CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.4 Household energy decision-making processes
28
Figure 2.2: A political economy model for energy based development (Author, 2016)
Political and economic factors play significant roles in energy provision to marginalised groups. However, internal household structures determine energy choices and practices. The latter is considered equally important and can inform broader energy policy. An appreciation of issues such as fuel-switching and prioritisation of energy needs within households may reveal additional factors that determine energy insecurity. Therefore, in addition to the political economy and SLA frameworks, this study uses conceptual models defining household energy behaviours and decision-making processes, as discussed below.
29
incorporated into development approaches and energy policy, thereby ensuring improved implementation (Shaffer, 2013).
Heltberg (2005) states that previous studies on household fuel choices were largely dominated by movement along the energy ladder which was primarily determined by the availability of household income. However, studies indicate that fuel choice is a more complex process, which includes factors such as quality of life (Howells et al., 2005; van der Kroon et al., 2013; Mensah & Adu, 2015; Romero-Jordán et al., 2016), culture and social constructs such as patriarchy and household power dynamics (Pachauri & Rao, 2013;
Stephenson et al., 2010; Behera et al., 2015; Kastner & Stern, 2015; Deaton, 2016), psychology and sociology (Allcott & Mullainathan, 2010; Kok et al., 2011), knowledge and technological know-how (Kaplowitz et al., 2012), and energy efficiency (Gyberg & Palm, 2009).
As indicated above, energy poverty is a complex phenomenon and the rationale behind household energy preferences and choices are equally important in informing energy policy and investment opportunities. This study utilises the household energy decision-making processes as a guide to better understand the impacts of energy security. Cherni et al. (2007) state that processes of prioritisation and selection of energy options and needs can be used in energy policy design and development of relevant technologies. Furthermore, Mulugetta (2008) states that household energy choices are strengthened by non-cognitive factors such as norms, values, beliefs, ideals, process and procedures.
The inclusion of behavioural sciences in energy studies has gained academic popularity in recent years in an attempt to provide a more holistic examination of household energy practices. Keirstead (2006) uses the ‘structure-agency’ approach to examine behaviours, where individuals are deemed capable of engaging in the desired change (for example, sustainable energy practices) given the right structures. Structure is defined as “rules and resources, recursively implicated in the reproduction of social systems. Structure exists only as memory traces, the organic basis of human knowledgeability, and is instantiated in action”
(Giddens, 1984 cited in Sewell, 1992: 5). Sewell (1992) defines agency as practices, actions and capacities which give rise to patterns and therefore, determine social structure which in turn will influence future agents. In terms of the energy agenda, reliance on electricity (agency) to service individual energy needs has overpowered perceptions, practices and
30
policy (structure); therefore, a paradigm shift is required in both energy structure and agency in order to substantially mitigate the impacts of climate change and reduce energy poverty (Keirstead, 2006; Stephenson et al., 2010; Broomell et al., 2015; Cameron et al., 2016).
Stephenson et al. (2010: 6121) state that features of the material world such as products, services, resources and lifestyles are closely linked to structure and are the “outcomes of choices people make according to their values, needs and the social context”.
Kaplowitz et al. (2012) suggest that social structures and human behaviour are vital to understanding energy consumption and will therefore inform energy efficacy and conservation strategies. Wilson and Dowlatabadi (2007) use social setting and technological transformations to understand energy behaviour. Stephenson et al. (2010) note that energy behaviour is complex and influenced by multiple factors which can be unpacked using the energy culture framework (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3: The energy cultures framework (adapted from: Stephenson et al., 2010: 6124)
The energy cultures framework uses material culture, cognitive norms and energy practices as core concepts that influence energy behaviour. Stephenson et al. (2010) define material culture to be household specific (comprising aspects such as dwelling properties, availability of energy options and devices), cognitive norms as attitudes, values and belief systems, and energy practices as an outcome of the interactions between individual and societal behaviour.
Furthermore, Lutzenhiser (1993: 3) warns that energy behaviours cannot be easily simplified
31
due to the inter-relatedness of concepts and the context specific variations that prevail and argue that previous policies such as ‘just get the prices right’ have done little to change energy behaviour. According to Wilson and Dowlatabadi (2007), decisions are a product of the broader social constructs such as socio-technical systems, and collective transformation processes. They further assert that awareness and attitudes alone do not alter people’s energy behaviour thus, highlighting the need to examine the social contexts in which energy actions, practices and choices occur. Similarly, Allcott and Mullainathan (2010) assert that even with improved energy efficiency and access people may fail to change their energy behaviour.
They go on to explain that energy behaviour is an outcome of a combination of factors and therefore suggest the aspects summarised in Table 2.2 to be important drivers of change.
Household energy choice remains a composite phenomenon and the influences of the above factors (Table 2.2) may produce different behaviours, depending on socio-economic contexts.
Furthermore, energy behaviour interventions can be cost-effective and successful when implemented in larger groups (Allcott & Mullainathan, 2010). Stephenson et al. (2010) use multiple perspectives in an attempt to understand household practices in changing socio- economic and technological environments and consider the following to be essential (Stephenson et al., 2010: 6121):
microeconomics (rational choice models, pricing, market structure);
behavioural economics (bounded rationality, decision heuristics);
technology adoption models (diffusion theories, cognitive dissonance, theory of planned behaviour, self-efficacy, social communication);
social and environmental psychology (impact of information, pro-environmental attitudes, value-belief-norm characteristics, habits); and
sociological theories (social constructs, organisational behaviour, embeddedness, socio- technical systems and the energy decision-maker’s cultural and social context).
32
Table 2.2: Factors influencing energy behaviour (adapted from: Allcott & Mullainathan, 2010: 2-4)
Factors Description
Psychology The drive to adopt and purchase energy is influenced by price, demand and material culture.
Commitment devices
Human beings can be described to be procrastinators and the willingness to commit to change often occurs in the ‘now’, however, the actions are almost always for the ‘tomorrow’.
Default options
Electricity or traditional biomass are often seen as default options, the switch to other options are often associated with additional actions and hence, the procrastination.
Social norms
Non-price drivers where an individual conforms to the behaviours and attitudes of the masses due to ‘comfort in conformity’ and ‘wisdom of crowds’. The most popular energy option will be the most sort after.
Implementation intentions
Given that there is a noteworthy difference between intention and action, changing attitudes and perceptions are relatively easier than changing actions. Energy intervention should seek to initiate actions.
Demand
An outcome of cost and non-cost factors (for example, efficiency, safety and accessibility). This could offer some explanation for the extensive fuel-switching that occurs in poor households (for example, the use of fuelwood for cooking and heating which are seen to be more efficient).
Kok et al. (2011) proclaim that understanding the relationship between technology and human behaviour is central to changing peoples’ desired energy choices, however, policy often neglects the non-financial influences on the latter, which is considered essential to successful energy policy. Smith (2007) asserts that the link between society and technology is influenced by cognitive norms and socio-economic conditions; therefore, the ability of individuals to embrace certain technologies such as solar cookers or heaters have the potential to sustain energy development trajectories. However, the adoption of technologies is non-linear and is specific to the social and institutional factors like regulation, pricing, availability and efficiency (Geels & Schot, 2007).
Energy behaviour can also be explained using the factors that prompt desired change in individuals. van der Kroon et al. (2013) propose a conceptual framework (Figure 2.4) to better understand energy behaviour at the household level. The model includes the influence of external socio-cultural and natural environments, political-institutional market environments, and internal economic systems and historical contexts (Farsi et al., 2007).
Although household energy practices are characteristic of human behaviour, there are several other factors that determine energy choices (van der Kroon et al., 2013).
33
Figure 2.4: Conceptual model of household energy choice (source: van der Kroon et al., 2013: 507)
Household energy practices and energy behaviours in general are attributed to complex endogenous and exogenous processes, which are inclusive of economic, political, environmental, technical and socio-cultural factors; however, the latter may provoke behaviours that are in contradiction to what is deemed economically rational (Kowsari &
Zerriffi, 2011). Similarly, individual preferences are influenced by power relations and social constructs through the process of creating common knowledge and collective action, however, power relations can result in marginalised individuals having limited representation in household decision-making processes (Ishihara & Pascual, 2009). Kok et al. (2011) suggest that human cognitive, emotional as well as social and physical environmental limitations may produce irrationality in behaviour. These perspectives on the influences of behaviour suggest that an individual’s energy choices and practices may be considered irrational even under sound economic and political conditions. Furthermore, Gyberg and Palm (2009) stress the fact that there is no direct link between knowledge and human behaviour suggesting that irrationality may also be attributed to factors such as ideology and material reason.
34
A detailed description of the exogenous and endogenous elements of household energy choice is given in Figure 2.5 below. The model examines energy use at the household level, where causal relations between different energy uses can be captured (Kowsari & Zerriffi, 2011). Energy services, devices and carriers are considered fundamental indicators contributing to household energy consumption patterns. The model utilises features from the personal and contextual domains to describe the exogenous and endogenous elements that govern energy choices. The personal domain comprises attitudes, habits and experiences, whilst the contextual domain incorporates capabilities and external conditions.
Most of the elements featured in Figure 2.5 have been discussed earlier, however, what is noteworthy is the emphasis on energy services, carriers and devices as principal determinants of energy use. Kowsari and Zerriffi (2011) suggest that household energy choice is more dependent on the energy service than the quantity of energy that is available. The Kowsari and Zerriffi (2011) model advocates a finer inspection of the internal chains that determine household energy prioritisation. Furthermore, household fuel-switching can serve as a key indicator of prioritisation of energy at the household level. Masera et al. (2000) attribute the switch to modern energy sources to improved household income, energy costs, accessibility, and the distribution of modern energy sources. As evidenced by Kok et al. (2011), energy research has often taken a techno-centric approach with little focus on human behaviour. The growing awareness around humans as key agents of change in the energy sector is gaining momentum and begins to unpack some of the discreet chains that govern energy demand.
Additionally, knowledge emerges as one of the primary factors that may improve energy behaviour, however, compared with materialistic preferences and cultures, the latter seems to provoke more noticeable behavioural changes in terms of energy practices (Stephenson et al., 2010; Mensah & Adu, 2015; Kastner & Stern, 2015).
35
Figure 2.5: Endogenous and exogenous influences on household energy profiles (source:
Kowsari & Zerriffi, 2011: 7514)
These theoretical frameworks that describe energy behaviour and practices often fail to recognise that time is a fundamental element that needs to be integrated into discussions pertaining to changing energy behaviour. Questions that need urgent answers include: how long does an individual take to acquire the knowledge and at which time does this lead to the establishment of a different consciousness that may result in radical social change? Friedrichs (2010) likens this social change to a transition to sustainable energy practices, thereby facilitating the necessary transformations within the energy sector. However, these social changes occur over relatively long periods, implying that changes in behavioural patterns can be considered long term goals. This necessitates more immediate mechanisms such as provision of clean, renewable energy technology at competitive prices for the masses, not just for the energy poor. Based on the concepts, and conceptual frameworks that have been discussed in this chapter, Figure 2.6 is a proposed conceptual model that will guide the present study.
36
Figure 2.6: Conceptual model of this study (Author, 2016)
The conceptual model (Figure 2.6) provides an analytical framework for this study, showing the inter-relationship among political, economic and social dimensions, and household energy security. A number of elements within the political, economic and social realms are inter- related and therefore impact household energy security either positively or negatively; these impacts are considered to be context specific. Energy security at the household level will either increase or decrease depending on the strength and influence of the various factors within these three broad dimensions. The model also predicts that there is variability in household energy security along a continuum from deep rural areas to peri-urban or peri-rural areas contingent on factors from the various dimensions. The political dimensions and linkages at any level of the continuum, for example, availability and affordability, must be considered in terms of the pressure they exert on the social dimensions and its subsequent influence on household energy cultures. The chain of events that ultimately ends in household energy security does not stop here though, because energy culture is in turn shaped by endogenous and exogenous factors such as habits and attitudes that affect the use or non-use
37
of the various forms of energy. Economic dimensions need also be considered in the events that determine energy security. The combined impact of political, social and economic dimensions will determine energy security or insecurity at the household or community level.
If, for example, the country has a strong economy, the political will and governance structures, alternate energy technologies can be made available to marginalised communities at affordable prices. The opposite is also true in countries with weak economies and political institutions. Countries with weak economies will lack the resources necessary to provide any sort of energy technology, especially to the marginalised.
Energy technologies at affordable prices are not enough to satisfy the energy needs of communities. The livelihood assets that the household or community possesses are also a determining factor in obtaining energy security. Households with less livelihood assets will react differently to those who possess sufficient assets and their behaviour towards use, and attitudes towards alternate energy technologies will vary. These are some of the issues that can be discussed using the above conceptual framework and an in-depth evaluation of these issues is undertaken in the final chapter following the data analysis. As is evident from the foregoing discussion, analysing energy security at the household or community level is a complex issue. The conceptual framework presented above supports the application of the social dimensions (as defined by the SLA) of households and communities within the political-economy framework. Due to the multitude of variables in each one of the dimensions, only selected variables from each of the three major dimensions (political, economic and social) are the source of primary data for this study. These dimensions are related to household energy security within the study in order to understand whether their influence conforms or deviates from the conceptual model formulated.