ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444

The household energy gap: examining the divide between

habitual- and purchase-related conservation behaviours
Stewart Barr*, Andrew W Gilg, Nicholas Ford
Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter, Devon EX4 4RJ, UK

Abstract

This paper examines the conceptual divide between energy saving behaviours in the home, relating to purchase-oriented
behaviours and habitual action to conserve energy. Considerable empirical research indicates that this divide is of utility when
characterising energy saving behaviour. However, little attention has been focused around the association between energy saving
behaviours and other environmental actions. Accordingly, this paper examines the structural bases of energy conservation
behaviours in the wider context of environmental behaviour. These ndings are then used to examine the characteristics of energy
savers as they relate to other environmental actions. Using cluster analysis, the paper denes a range of behavioural characteristics
that transcend energy saving and other environmental actions. The use of such an approach to policy makers seeking to encourage
energy conservation practices is discussed at the end of the paper.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Households; Environmental action; Devon

1. Introduction homes should increase by 20% by 2010. This ambitious

The household sector plays a major role in energy use.
Thirty two per cent of energy consumption in the UK is
accounted for by domestic usage (RCEP, 2000). Indeed,
growth in housing stock will mean that household
energy use will continue to grow. However, government
policies aimed at reducing energy use have focused on
technical elements rather than changes in behaviour.
For example, the publication of the Performance and
Innovation Units (PIU, 2002) report on energy policy
in the UK demonstrated the neglect of behavioural
strategies to increase energy conservation in the home
and made little reference to the need for householders to
reduce energy consumption and adopt alternative
behavioural strategies to conserve energy. Yet targets
aimed at reducing the rate of global warming illustrate
the need for a renewed focus at the household level.
Despite ignoring the potential of behavioural strategies
for energy conservation, the PIU (2002) and formerly
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
(RCEP, 2000) have argued that energy efciency in
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1392-263832; fax: +44-1392-
263342.
E-mail address: s.w.barr@exeter.ac.uk (S. Barr).
target is unlikely to be attained without shifts in
household attitudes and behaviours. Accordingly, this
paper examines the structure of energy saving in the
home and argues that relating energy saving to
alternative environmental actions may yield useful
strategies for encouraging energy saving in the home.
2. Energy conservation behaviour
This section of the paper examines the structure of
energy saving behaviour at the household level and
assesses the previous work that has been undertaken
which examines the characteristics of the energy saver.
2.1. Defining energy saving activities
Studies of energy conservation have used a number of
different labels to categorise the type of behaviour that
they seek to examine. However, an assessment of each of
these studies shows that two fundamental categories
emerge in most cases. First, habitual action, for
example direct energy saving choices (Stern, 1992a),
adjustments (Dillman et al., 1983), usage-related (Van
Raaij and Verhallen, 1983) or curtailment (Black et al.,

0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.016
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1426 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444
1985) are all focused around everyday reductions in
energy use that require either no or minimal structural
adjustment. Such behaviours include: thermostat set-
ting, closing off of unused rooms, altering room use,
window closure when heating is on, using a clothes line
rather than a tumble drier, not lling the kettle full
before boiling, putting a full load of washing on rather
than a half load. These behaviours are evidently related
to the everyday habitual element of an individuals
lifestyle as they undertake daily activities. They should
also include, as rightly pointed out by Van Raaij and
Verhallen (1983), an element measuring the amount of
maintenance undertaken on existing tments (such as
boilers, res and washing machines) to ensure their
energy efciency. These habitual actions are of great
interest in a wider socialpsychological context, since
they relate to decisions that humans make everyday
based on their previous experience. They are actions
that, in colloquial terminology, we do without think-
ing. Accordingly, behaviours that are seen as wasteful
(such as leaving the heating or lighting on in an
unoccupied room) may be undertaken due to force of
habit.
The second type of energy conservation behaviour
focuses on purchasing activities, namely what Stern
(1992a) has termed technology choices, also referred to
as conserving actions (Dillman et al., 1983), purchase-
related behaviour (Van Raaij and Verhallen, 1983) and
energy efciency choices (Black et al., 1985). These
behaviours are often long-term alterations to the
structure of the home and include internal changes
internally that will require nancial and normally
technical resources to be utilised. This group is more
disparate than the rst in the sense that the amount of
nancial and other resources can vary greatly, from, for
example, full double-glazing installation to the insula-
tion of a back door. Typically, behaviours measured in
previous work have included: insulation (wall, door and
roof), double glazing, purchase of energy saving
products (appliances which are purchased with saving
energy as a priority, such as washing machines, cookers,
res, dishwashers, etc.), using low-energy light bulbs and
adjusting curtain heights in order to reduce energy loss.
This group not only has a diversity of actions on a scal
and effort-related scale, but also in terms of the
problems raised in attempting to identify behaviours
as denitively energy saving actions. For example, it
may be that a given individual purchases a highly energy
efcient washing machine because there are other
features of the product which appeal and not necessarily
its energy efciency.
Nonetheless, given these limitations, there evidently
appear to be two fundamental groups that can be
identied: habitual energy saving behaviours and
purchase-related actions. Within the wider context of
environmental action in general, authors such as Kaiser
et al. (1999), Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) and
Oskamp (2000) have argued that specic environmental
behaviours cannot be seen in isolation and a more
fruitful approach for encouraging environmental action
may be found in examining the structural bases of
environmental behaviour holistically and attempting to
tease out behavioural characteristics that span all
activities. This paper examines whether this is the case
for energy saving behaviour and how such actions can
be characterised and this paper seeks to examine these
assertions within the context of research undertaken in
Devon, UK, as part of a large. Economic and Social
Research Council (ESRC) funded project into environ-
mental action in and around the home.
2.2. The energy saver
Previous research has alluded to the various char-
acteristics of energy savers, both in demographic and
other contexts. In terms of the demographic composi-
tion of the energy saver, the general prole that has
emerged in the literature is somewhat narrower than for
other environmental actions. However, analysis of
individual studies shows that there are a set of core
variables which have signicant efcacy: home owner-
ship, income (or socio-economic status), family size and
age. Painter et al. (1983) examined the effect of home
ownership on those who conserved heat in the home and
conserved petrol consumption in Utah. They found that
home ownership was the fourth most powerful variable
in discriminating between conservers and non-conser-
vers. Black et al. (1985) gave more detail concerning the
effect of home ownership in their study of different
energy saving behaviours. They showed that home
ownership was the most important factor in explaining
large capital investment in energy saving measures. This
effect was reduced and made indirect when smaller,
direct energy saving measures were considered.
Evidently, the effect of home ownership may mask
trends in household income, which is expectedly
signicant and in Black et al.s (1981) model, as a direct
predictor of home ownership. However, Dillman et al.
(1983) provided a more in depth analysis of the effect of
income. They examined energy saving measures in the
USA and found that there was a differential effect for
income on energy saving according to the measures
being examined. For direct energy saving measures, they
found that those on lower incomes were more likely to
take them up, whereas what they termed energy
conservation measures (technological measures) could
only be taken up by those with sufcient capital to invest
in roof insulation and so on.
The general income-conservation trend was also
found by Ritchie et al. (1981). However, a stronger
correlate for them was the age of the head of household.
This formed a positive relationship to energy saving and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444
again may be linked with income and home owner-
ship. Such a relationship is also found by Painter et al.
(1983) when discriminating between conservers and
non-conservers.
In recent years there has been a move in environ-
mental behaviour research to examine the role of social
and environmental values in dening environmentalists.
Briey, social values relate to an individuals underlying
priorities (Schwartz, 1992), whilst environmental values
pertain to a persons orientation towards the natural
world (Dunlap et al., 2000), be they biospheric (valuing
nature intrinsically) or anthropocentric (conceiving of
nature as for human benet). Environmental values
have also been operationalised using ORiordans (1985)
continuum of ecocentrictechnocentric values, whereby
choices relating to the environment depend on whether
one argues that ecological dilemmas are resolved by
working with nature (ecocentric) or by utilising technol-
ogy (technocentric). There are essentially two strands of
research within the context of energy conservation.
The rst relates to a minority of studies that have
attempted to relate ecocentric/technocentric continua to
energy conservation, for example Hines et al. (1987)
who found that there was limited support for the impact
of environmental values on energy conservation beha-
viour. However, the debate has been refocused in recent
years to examine the effect of social value orientations
and representations of these in environmental contexts
to environmental actions. Stern (1992b) and Stern et al.
(1995) have been the pioneers of this work and in turn
they were inspired by Schwartzs (1992) examination of
social values. In brief, Schwartz has argued that there
are two fundamental dimensions to social value
orientations, the rst being termed: self-enhancement
self-transcendence, representing what Cameron et al.
(1998) have termed pro-self and pro-social values,
respectively. The former therefore being an expression
of self-interest and the latter an expression of communal
interest (Karp, 1996).
The second strand is termed openness to change-
conservation (note, this denotes conservatism and not
an ecological conservation ethic). The former represents
a liberal/progressive position, the latter a status quo
position. Schwartz then outlines ten motivational value
types, ranging from conformity to self-direction.
Stern et al. (1995) have combined these values after
factor analyses and empirical testing to construct an
environmental value scale based on the relevant social
value orientations of Schwartz.
There has been one study which has used the Stern
et al. (1995) 18-item scale, undertaken by Corraliza and
Berenguer (2000) in Madrid. The study aimed to
examine the role of environmental values given certain
antecedent conditions of situational and personal
variables. They argued that environmental values would
only become important in predicting behaviour when an
1427
individual was in a state of consistency, i.e. their
attitude, or moral obligation, towards acting, and their
situation (i.e. ability to act) were consistently high or
low. Indeed, when examining the effect of one of the
environmental value constructs (termed altruism, a
pro-social element that emphasises social gain over
communal advantage) they found that turning down
heating and putting more clothes on was directly
predicted by it.
Finally, a range of personality and perceptional
characteristics have been identied in regard to the
energy saver. These have ranged over the following
factors:
* Personal comfort, particularly the perceived reduc-
tion in comfort that any energy saving measure might
imply (Seligman et al., 1979; Verhallen and Van
Raaij, 1981; Midden and Ritsema, 1983; Samuelson
and Biek, 1991);
* Concern for environmental and energy-related issues,
pertaining to how individuals personalise these
problems (Seligman et al., 1979; Verhallen and Van
Raaij, 1981; Midden and Ritsema, 1983; Samuelson
and Biek, 1991);
* Price concern, relating to the extent to which
individuals are aware that they may make signicant
savings by conserving energy (Seligman et al., 1979;
Verhallen and Van Raaij, 1981);
* Personal responsibility to save energy (Seligman et al.,
1979; Midden and Ritsema, 1983; Samuelson and
Biek, 1991);
* Normative inuences on behaviour, relating to social
pressure from family and friend to save energy
(Leonard-Barton, 1981; Midden and Ritsema, 1983;
Costanzo et al., 1986);
* Self-presentation, specically the extent to which
individuals perform behaviours in ways that they
believe signicant others will be impressed with
(Sadalla and Krull, 1995).
The remainder of this paper examines the nature of
energy saving behaviour and the types of individuals
engaged in energy conservation activities from an
holistic perspective, incorporating a range of other
environmental actions.
3. The Devon study
The research was focused around an examination of
40 environmental actions that could be undertaken in
and around the home. The wider aim of the study was to
use an existing conceptual framework developed by the
authors (Barr et al., 2001) in order to examine the
inuences of three sets of variables on attitudes and
behaviours (Fig. 1). These related to social and environ-
mental values, situational factors and psychological
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1428 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444
Situational factors
Environmental values Behavioural intention
Psychological variables
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of environmental behaviour.
variables. These were drawn from a wide range of
literature, including that on energy conservation.
However, the framework assumes that environmental
behaviour comprises an uni-dimensional structure. In
reality, this is unlikely to be the case and there is hence a
need to examine the structure of environmental action
so that alternative antecedent factors can be examined in
each case.
The data on environmental behaviour were collected
during the summer of 2002. The study instrument was a
14-page questionnaire that posed questions concerning
the frequency of environmental behaviours, attitudes
towards undertaking such actions and a range of items
included to measure situational and psychological
factors and environmental and social values. The
questionnaire used reported behaviour to measure
environmental action. This technique is controversial
since it does not measure the energy saved by particular
actions. However, from the socialpsychological per-
spective, this represents a distraction from the objective
of such research. The amount of energy saved in a given
house over a certain time frame would be near
impossible to link to any set of behaviours specically.
Indeed, observations of individuals would also be
problematic. Given the habitual nature of many of the
actions being examined, it could be argued that the close
observation required would produce articial beha-
vioural conditions, which themselves may alter beha-
viour. Accordingly, this study used self-reports, based
on the supportive evidence of Warriner et al. (1984,
p. 521):
Overall, our ndings attest to the accuracy of self-
report, at least with respect to energy conservation.
The items that were selected for the research were
taken from a range of sources, which included local
authority recommended actions and items from the Are
You Doing Your Bit? Advertising campaign (DEFRA,
2002). This range of sources was in accordance with
both previous research and permitted the research to
examine various types of energy saving activities, from
purchasing energy efcient light bulbs to switching off
lights in unoccupied rooms.
The questionnaire was hand-delivered to 1600 house-
holds in Devon, selected randomly using the Electoral
Register Surveys were collected a couple of days later.
The response rate was 59% (representing the number of
the initial sample that agreed to undertake the
questionnaire and did so). However, given that the
next property was called at if a refusal was received,
Behaviour
the return rate was 79%, yielding 1265 usable ques-
tionnaires. In either case, the number of returns
was excellent and analysis of the sample demonstra-
ted that the population was demographically well
represented.
4. The structure of energy saving behaviour
To examine how energy saving behaviours related to
other environmental actions and the extent to which
energy conservation activities could be grouped to-
gether, a factor analysis was undertaken on the data set.
Factor analysis is a commonly used technique in the
social sciences that enables responses on a questionnaire
to be grouped, in order to examine whether variables
are empirically linked. This provides a good check on
the dominant theoretical assumption that environmental
actions are sectored into certain traditional categories.
Table 1 shows the results of the factor analysis.
The overall solution provides for some interesting
interoperation. First, environmental action does not
appear to conform, at least in empirical terms, to the
traditional sectored model mentioned above. Three
factors emerged, of which one conformed to a solely
waste management-oriented composition, whilst the
remainder were mixed. This result would indicate that
environmental action crosses traditional behavioural
boundaries and can be grouped roughly according to
ones purchase motivations and decisions, ones habits
and nally ones recycling behaviour. It is argued here
that recycling behaviour conforms to one factor mainly
because this is a well-established and normative
environmental behaviour that is highly structured.
However, from the energy perspective, there is a denite
conceptual divide between actions outside the home
(consumption) and behaviours within the household
(habitual).
This divide relates to conscious purchase decisions
made by individuals concerning the purchase of high
efciency light bulbs and energy efcient appliances.
These decisions are related in Table 1 to other activities
such as green consumer decisions, in particular the
purchase of other environmentally friendly products,
such as recycled toilet tissue. Accordingly, this rst
factor relates to overtly conscious decisions, which may
involve a signicant shift in behaviour and/or a major
cost implication. Such actions are ones that individuals
are likely to deliberate over for varying amounts
of time.
In contrast, the second factor, containing the majority
of energy saving items, relates to an individuals
everyday life within the home. Termed habitual, this
factor contains behaviours that people are likely to
make little or no conscious decision about. Activities
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444 1429

Table 1
Factor solution for behavioural data

Factor Variables included Variance (eigenvalue) Variance (%) Cronbachs alpha

1. Purchase decisions Buy high efciency bulbs 44 133 83

Buy energy efcient appliances
Buy organic
Buy FairTrade produce
Avoid aerosols
Compost garden waste
Compost kitchen waste
Avoid toxic detergents
Reuse paper
Reuse glass
Buy recycled writing paper
Buy recycled toilet paper
Buy locally produced foods
Buy from a local store
Use own bag when shopping
Look for less packaging
Buy plants using less water

2. Habits Turn off tap when soaping up 39 117 81

Reduce the number of baths/showers
Reduce toilet ushes
Turn tap off when cleaning teeth
Turn off tap when washing dishes
Reduce heat in unused rooms
Reduce hot water temperature
Keep heating low to save energy
Use a shower rather than bath
Wait untill theres a full load for washing
More clothes instead of more heating
Lights off in unused rooms
Use a sprinkler less in the garden

3. Recycling Recycle glass 35 105 78

Recycle newspaper
Recycle cans
Recycle plastic bottles
Donate furniture to charity
Donate clothes to charity 36

Energy saving behaviours in bold type.

such as turning off lights or ushing the toilet are part of
the everyday routine of life and require less conscious
thought. There are obvious exceptions to this general
rule. One may think a little longer about turning down
the heating or putting on extra clothes to save energy.
Nonetheless, these are actions that are within the
domains of the everyday rather than every month or
year. In essence, this is what separates this factor from
the purchase-related factor, which may involve habitual
actions, but are clearly located within a purchase and
consumption context.
There seems little doubt, therefore, that energy saving
behaviours can be conceptually divided into consump-
tion oriented behaviour and habitual activity. These
are related to other environmental actions, such as water
conservation, waste reduction and reuse, along with
green consumerism.
5. Frequency of energy saving behaviour
Fig. 2 provides descriptive frequency information
concerning the behaviours undertaken in the two
relevant factors. Although there is some variation within
the purchase factor, the levels of activity are roughly the
same, with the exception of the proportion of indivi-
duals who composted waste, whilst less than a fth of all
respondents always purchased energy efcient light
bulbs and appliances. The purchase of energy efcient
appliances was more common, however, with over half
stating that they usually purchased these. As a whole,
green consumption practices were undertaken with less
frequency than those items in the second factor.
Signicant variation, however, occurs between vari-
ables in the habitual factor, with items such as reducing
the number of baths and showers being very unpopular,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1430 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444

Factor 1: Purchase decisions Factor 2: Habits

WA8

WA7

WA1

WA4

WA6

WA2

WA5

WA3
GC7

GC6

EN8

EN7

GC5

GC2

GC1

GC9

W9

GC4

W1

W2
GC8

GC3

W10

EN4

EN5

EN2
EN6

EN3

EN1
GC10
Never Rarely Sometimes Uasually Always

(a)
Fig. 2. Purchase Decisions and Habits factors.

whilst turning off lights in unused rooms was usually or characteristics of the grouping. It will never t exactly,
always undertaken. On the most part, energy saving but is intended as a general guide. Accordingly, the four
within the home was a fairly common activity, with half types of individual behaviour can be summarised as
or more of the sample always or usually undertaking follows.
each activity. The least common related to those Committed environmentalists (Fig. 3a) were the
activities that required some sort of commitment and/ most likely to purchase energy efcient light bulbs and
or reduction in comfort, such as turning down the look for efcient appliances. They were also, by way of
heating or reducing the hot water temperature. Con- contextualisation, the most likely to engage in other
versely, waiting until there is a full load before using the environmental practices such as composting, waste reuse
washing machine requires little effort or discomfort. and a range of green consumer practices. Committed
environmentalists usually reduced heat in unused rooms
and were very likely to reduce the hot water temperature
6. Who are the energy savers? to save energy. They also usually put on more clothes
before turning up their heating. Not surprisingly, they
Although Fig. 2 has revealed the salient behavioural almost always switched of lights in unoccupied rooms
patterns within the sample as a whole, it is likely that and waited for a full load before using the washing
distinctive groupings will occur with reference to specic machine.
types of individual behaviour. In other words, are there Mainstream environmentalists (Fig. 3b) were very
groups of individuals who display similar behavioural similar in respect of their purchase behaviours. Indeed,
characteristics that can be identied as specic types? In there are only small discernible changes in behaviour in
order to examine this possibility, a cluster analysis was regard to energy saving habits from the rst cluster. The
undertaken on the behavioural data. Cluster analysis is major difference actually relates to levels of composting
a means by which to examine the similarity of individual between the two groups. Thus in energy saving terms
cases in a questionnaire. In the analysis process, each these clusters are very similar. Reductions in energy
individual is at rst treated independently. Two in- saving behaviours can be observed between these
dividuals are then. Joined as a pair on the basis of their mainstream and occasional (Fig. 3c) environmentalists,
similarity across a range of scores in the questionnaire. where there are fewer individuals who reported keeping
This process continues until there is only one cluster their heating low and putting on more clothing to keep
remaining. This can be represented diagrammatically warm.
using a dendrogram. The decision relating to how many The major difference occurs between occasional
clusters to analyse is a subjective one, but normally environmentalists (Fig. 3c) and non-environmentalists
focuses around clearly identiable groupings. (Fig. 3d). This group rarely looked for energy efcient
In the case of the Devon data, four clearly identiable products and were only likely to participate in energy
groupings were extracted for analysis. Fig. 3 shows the saving behaviours that required minimal effort or no
behavioural characteristics of these four types of reduction in comfort, such as switching off lights in
individuals. Each cluster has been ascribed a label, unoccupied rooms. Even so, only just over 60% of this
which is a generic term that describes the overall group usually did this, with only 50% waiting until there
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444 1431

was a full load of washing before putting the washing Statistically signicant differences between the clusters
machine on. With regard to behaviours that required are indicated by a relevant test statistic in the far right
some degree of sacrice, over 80% never or rarely column. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the major
reduced the hot water temperature to save energy, whilst differences between energy savers appeared to focus
three-quarters were resistant to putting on more clothing around a denitive split between non-environmentalists
instead of switching up the heating. These results are and other groups, with the qualication that there were
signicant because they imply that there are specic notable changes from the committed to occasional
behavioural types that can be identied, particularly in groupings, with lower frequencies in the latter groups.
regard to non-environmentalists and other individuals. Briey, the demographic prole of the different group-
ings can be summarised as:

7. Identifying the energy saver * The mean age of committed environmentalists is

highest, with the mean age of non-environmentalists
7.1. Demographic profile being the lowest;
* There were signicantly more males in the non-
Table 2 provides detailed demographic information environmentalist cluster than in the other clusters
relating to the whole sample and the four clusters. which all have a similar gender balance;

Factor 1: Purchase decisions Factor 2: Habits

EN8

GC6

EN7

GC5

GC4

GC7

GC8

GC2

GC9

GC1

GC10

GC3

EN5

EN3

EN1

EN6

EN4

EN2
W10

W9

W2

W1

WA8

WA5

WA1

WA4

WA6

WA2

WA7

WA3
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

(a)

Factor 1: Purchase decisions Factor 2: Habits

GC6

EN8

GC1

EN7

GC8

GC5

GC2

GC7

GC9

GC4

GC3

GC10

EN5

EN3

EN1

EN6

EN4

EN2
W2

W1

W9

W10
WA8

WA5

WA1

WA4

WA6

WA2

WA3

WA7

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

(b)
Fig. 3. Behavioural clusters: (a) committed environmentalists (N=294); (b) mainstream environmentalists (N=412); (c) occasional environmen-
talists (N=505); and (d) non-environmentalists (N=43).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1432 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444

Factor 1: Purchase decisions Factor 2: Habits

GC6

EN7

EN8

GC2

GC5

GC1

GC7

GC8

GC9

GC3

GC10

GC4

EN5

EN3

EN1

EN2

EN6

EN4
W2

W1

W10

W9

WA8

WA5

WA1

WA4

WA6

WA7

WA2

WA3
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
(c)

Factor 1: Purchase decisions Factor 2: Habits

GC6

EN8

GC8

GC7

GC5

EN7

GC3

GC10

GC2

GC1

GC9

GC4

EN3

EN5

EN1

EN6

EN2

EN4
W10

W9

W1

W2
WA8

WA5

WA1

WA6

WA4

WA7

WA3

WA2

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

(d)
Fig. 3 (continued).

* Committed and mainstream environmentalists * Of all the four clusters, committed environmentalists
tended to have smaller household sizes than occa- were most likely to own their own home and non-
sional or non-environmentalists. A signicantly large environmentalists were least likely to do so;
number of households in these latter groups had * Almost half of committed individuals and non-
more than ve individuals in the home; This seems environmentalists live in terraced properties, whilst
unlikelyaccording to Table 2 9% of mainstream mainstream environmentalists were more likely than
environmentalist household had 5+ people com- any of the other groups to live in semi-detached
pared to 10% of occasional environmentalists. How homes;
about looking at the number of single/couple * Non-environmentalists were signicantly more likely
households which looks to be higher for committed than the other groups to be on low incomes (earning
and mainstream environmentalists than the other under d7500 a year). However, a signicantly higher
groups? proportion of committed environmentalists earned
* Car access appeared to differ between the clusters, between 7500 and 10,000. The higher income brackets
although this was not statistically signicant; were equally spread between groups (you should be
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444 1433

Table 2
Demographic characteristics of behavioural clusters

Variable Sample Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Test statistic and

signicance

Cluster label Committed Mainstream Occasional Non-

environmentalists environmentalists environmentalists environmentalists
No. in cluster 294 412 505 43
Age (mean) 49 55 52 46 43 KruskallWallis
H 596 (po005)
Gender Male 35% Male 35% Male 31% Male 38% Male 50% Chi-square=88
(po005)
Female 65% Female 65% Female 69% Female 62% Female 50%
No. in home (all 1 16% 1 17% 1 21% 1 13% 1 11% Chi-square-=259
residents) (po005)
2 37% 2 40% 2 40% 2 34% 2 29%
3 18% 3 18% 3 15% 3 21% 3 26%
4 19% 4 17% 4 15% 4 22% 4 17%
5+ 3% 5+ 8% 5+ 9% 5+ 10% 5+ 17%

Car access 0 20% 0 19% 0 24% 0 17% 0 27% Chi-square=151

(number) (p > 005)
1 51% 1 51% 1 52% 1 52% 1 37%
2 24% 2 25% 2 20% 2 26% 2 32%
3+ 5% 3+ 5% 3+ 4% 3+ 5% 3+ 4%

Tenancy Owned 74% Owned 83% Owned 74% Owned 71% Owned 62% Chi-square=233
(po005)
Private tenant Private tenant 5% Private tenant Private tenant Private tenant
11% 11% 13% 19%
LA 15% LA 12% LA 15% LA 16% LA 19%

House type Detached 9% Detached 4% Det 12% Det 10% Det 10% Chi-square=634
(po005)
S-Detached 24% S-Detached 16% S-Det 34% S-Det 24% S-Det 26%
Terrace w pass 9% Terrace w pass 8% Terr/p 7% Terr/p 10% Terr/p 14%
Terrace 36% Terrace 43% Terr 28% Terr 38% Terr 36%
Flat 22% Flat 29% Flat 19% Flat 20% Flat 14%

Income (Pounds) o7:5 k 20% o7:5 k 20% o7:5 k 23% o7:5 k 15% o7:5 k 35% Chi-square=299
(po005)
7.510k 9% 7.510k 20% 7.510k 10% 7.510k 8% 7.510k 6%
1015k 17% 1015k 11% 1015k 20% 1015k 15% 1015k 9%
1520k 19% 1520k 15% 1520k 18% 1520k 22% 1520k 12%
2030k 21% 2030k 19% 2030k 20% 2030k 23% 2030k 21%
>30k 14% >30k 15% >30k 9% >30k 17% >30k 18%

Education None 38% None 51% None 41% None 35% None 53% Chi-square=216
(formal) (po005)
GCSE 27% GCSE 20% GCSE 30% GCSE 29% GCSE 19%
A level 17% A level 18% A level 15% A level 18% A level 16%
Degree 17% Degree 21% Degree 14% Degree 18% Degree 12%
Adds up to 110%

Political allegiance Con 16% Con 16% Con 16% Con 15% Con 15% Chi-square=433
(po005)
Green 3% Green 6% Green 4% Green 2% Green 0%
Lab 22% Lab 18% Lab 22% Lab 25% Lab 32%
LD 14% LD 17% LD 17% LD 12% LD 5%
Oth 2% Oth 2% Oth 1% Oth 2% Oth 2%
No vote10% No vote 6% No vote 10% No vote 12% No vote 22%
Pass Q 33% Pass Q 35% Pass Q 30% Pass Q 32% Pass Q 24%
What does pass Q
mean?

Membership of a Yes 11% Yes 17% Yes 10% Yes 8% Yes 8% Chi-square=160
community group (po005)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1434 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444
looking at the proportion in each cluster, not how
they are spread between groupsreword);
* Committed environmentalists were less likely to have
received any formal education, but at the same time,
were also more likely to have a degree (check
your numbersthey add up to more than 100% in
Table 2). In the case of non-environmentalists, a large
proportion had received no formal education, with
low levels of GCSE, A-level and degree qualica-
tions. Almost one-third of Mainstream and occa-
sional environmentalists had GCSE qualications, a
signicantly higher proportion than the other groups;
* Non-environmentalists contained a large amount of
Labour voters as well as a substantial proportion that
did not vote. (NB differences are signicant
proportions are not.) There were markedly fewer
Liberal Democrat votes amongst this group. Com-
mitted environmentalists were most likely to vote
Green and Liberal Democrat. They were also the
most likely to vote. Mainstream and occasional
environmentalists represented what one might expect
to be the national situation, with Labour the
dominant party of choice, followed by the Conserva-
tives and Liberal Democrats;
* Committed environmentalists were signicantly more
likely to be a member of a community organisation,
whilst occasional and non-environmentalists were
least likely to be.
Evidently there are more trends that can be described
from the table, but for the purposes of brevity it is
interesting to note that those most committed to
sustainable energy use were older, tended to own their
home, lived in a terraced property, voted Green/Liberal
Democrat and were members of community groups. In
contrast, those who were non-environmentalists tended
to be younger, male, on low incomes, who had received
less formal education, were less involved in the
community and were more likely to be politically
apathetic.
These assertions are clearly generalisations. However,
they are based on discernible statistical patterns. What
must be noted is that there are not clear distinctions that
can be drawn along a continuum, from committed to
non-environmentalist. There are variable demographic
characteristics depending on which cluster one exam-
ines. Nonetheless, there are clear trends that have
signicant implications for policy makers.
7.2. Social and environmental values
Table 2 demonstrated that there are signicant
demographic differences between different groups of
energy savers. Previous research has argued that those
with more altruistic and open social values, along with
ecocentric environmental values, are more likely to be
environmentally active. Fig. 4 shows respondents
responses to a range of social and environmental value
statements measured in the questionnaire for each
behavioural group (i.e. committed, mainstream, occa-
sional and non-environmentalists). These were factor
analysed and the social values (Table 3) formed four
distinctive factors, whilst the environmental values
(Table 4) comprised three factors. The four social
value factors reect almost exactly those that Stern
et al. (1995) identied. In terms of the environ-
mental values, three factors emerged that reected
logical constructs (anthropocentrism, biospherism and
eco-technocentrism).
The results are revealing, since it should be noted that
in the case of the Altruistic and. Openness to Change
factors, there were no statistically signicant differences
between the four clusters. Despite this nding, cursory
observation of Fig. 4a reveals for values such as being
helpful, the difference between clusters 1 and 4 appears
to be signicant. However, in Figs. 4c and d, statistically
signicant differences do emerge. These are particularly
notable with regard to the importance individuals placed
on values such as obedience, unity, wealth and social
power. In these cases, the trends in the data are
consistent between the four clusters. Briey, individuals
who were less environmentally active tended to place
less importance on being obedient and aspiring to social
unity and a great deal more signicance on wealth and
the positive aspects of social power.
These results have great signicance, mainly because
they outline the general values that individuals in certain
behavioural groups appear to hold. Accordingly, the
keen energy saver, as dened above, considered social
obedience and unity over material wealth and social
power. These results are consistent with other research
that has highlighted the signicance of social values in
differentiating between behavioural groups.
In terms of environmental values, Figs. 4eg reveal
that the rst two factors contained differences between
the four groups, whilst the ecocentrictechnocentric
factor did not. With the qualication that the items in
Fig. 4e were reverse coded, so as to provide consistent
directional meaning, it can be seen that non-environ-
mentalists were more likely to believe that there were no
limits to growth for nations like the UK, were more
skeptical towards the negative impacts of modifying
nature, believed that scientic developments would
resolve environmental dilemmas and that humankind
was created to rule over nature. These fundamentally
anthropocentric and technocentric sentiments are again
consistent with previous research, but the sharp
differences observed in Fig. 4e are very conclusive. This
is also the case in Fig. 4f, although in all cases there are
more differences between all of the clusters. Here
the level of agreement with these pro-environmental
statements was high in all cases and so conclusive
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444 1435

remarks are not as appropriate. However, a consistent decisions to purchase energy saving products and
pattern emerges once again, with biospheric and change everyday habits to save energy. Whilst crude
ecocentric items obtaining lower scores from non- over-generalisation should be avoided, the ndings
environmentalists. suggest that higher proportions of environmentally
These results, considering social and environmental active individuals shared more pro-social values, with
values as a whole, reveal a great deal concerning less signicance placed on wealth and power. These were

Honouring Social
Loyalty Equality Enjoying life Helpful
parents justice

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Very unimportant Unimportant Neutral Important Very important

(a)

Varied life Exciting life Curiosity

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Very unimportant Unimportant Neutral Important Very important

(b)
Fig. 4. Group properties for social and environmental values. Figures on the x-axis refer to cluster membership thus: 1=committed
environmentalists, 2=mainstream environmentalists, 3=occasional environmentalists, 4=non-environmentalists), see Tables 3 and 4 for item
labels and wording. Moods median statistic (M) computed for each factor, denoting whether there was a statistically signicant difference between
the four cluster groups: (a) social value: altruistic (M 58; p > 005); (b) social value: openness to change (M 26; p > 005); (c) social value:
conservative (M 78; po005); (d) social value: egoistic (M 98; po005); (e) environmental value: faith in growth (M 126; po005);
(f) environmental value: spaceship earth (M 102; po005); and (g) environmental value: ecocentrismtechnocentrism (M 39; p > 005).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1436 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444

Social order Obedience Authority Unity

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Very unimportant Unimportant Neutral Important Very important

(c)

Wealth Social power Influence

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Very unimportant Unimportant Neutral Important Very important

(d)
Fig. 4 (continued).

reported alongside environmental values that empha-
sised an intrinsic value of nature that should be
respected when planning future developments.
7.3. Some socialpsychological characteristics
Thus far the committed energy saver has been
characterised demographically and in relation to their
social and environmental values. However, previous
research has also examined the factors that have
inuenced behaviour, particularly individual attitudes
to variables such as home comfort and the cost of
environmental goods. Given the large amount of
variables measured in the questionnaire and the likely
irrelevance of some to energy saving, Fig. 5 presents
some key socialpsychological variables for each group
that are likely to have inuenced energy saving action.
These were again derived from factor analyses that
categorised each item within a factor. Accordingly, each
graph in Fig. 5 represents a factor comprised of various
concepts from the questionnaire shown in relation to
each behavioural grouping.
Fig. 5a provides data on environmental concern. This
factor comprised six items relating to various compo-
nents of personal commitment to environmental issues.
The results provide good evidence that, as was evident
with the behavioural data, the nal cluster of non-
environmentalists were signicantly different according
to their attitudes towards helping the environment.
Fig. 5a shows that they were less likely to be concerned
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444 1437

Modifying
No limits to growth Scientific solution Humans over nature
environment

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

(e)
Note: all items in this factor were reverse-coded so as to provide a pro-environmental
direction in attitude (strongly agree = most pro-environmental)

Balance of nature Spaceship Earth Value of anture Preservation

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

(f)
Fig. 4 (continued).

about environmental issues, with low levels of self-
efcacy and an apathy towards any moral obligation to
help the environment. They were also more likely to
believe that individuals who were environmentally active
were a bit eccentric.
These general trends are reected in Fig. 5b, where
individuals who were non-environmentalists reported
apathy towards any moral motives for helping the
environment, with individuals in this group rarely
concerned about feeling guilty for not being environ-
mentally friendly, nor concerned about the inuence of
other people on their actions. Again a large majority of
individuals felt they would not ascribe themselves the
title of environmentalist, whereas over two-thirds of
committed environmentalists were happy to label
themselves in this way.
Fig. 5c shows less stark trends, but the overall
pattern is continued, with beliefs about the effect of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1438 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444

Technological solutions Stop explitation

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

(g)
Note: The Technological solutions item in this factor were reverse-coded so as to
provide a pro-environmental direction in attitude (strongly agree = most pro-
environmental)
Fig. 4 (continued).

Table 3 help the environment and that actions to alleviate

Social value factors environmental issues would be effective. This is in some
Factor Variables Variance Variance contrast to attitudes towards price (Fig. 5d) where a
included (eigenvalue) (%) mixed pattern emerges. All cluster groups question the
signicance of price. However, the signicance of price
Altruistic Loyalty 31 20%
Honouring parents in relation to other produce is clearly demonstrated,
Equality where the environmental credentials of products are
Social justice evidently less signicant for non-environmentalists.
Enjoying life Fig. 5e provides a commentary regarding the level of
Helpful
comfort individuals are willing to accept in relation to
Openness to change Varied life 25 16 energy saving. Less than a quarter of non-environmen-
Exciting life talists were willing to sacrice some comfort to save
Curious energy, whilst over 60% of committed environmentalists
were willing to do so. Similarly, feeling comfortable in
Conservative Social order 21 13
the home was a signicant issue for almost 60% of non-
Obedience
Authority environmentalists, whilst under 20% of committed
Unity environmentalists considered this to be important.
These brief analyses, which do not exhaust the data
Egoism Wealth 18 11 from the survey, provide signicant results pertaining to
Social power
the character and attitudes of the energy saver insofar as
Inuential
this group relates to committed environmentalists.
Total variance 59 Perhaps more signicant is what the data reveal concern-
ing those not engaged in such activities. In summary,
Individuals were asked how important each value was to their own life,
rating each from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important). again without wishing to regress into crude general-
isations, the conscious energy saver appeared to be:
environmental action being least positive amongst the
non-environmentalist group. They were signicantly less * pro-social in outlook;
likely to believe that it makes good economic sense to * ecocentric in outlook and had biospheric values;
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444 1439

Table 4
Environmental value factors

Factor Variables included Label (Figs. 4eg) Variance (eigenvalue) Per cent variance

Faith in growth: There are no limits to No limits to growth 23 24

anthropocentrism
growth for nations like the
UK
Modifying the Modifying environment
environment seldom
causes serious problems
Science will help us to live Scientic solution
without conservation
Humans were created to Humans over nature
rule over nature

Spaceship Earth: The balance of nature is Balance of nature 22 22

biospherism delicate and easily upset
The Earth is like a space Spaceship Earth
ship, with limited room
and resources
Plants and animals do not Value of nature
exist primarily for human
use
One of the most important Preservation
reasons for conservation is
to preserve wild areas

Ecocentism Technology will solve Technological solutions 12 12

technocentrism many environmental
problems
Exploitation of resources Stop exploitation
should be stopped

Total variance 58

Individuals were asked to rate their agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

* environmentally concerned and morally motivated; 8. Discussion

* believed in the efcacy of their actions;
* considered environmental issues in preference to
price; and were;
* Willing to sacrice comfort to save energy.
Conversely, the non-environmentalist, who was de-
ned by low levels of habitual and purchase related
energy saving, was more likely to be:
* pro-self and placed a high value on material
wealth;
* technocentric in outlook and had anthropocentric
values;
* apathetic towards the environment, with a keen
stereotype of environmentalists;
* unconcerned about moral motives for action and how
people viewed their behaviour;
* more sceptical concerning the efcacy of their
behaviour;
* more likely to consider alternative issues to environ-
mental concerns when purchasing products; and
* unwilling to sacrice comfort to save energy.
The data contained in this paper provide further support
for a number of arguments that have been promoted
concerning the structure of energy saving behaviour and
the type of individual who is likely to engage in energy
conservation. Three major conclusions can be drawn,
relating to the placement of energy saving activities in
regard to alternative environmental actions, the ways in
which these behaviours vary according to individual
groups and the demographic composition of such types.
8.1. Energy saving behaviour and environmental action
The assertions of authors such as Dillman et al. (1983)
and Stern (1992a) are supported by the results in this
paper. The data in Table 1 clearly demonstrate a
conceptual division between purchase related energy
saving behaviours (such as buying low energy light
bulbs) and habitual actions (such as turning off lights).
However, of more signicance is the extent to which
these activities are empirically linked to other environ-
mental behaviours, such as other diverse forms of green
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1440 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444

consumption on the one hand and alternative habitual
activities on the other. This supports the argument by
authors such as Kaiser et al. (1999) that environmental
behaviours must be placed within a broader conceptual
context, in which environmental action is not conceived
in isolation, but in holistic terms that makes explicit the
embedded relationships between lifestyles and specic
behaviours. In the case of energy saving, the data
pointed to two distinct lifestyle contexts, in which
activities that were undertaken with minimal conscious
thought (habits) can be contrasted with those that may
reect considerable deliberation (purchase decisions).
Accordingly, from the perspective of policy, there may
be scope for developing alternative promotional tech-
niques that focus attention on different aspects of
personal lifestyles, such as consumer behaviour and

Moral Self
Time obligation 1 Concern 1 Self efficacy Presentation 1 Concern 2

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

(a)
Time I dont have time to worry about the environment* N = 1239
Moral obligation 1 I dont feel any moral obligation to help conserve natural resources* N = 1238
Concern 1 Ive never been concerned with environmental issues* N = 1237
Self efficacy Its too complicated and inconvenient to act in ways which help the environment* N = 1232
Self- presentation People who are environmentally friendly are a bit eccentric* N = 1241
Concern 2 I am very concerned about environmental issues N = 1241

Acceptance Intrinsic Self

Moral obligation 2 Water beliefs
of norm motivation Presentation 2

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

(b)
Acceptance of norm When I see other people around me helping the environment, I feel I should do as N = 1235
well
Intrinsic motivation It makes me feel good when I do something to help the environment, such as N = 1247
reusing or recycling things
Self presentation2 I like to think of myself as an environmentalist N = 1238
Moral obligation 2 I feel guilty when I dont manage to make an effort to conserve resources N = 1240
Water beliefs Saving water in the home means our local environment remains healthy and N = 1234
diverse
Fig. 5. Selected socialpsychological factors: (a) concern and commitment (M 696; po005); (b) moral motives (M 623; po005); (c) outcome
beliefs (M 451; po005); (d) price (M 325; po005); and (e) comfort (M 429; po005).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444 1441

Good economics Energy beliefs Response efficacy Waste beliefs

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

(c)
Good economics It makes good economic sense to help the environment N = 1245
Energy beliefs Energy saving in the home helps reduce global warming N = 1242
Response Each persons behaviour can have a positive effect on society and the N = 1245
efficacy environment
Waste beliefs Reducing household waste and recycling saves rubbish being buried N = 1241
in landfill

Price of eco-friendly Importance of price Prefer eco-friendly Willing to pay more

produce produce

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

(d)
Price of eco- Unless environmentally-friendly products come down in price, I N = 1235
friendly products will buy normal brands*
Importance of The price is uppermost in my mind when I buy products* N = 1241
nature
Prefer eco- Id rather buy environmentally-friendly products than purchase N = 1238
friendly produce cheaper alternatives
Willing to pay Paying higher prices for environmentally-friendly products is worth N = 1241
more the extra cost
Fig. 5 (continued).

everyday activities in the home. This cross-cutting
approach is in contrast to the segmented nature of the
existing promotion of environmental actions, which is
focused on developing programmes that encourage
energy saving or green consumption, but not a variation
of both that embeds the activity within the context of
lived behaviour. Using embedded contexts may assist
policy makers in relating their promotional programmes
with greater efcacy.
8.2. Contrasts in energy saving behaviour
The frequency and cluster analyses provided evidence
that four types of environmental activist existed within
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1442 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444

Importance of comfort Willing to sacrifice comfort

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

(e)
Importance of Feeling comfortable in the home is more important to me than N = 1238
comfort saving energy*
Willing to sacrifice I am willing to sacrifice some comfort to save energy N = 1238
comfort
Fig. 5 (continued).

the sample. With regard to energy saving behaviour, the
most discernible differences occurred between com-
mitted environmentalists and non-environmentalists,
with the two other groups (mainstream and occasional
environmentalists) undertaking energy saving behaviour
with some regularity.
The purchase of energy saving devices and energy
saving lights bulbs, contained within the purchase
decisions factor, was low for all groups, although in
all cases individuals were more likely to look for energy
saving aspects of appliances than purchase energy
saving bulbs. This pattern reects that for the other
activities in this factor, where low levels of green
purchasing were reported overall. This is somewhat
concerning from a policy perspective given the need to
encourage sustainable consumption. Through all the
groups, with the possible exception of committed
environmentalists, there were relatively low levels of
green purchasing which reects a lack of willingness to
engage in activities that required conscious and delib-
erate thought.
In terms of habitual actions that required less
conscious thought, there was a sharp contrast. Only
with regard to the nal group of non-environmentalists
were there a signicant number who reported no action.
This situation may reect a trend recorded later in the
data, in which habitual actions do not necessarily reect
activities that are undertaken with a single environ-
mental motivation. For example, the cost of energy may
be a signicant factor. Nonetheless, habitual behaviours
overall were undertaken with greater frequency. Policy
makers may have greater success in promoting these in
the short to medium term given the nature of the actions
involved. Nonetheless, behaviours that related to
personal comfort and consequential sacrice (such as
wearing more clothes instead of turning up the heating)
were less popular. These may be more difcult to
encourage.
8.3. Who is the energy saver?
A range of both denitive and equivocal results were
obtained with regard to the demographic prole of each
of the groups. This was somewhat anticipated, given
that some of those variables measured would not be
expected to differentiate between energy savers. How-
ever, signicant variables do relate strongly to those
indicated as such by previous research.
First, as Painter et al. (1983) and Black et al. (1985)
found, home ownership was a signicant factor. In the
Devon research, committed environmentalists were
more likely to own their own home, whilst non-
environmentalists tended to rent from a local authority.
The reason for this distinction may lie in the effect that
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444
home ownership has on personal perception of the duty
of care to a property, in particular the extent to which
one can adjust situational circumstances so that energy
saving become easier (for example, installing a new
boiler). It has already been shown that the level of
insulation and the use of energy efcient boilers did not
differ between the four groups. However, ownership
may engender a sense of belonging and personal control
that motivates the individual to think more consciously
about how to save energy.
In terms of the differences between income, an
irregular pattern emerges. Non-environmentalists were
much more likely to earn under 75,000, but committed
environmentalists were more likely to earn between
75,000 and 10,000 Pounds. Given the behavioural
composition of the groups, which reected low uptake
of energy saving devices, there is not the scope to test
Dillmans (1983) assertion that those on low incomes
were less likely to purchase energy saving devices, such
as light bulbs. However, that committed environmen-
talists were the most likely to do so, it does imply that
this thesis is not correct in the case of these data. It may
be that in further analyses income is a weak predictor of
energy conservation behaviour, given that the two more
extreme groups were both from relatively low income
groups.
One area in which previous research is supported by
this study is in regard to the impact of age. Both Ritchie
et al. (1981) and Painter et al. (1983) found that those in
higher age groups were more likely to be energy savers.
This was undoubtedly the case in this research, with the
mean age of committed environmentalists being 55,
compared to a mean age of non-environmentalists of
just 43.
In the current research, other variables that were
signicant included gender, household size, education
and political allegiance and activity. From the policy
perspective, these results may assist in the general
framing of initiatives. It does appear that those groups
which require the greatest focus are young people, on
lower incomes, who tend to rent rather than own and
are politically apathetic.
Other characteristics of the energy saver also relate to
ndings from previous research. In terms of social and
environmental values, committed environmentalists
were more likely to encompass what Stern et al. (1995)
termed a pro-social values, with non-environmentalists
reecting pro-self values. Extrapolating this out to
include environmental values, committed environmen-
talists were more likely to be both biospheric and
ecocentric in outlook. This reects the ndings in other
environmental behaviour research in which those least
likely to take part in environmental action were those
most likely to believe that humans were above nature
and that technological advances would resolve environ-
mental issues.
1443
The ndings of previous research in relation to
personality and perceptional factors is also supported
by this work. Consistent results throughout the data set
demonstrated the signicance of issues surrounding
comfort (feeling happy with the level of heat in the
home0, price (the role of nancial elements in changing
attitudes), concern (concern over the energy problem),
responsibility (for taking personal action), norms (the
impact of others behaviour) and self-presentation.
These have clear policy implications. Greater thought
should be applied in considering how negative percep-
tions relating to comfort and the cost of saving energy
can be reversed, alongside how positive measures to
engender personal responsibility and a social norm for
energy saving can be enhanced.
9. Conclusion
Inevitably, exploratory research such as this poses
more questions than it can answer satisfactorily.
However, some rm conclusions can be drawn that act
as a means by which to refocus research for the future.
First, energy saving should be placed within the context
of other environmental actions, both theoretically and
practically. A variety of behaviours that essentially
involve the same behaviour, be that purchase related or
habitual, are evidently related and it would seem logical
to extend this empirical nding to the academic and
policy context.
Second, clear behavioural types have emerged that
can be used to associate groups with different
levels of environmental action. These different types
reect signicant variation in behavioural commitment
and accordingly can provide the basis for further
study.
Third, related to these behavioural types, signicant
conclusions can be drawn concerning the demographic
composition and lifestyles of these different groups.
Placing crude generalisations to one side, these groups
reect signicantly different types according to social
composition and values, alongside their alternative
perceptions of energy saving.
These conclusions could assist policy makers at both
the national and local level in formulating policies that
are focused tightly both on specic behavioural types
(such as habitual actions) as well as lifestyle types (such
as non-environmentalists). In turn, the focus on such
typologies could ensure the holism that environmental
policy so desperately needs is underpinned by a frame-
work that crosses traditional behavioural boundaries.
Crucial, therefore, to enhancing energy saving beha-
viour is being sure that the embedded behavioural
contexts of action are recognised such that energy saving
can be promoted in all areas of the household.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1444 S. Barr et al. / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 14251444
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Economic and
Social Research Council for nancial assistance in
undertaking this research (Grant no. R000239417).
References
Barr, S., Gilg, A.W., Ford, N.J., 2001. A conceptual framework for
understanding and analysing attitudes towards household waste
management. Environment and Planning A 33 (11), 20252048.
Black, J.S., Sterm, P., Elworth, J.T., 1985. Personal and contextual
inuences on household energy adaptions. Journal of Applied
Psychology 70 (1), 321.
Cameron, L.D., Brown, P.M., Chapman, J.G., 1998. Social values and
decisions to take proenvironmental action. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 28 (8), 675697.
Corraliza, J.A., Berenguer, J., 2000. Environmental values, beliefs and
actions: a situational approach. Environment and Behavior 32 (6),
832848.
Costanzo, M., Archer, D., Aronson, E., Pettigrew, T., 1986. Energy
conservation behavior: the difcult path from information to
action. American Psychologist 41 (5), 521528.
Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2002. Are
you doing your bit? Advertising campaign (www.doingyourbit.
gov.uk).
Dillman, D.A., Rosa, E.A., Dillman, J.J., 1983. Lifestyle and home
energy conservation in the United States: the poor accept lifestyle
cutbacks while the wealthy invest in conservation. Journal of
Economic Psychology 3, 299315.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2000.
Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised
NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56, 425442.
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R., Tomera, A.N., 1987. Analysis and
synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a
meta analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 18 (2), 18.
Kaiser, F.G., Wolng, S., Fuher, U., 1999. Environmental attitude and
ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19,
119.
Karp, D.G., 1996. Values and their effect on pro-environmental
behavior. Environment and Behavior 28 (1), 111133.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1981. Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy
conservation. Journal of Consumer Research 8, 243252.
Midden, G.J.H., Ritsema, B.S.M., 1983. The meaning of normative
processes for energy conservation. Journal of Economic Psychol-
ogy 4, 3755.
ORiordan, T., 1985. Future directions in environmental policy.
Environment and Planning A 17, 14311446.
Oskamp, S., 2000. A sustainable future for humanity? How can
psychology help? American Psychologist 55 (5), 496508.
Painter, J., Semenik, R., Belk, R., 1983. Is there a generalized
conservation ethic? A comparison of the determinants of gasoline
and home heating energy conservation. Journal of Economic
Psychology 3, 317331.
Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), 2002. The Energy Review.
The Stationary Ofce, London.
Ritchie, J.R.B., McGougall, G.H.G., Claxton, J.D., 1981. Complex-
ities of household energy consumption and conservation. Journal
of Consumer Research 8, 233242.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 2000. Energy: the
Changing Climate, 22nd Report. The Stationary Ofce, London.
Sadalla, E.K., Krull, J.L., 1995. Self-presentational barriers to
resource conservation. Environment and Behavior 27 (3), 328353.
Samuelson, C.D., Biek, M., 1991. Attitudes toward energy conserva-
tion: a conrmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 21 (7), 549568.
Schwartz, S.H., 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values:
theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 10, 221279.
Seligman, C., Kriss, M., Darley, J.M., Fazio, R.H., Becker, L.J.,
Payor, J.B., 1979. Predicting summer energy conservation from
homeowners attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 9 (1),
7090.
Stern, P., 1992a. What psychology knows about energy conservation.
American Psychologist 47 (10), 12241232.
Stern, P.C., 1992b. Psychological dimensions of global environmental
change. Annual Review of Psychology 43, 269309.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G.A., 1995. The new ecological
paradigm in socialpsychological context. Environment and
Behavior 27, 723743.
Van Raaij, W.F., Verhallen, T.M.M., 1983. A behavioral model of
residential energy use. Journal of Economic Psychology 3, 3963.
Verhallen, T.M.M., Van Raaij, W.F., 1981. Household behavior and
the use of natural gas for home heating. Journal of Consumer
Research 8, 253257.
Warriner, G.K., McDougall, G.H.G., Claxton, J.D., 1984. Any data
or none at all? Living with inconsistencies in self-reports of
residential energy consumption. Environment and Behavior 16 (4),
503526.