change Communication

  25. Loayza N, Olaberria E, Rigolini J, Christiaensen L (2012) Natural disasters and growth: going beyond the averages. World Dev 40(7):1317–1336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ménioux J, Zumsteeg S (2012) Individual perceptions of climate risks: SURVEY AXA/IPSOS

  27. Nejat P, Jomehzadeh F, Taheri MM, Gohari M, Majid MZA (2015) A global review of energy consumption, CO 2 emissions and policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO 2 emitting countries). Renew Sust Energ Rev 43:843–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2003) Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J Environ Psychol 23:339–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Mittleman MA Brookhart MA (2009) Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology 169:273–84

  30. Roodman D (2011) Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp. Stata Journal, StataCorp LP 11(2):159–206

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sabatini F (2012) Who trusts Berlusconi? An econometric analysis of the role of Television in the Political Arena. Kyklos 65:111–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Skidmore M, Toya H (2002) Do natural disasters promote long-run Growth? Econ Inq 40(4):664–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tsushima S, Tanabe S, Utsumi K (2014) Worker’s awareness and indoor environmental quality in electricity-saving offices. Build Environ 1-10

  34. Urban J, Ščasný M (2012) Exploring domestic energy-saving: the role of environmental concern and background variables. Energy Policy 47:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Weidner H (1995) 25 years of modern environmental policy in Germany: treading a well-worn path to the top of the international field. WZB discussion paper, FS II 95-301.

  36. Whitmarsh L (2008) Are flood victims more concerned about global climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioral response. Journal of Risk Research 11(3):351–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Whitmarsh L (2009) Behavioural responses to climate change: asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J Environ Psychol 29:13–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Windahl S, Signitzer B (1992) Using communication theory. An introduction to planned communication. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Zografakis N, Sifaki E, Pagalou M, Nikitaki G, Psarakis V, Tsagarakis KP (2010) Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(3):1088–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper draws on research performed within the research project “SINCERE”. The financial contribution of the German DFG is acknowledged. We also thank EIIW / vita Foundation for funding part of the survey data used. The paper was presented at the international workshops on the Green Economy held in Shanghai (Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 15 October 2015) and Paris (MINES ParisTech, 12 October 2016) within the SINCERE Project as well as at the 40th IAEE International Energy Conference in Singapore (21 June 2017). This paper has benefited from valuable comments provided by Paul J.J. Welfens (EIIW), Werner Bönte and André Betzer (University of Wuppertal), Matthieu Glachant (MINES ParisTech), Yong Geng (Shanghai Jiao Tong University), Raimund Bleischwitz (University College London), Serdar Turkeli (Maastricht University) and Anne-Françoise Marique (ICIS). The authors are grateful to Christian Dienes (Ifm), Hung Lai and Niyaz Valitov (University of Wuppertal) as well as colleagues at the EIIW for helpful discussions on the subject matter. Special thanks go to René Kemp (Maastricht University) for sharing survey results with us and David Hanrahan (EIIW) for editorial support. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vladimir Udalov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Udalov, V., Perret, J. & Vasseur, V. Environmental motivations behind individuals’ energy efficiency investments and daily energy-saving behaviour: evidence from Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Int Econ Econ Policy 14, 481–499 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-017-0381-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Environmental behaviour
  • Energy efficiency
  • Energy-saving
  • Instrumental variable approach
  • Environmental motivations
  • Extreme whether events