452
22 Addressing fields of rationality: a policy for
reducing household energy consumption?
Hege Westskog, Tanja Winther and Einar Strumse
The reason stateways fail to modify folkways is that policymakers often get it wrong – the experiences
the state manipulates are not the experiences that produce the habits that produce the
visible patterns they seek to change. (Stephen Turner, 1994: 104)
22.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter we analyse effective strategies for changing household energy behaviour.
We synthesize insights from psychology, anthropology and economics and develop an
interdisciplinary model for understanding energy behaviour and change. More specifically
we develop a model which includes a concept of ‘fields of rationality’, understood
as the modus operandi that individuals act within. We suggest that this approach, which
attempts to be holistic by taking factors at different levels of analysis into account, might
be important for understanding people’s energy use behaviour. Also, we discuss how
insights into fields of rationality might give guidance for the design of effective policy
instruments.
Different disciplines have different perspectives on what influences energy behaviour.
In economic theory it is assumed that a consumer chooses what they prefer, given what
is feasible with the given prices of goods and their income. The preferences of the consumer
are considered as given, and the main instruments for change are considered to be
the price level of the products consumed and the income level of the consumers.1
Schiffer
(1979) for instance relies on these perspectives when he underlines that: ‘The demand
for energy depends critically on the elasticity of substitution, as well as upon the income
and price elasticities of various energy-­intensive amenities’.2
Based on these perspectives,
there is a strong argument in economic literature that the use of economic instruments is
superior to command-­and-­control instruments when it comes to their cost-­effectiveness
(see for instance Baumol and Oates, 1988). The recommendations for cost-­effective policies
for reduced energy consumption would thus be for policies that focus on ‘getting the
price’ of electricity to the right level to meet the goals set by policy-­makers.
Like economists, psychologists study people’s preferences, but from a slightly different
angle. Whereas the economist’s approach is normative, the psychological approach
is descriptive, defining preference as whatever likes or dislikes the individual may have
in a certain domain, with the explanation of the observed preference being a matter of
empirical investigation. Also, psychologists question the assumption that the preferences
of the individual are a function of maximizing gain and avoiding loss. Environmental
psychologists (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989) have instead suggested what they label the
Reasonable Person Model as a conceptual framework both for understanding individual
preferences and for environmental decision-­making in general. In this model, not being
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 452 08/07/2011 14:40
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­453
rational in terms of maximizing one’s gain on one single value does not mean that people
are irrational. The Reasonable Person Model builds on three principles: (1) people can
be reasonable, depending upon the circumstances that surround them, implying that
reasonableness is the outcome of an interaction between person and situation; (2) people
actively seek to understand their world, but often possess extremely limited information;
(3) people’s needs are many and varied, and thus not reducible to any single unitary
value: we are not maximizers but ‘satisficers’ (Simon, 1972). From this it follows that
people, when constructing their preferences, relate to several sets of values at the same
time and that they are likely to draw on, refer to and evaluate such values contextually
dependent on the situation. The existence of multiple values is also commonly acknowledged
in sociology and anthropology.
Another important assumption shared by parts of psychology and other social sciences
concerns the unit of analysis. Rather than seeing individuals as autonomous consumers
who act independently of each other, relational aspects are highlighted. From a
psychological perspective, a holistic and relational perspective on individual behaviour
is found in the so-­called transactional approach to environmental psychology, aiming to
study how, mutually, ‘individuals change the environment and their behaviour and experiences
are changed by the environment’ (Gifford, 2007). Here, persons-­in-­environments
are treated as the basic unit of analysis without any further dividing into smaller entities.
Persons, processes and environments are seen as parts of a whole, not as independent
components that are combined in an additive fashion to make the whole. Thus, the transactional
approach focuses on shifting processes in person – environment configurations,
studying acting, doing, talking, thinking instead of studying personal states, structures
and static entities, and aims at explaining specific psychological phenomena on the basis
of the most appropriate theoretical principles at any given time (Altman and Rogoff,
1987; Stokols and Altman, 1987; Pepper, 1942; Werner et al., 2002).
Similar to the way the transactional approach in psychology centres not on individuals
but on persons-­in-­context (for example social environment), sociology and anthropology
are disciplines concerned with relationships between people. This focus on relationships
complements the economic perspective by enhancing our understanding of some of the
central factors that condition people’s preferences and thus their energy behaviour and
consumption at large. To provide some examples: an investment in a heat pump; a family’s
yearly consumption of kilowatt hours; or a teenager watching television in her room
with her friends – these are different types of energy behaviours that tend to be highly
socially conditioned. This is so both with respect to the intra-­household relationships and
dynamics played out in the place where consumption takes place (people’s homes), and
also through the wider social networks that household members feel a belonging to
and seek approval from (see for example Douglas and Isherwood, 1996[1979]; Miller,
1998; Carrier and Miller, 1999; Henning, 2005). Moreover, cultural values come into
play and are connected to the social norms (or ‘rules’) that guide energy behaviour.
Grasping such values may be particularly illuminating for understanding energy practices,
which tend to vary according to the cultural context (Wilhite et al., 1996; Henning,
2005; Wilhite, 2008a; Winther, 2008).
In addition, material factors condition any kind of practice, and particularly so in
the area of energy, with its heavy, costly and enduring technologies of production and
supply (Holden, 2002; Shove, 2003). Recent contributions in sociology and anthropology
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 453 08/07/2011 14:40
454   Handbook of sustainable energy
combine a people-­centred focus on notions such as comfort, cleanliness and convenience,
with an analytic emphasis on the systems of provision which significantly contribute to
shaping consumption (Shove, 2003; Wilhite, 2008a, 2008b; Winther, 2008). Here, the
sociocultural dynamics, together with the push from markets, suppliers and providers
of infrastructure, produce new patterns and often increasing levels of consumption. One
implication of such works on how systems change over time is that material and social
conditions are not treated as contextual factors but actively brought into the analysis.
There have been many attempts to synthesize insights from different disciplines for
understanding pro-­environmental behaviour on a general basis and energy behaviour
specifically. Faiers et al. (2007) draw together key issues from consumer behaviour
theories relevant for energy use to aid policy-­making, and develop a discussion ground
around integrated theories of consumer behaviour. Their theory overview indicates that
the issues of learning and awareness, coupled with accessibility to simple technologies,
are central factors for formulating effective policy for energy use. Also, Wilson and
Dowlatabadi (2007) review different perspectives on drivers for individual behaviour
and apply these insights to decisions affecting residential energy use. They conclude by
pointing to the necessity for collaboration between disciplinary approaches to energy
efficiency. Kallbekken et al. (2011) combine social-­psychological and economic theory in
a model of environmentally significant consumption. Their perspectives open up the way
for a wider hypothesis on policy instruments through showing the potential for the use
of a diversified policy (information measures and incentives).
As Wilson and Dowlatabadi (2007) point out, there is a need for syntheses that specifically
combine the economic perspectives with social and behavioural determinants
of energy use. In our study we synthesize insights from economic, anthropological and
psychological theories to combine the foci on individual factors for explaining behaviour
within the sociocultural and material context in which the individual operates. This
allows us to open up the under investigated field in economic theory on what forms
preferences.
In the following we present our model for explaining energy behaviour and define the
concept of ‘fields of rationality’ within this model. We then illustrate the model by pointing
to two contrasting fields of rationality relevant for the present purposes, that is, the
consumer – citizen dichotomy. By addressing this dichotomy we discuss strategies for
policy for reducing people’s energy consumption. The chapter ends by pointing to the
need for knowledge of how the context and different groups respond to different policy
instruments and their design. This knowledge is often crucial to get the desired outcomes
of the interventions
22.2 RELEVANT FACTORS FOR EXPLAINING BEHAVIOUR:
THREE LEVELS
In economic theory, consumer preferences are a central element for understanding energy
consumption. Commonly, preferences are understood as the set of assumptions relating
to a real or imagined choice between alternatives. Based on the degree of utility they are
assumed to provide, the consumer will rank the alternatives. Energy behaviour is thus
a result of the individual consumer’s optimizing process between the utility provided by
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 454 08/07/2011 14:40
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­455
the various alternatives available and the individual’s budget restriction. The preferences
behind such behaviour are here treated as an exogenous variable in the model, thus as a
given. In our model, however, we seek to highlight and develop factors that may explain
energy behaviour and thus the preferences behind them.
22.2.1  The Basis: Structures Surrounding Us
As a first step towards explaining energy behaviour we base our model on practice theory
as outlined by Bourdieu (1977) and later elaborated by Sewell (1992), Warde (2005) and
Ortner (2006).3
This will result in the identification of four central factors which in sum
characterize the overall social structures that condition people’s energy behaviour. We
will later show that these four factors also have relevance for capturing the dynamics at
the group or household level, which is no less important for understanding individual
behaviour.
The cluster of approaches referred to as practice theory has shown to have merit in
the field of energy. This is so due to the everyday, repetitive characteristic of household
energy use and the significant role played by material and sociocultural factors
in shaping what people do with energy (Wilhite, 2008a, 2008b; Winther, 2008). We are
interested in the interplay between individual consumers on the one hand and, on the
other, the sociocultural and material conditions that affect their behaviour.
Within practice theory structures are considered as ‘the principles’ that form social
practices (Sewell, 1992: 8). Structures come in two forms. First of all they constitute
the ideas, values, norms, conventions and codes for human interaction that exist in any
social group. We may denote this part of structures as the ‘frameworks of meaning’
(Gullestad, 1992; Ortner, 2006; also referred to as ‘cultural schemas’ by Sewell, 1992).
Such frameworks exist tacitly among and within people. They are the culturally informed
tools with which we think, act and feel (Sewell, 1992). For our purposes we follow the
common separation between social norms (how things should be) and cultural values
(what is valued).
Secondly, and in contrast to the ‘virtual’ characteristic of frameworks of meaning,
structures also contain elements which Sewell refers to as ‘real’. Here we find natural
resources, material objects and assets of various kinds, and also regulations and formalized
procedures. Sewell refers to this category as ‘non-­human resources’ (Sewell, 1992:
13). Also, real structures contain human resources such as bodily strength and knowledge.
Resources are unevenly distributed and controlled within a given society, but
Sewell asserts, following Giddens (1979), that all members of a society possess resources
of both the human and the non-­human kind. ‘Indeed, part of what it means to conceive
of human beings as agents is to conceive of them as empowered by access to resources of
one kind or another’ (Sewell, 1992: 10). Again we see the significance of knowledge and
resources as a premise for action, as noted above (Simon, 1972; Faiers et al., 2007).
With this model of what surrounds an individual and their given energy behaviour
we have a conceptual tool for beginning to understand why people do as they do. The
notion of ‘practice’ entails this interrelationship between individual action (behaviour)
and structures. Following this, the concept of ‘habitus’ highlights the way in which
such structures become internalized in individuals through the routines and practices of
everyday life (Bourdieu, 1977). This does not mean that individuals are only subjected to
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 455 08/07/2011 14:40
456   Handbook of sustainable energy
the power of established social norms, values and a given set of resources. As we discuss
below, individuals have emotions, ambitions and skills. They also have personal norms,
values and identities that may or may not contradict those of the larger group. We may
rather consider an individual’s potential to influence a given behaviour personally along
a continuum, stretching from pure routine (non-­reflexive behaviour) at one end. At the
other end, where behaviour is marked by a high degree of reflexivity and intentionality,
we have ‘agency’ (Ortner, 2006).
In a given society a multitude of structures and practices exist in parallel (Sewell, 1992:
16–17). The conventions and values (and indeed material factors) guiding the practice of
waste management, for example, may be different from those shaping people’s shopping
habits. One of Sewell’s central points for explaining how structures may change over
time is that people may transfer the conventions (schemas) attached to one given practice
over to the next. Thus if ‘go green’ characterizes the conventions, values and norms
related to waste recycling practices, there is a potential that people would start applying
a similar set of values and conventions for modifying their shopping practices. For such
a shift to become a new established practice, however, one also has to consider how such
(new) conventions interplay with other (old) parts of the total structure; that is, their
material and knowledge-­related aspects.
In sum, four structural factors condition and partly make up a given practice: cultural
values, social norms, human resources and non-­human resources. The other significant
contributors to the practice are those who perform them: acting people. Positioned
between the overall structures and the individual level are the households, groups and
social networks to which individuals belong or otherwise relate.
22.2.2  The Group or Household Level
Social relationships significantly influence people’s energy behaviour, as we have argued
in the introduction. To grasp these and other factors relevant to the study of energy use
at the group and household level, the four-­factor model described for the larger structures
also yields significance. Cohabiting families tend to share certain norms and values
(Aune, 2007). Members of a family also have significant groups which they relate to
outside the household, whose norms may be in line with or contradict those of the household.
Such norms may nonetheless come into play when individuals behave at home, for
instance when taking a shower. Negotiations may occur when various members’ values,
norms and preferences vary (Henning, 2005; Winther, 2008). We nevertheless presume
that individuals to a considerable extent share norms and values with the relevant groups
in question, which vary according to the practice in question. This results in particular
family or group conventions (or debate) as to how a certain type of behaviour, such as
showering, should be carried out. Furthermore, such conventions are also formed by the
set of resources possessed by the group; both human (knowledge, capacity, competences)
and material (for example available shops in the neighborhood, household income, type
of dwelling). Finally, we recall that the larger structures work on groups and individuals
whose engagement and behaviour within various practices is often characterized by
a high degree of routine. In sum, households and groups are largely influenced by the
outside structure and the wider social network, but they also possess a capacity to negoM2711
- MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 456 08/07/2011 14:40
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­457
tiate and form their own practices according to the internal power relations and the
group’s common aspirations, possibilities and constraints.
22.2.3  The Individual Level
Both psychology and economics are preoccupied with explaining behaviour (consumption
in traditional economic theory) through a focus on the individual. However, the
two disciplines provide different explanatory factors for behaviour. Economics puts
effort into understanding how external factors, income and prices, influence choices
(termed ‘material conditions’ in our model), while in psychology the internal factors are
the main focal points. An internalist approach sees behaviour: ‘mainly as a function of
processes and characteristics which are conceived as being internal to the individual:
attitudes, values, habits and personal norms’ (Jackson, 2005). Building on this internalist
approach, we will also draw on psychological approaches discussed in the introduction
which put an analytic focus on the individual–environment relationship, acknowledge
the existence of individuals’ multiple values and preferences, and give attention to the
various and often limited types of knowledge that people possess. In our model we therefore
put weight on internal individual factors such as skills and knowledge; attitudes and
personal norms; and beliefs, values and identities. We also include material conditions
or constraints as perceived by the individual for explaining energy behaviour. Together
with the habitual aspects embedded in what people do with energy, these are important
cognitive, affective and material factors partly accounting for the motivations pushing
or pulling the individual to perform various measurable behaviours, and could as a first
step be seen as the underlying factors for understanding preferences in economic theory.
The main factors influencing behaviour on the individual level are illustrated in Figure
22.1.
It is important to keep in mind that the influences of psychological factors on environmentally
significant behaviour such as energy use are more varied than commonly
Material conditionsSkills/knowledge
Attitudes/
personal norms
Beliefs/values/
identities
Energy
behaviour
Figure 22.1  Factors influencing behaviour on the individual level
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 457 08/07/2011 14:40
458   Handbook of sustainable energy
assumed, and that the strongest influences are often determined by structural factors.
The more a behaviour is shaped by technology, infrastructure, regulation, financial cost,
convenience and other contextual factors, the weaker the effect of personal ­variables
(Stern, 1999). However, even when energy use in the household is to a large extent determined
by physical or structural features, there is considerable room for the influence of
psychological factors. Some examples of such factors are personal commitment, perceived
personal costs and benefits of actions, and behaviour-­specific beliefs and norms.
Energy behaviour may also be influenced by non-­environmental attitudes and beliefs
(Stern, 2008). Although the effects of many psychological variables on specific behaviours
are highly indirect, they can potentially influence a wide variety of behaviours.
Psychological interventions aiming at behavioural change in the home should target
the ‘niches’ between powerful structural variables, when behaviour is not strongly constrained
by regulation, habit, matters of economic cost, convenience and the like. Niches
thus refer to the moments in which the people–environment configuration is particularly
open to change. Examples of such situations when people’s values, attitudes, personal
norms or knowledge bases could be receptive to psychological interventions are: when
a regulatory regime is transformed; when the purpose for spending money is not clearly
identified; when there are contradictions embedded in a system as to how people ‘should
behave’; or when significant material changes are to be made, such as when planning for
the construction of a new home (Stern, 2008).
22.3 OUR MODEL
In the discussion above we have elaborated the factors that we find important for
explaining people’s energy behaviour. We have introduced four main factors on three
levels, where the factors are related to human resources, non-­human resources, and
norms and values, and the levels are the society, the group and the individual, respectively.
The model is illustrated in Figure 22.2.
As can be seen, each level (square) has been given a specific shading. This is to illustrate
that the individual is positioned within a particular type of group structure and
dynamics, which in turn is located in a larger societal structure. A field of rationality in
this model comprises a particular configuration of factors (and their content) on all three
levels. For example, if you are living in Norway, you relate to a given set of knowledge
areas, energy regulations and technologies, social norms and cultural values which are
different from those found in France. Thus if you move from Norway to France you
would have to relate to the structures of the French society. This is represented in our
model by the shading of the background of the societal level. Hence, the background
shading might vary; it depends on the type of society the individual relates to.
A change in cultural context may thus produce changed behaviour. To take the
example of people’s uses of light sources: In Norway the habit of keeping many lights on
might be valued for the cosiness and heat this produces, and also be morally accepted. In
the French context, the cultural and social conditions are likely to be different. An individual
who shifts context may thus experience a discrepancy between their own behaviour
and that promoted by and embedded in the new cultural context. After a while, for
example when visitors have given hints of dislike of the individual ‘wasting’ electricity,
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 458 08/07/2011 14:41
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­459
this discrepancy may be adjusted by the individual who modifies their behaviour to a kind
that fits with the new context (for example, turning off the lights when leaving a room).
If we add other possible differences between Norway and France to the picture, such as
electricity prices (being higher in France) and the supply of movement detectors in local
shops (more available in France), the likeliness of the Norwegian individual switching to
the French field of rationality for light behaviour becomes higher (Figure 22.3).
With the same kind of reasoning the shading of the group or household level varies
depending on which group you relate to in your energy behaviour. The groups you relate
to (significant others) may also differ from one type of behaviour to the next (for example
showering before meeting friends or baking pizza for a family’s joint home evening).
Hence, the background shading of the group level signifies what group you relate to
when performing a specific energy behaviour.
Following from the above, the shading of the inner square, the individual level,
illustrates the position taken up by the individual who is acting or performing a given
behaviour. More specifically we let this shading represent the logic from the individual’s
perspective (realised by them or not), which in turn results in a given behaviour. A person
who has moved to France may also insist on keeping the lights on despite the potential
social and economical costs such behaviour may imply.
Energy behaviour
Human resources Non-human resources
Social norms Culture
Group norms Group values
Capacity/competences
Material conditions
Material conditions
Skills/knowledge
Attitudes/personal
norms
Beliefs/values/
identities
Figure 22.2  Field of rationality: factors influencing behaviour
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 459 08/07/2011 14:41
460   Handbook of sustainable energy
The field of rationality is thus made up of factors in the inner, middle and outer
squares. We have underlined the close interrelationship that exists between an individual
and their social, cultural and material environment. Within a given type of behaviour,
such as lighting, the field of rationality is what in sum provides a rationale for behaviour.
The field may be more or less congruently constituted (same shading on all three levels)
or have separate logics/shading on the different levels. The individual level is nevertheless
privileged in the model, in that it is the individual and their logic that ultimately
produces a given behaviour. We argue that the concept of a field of rationality is useful
for understanding individual behaviour, and the varying ways in which this behaviour is
partly conditioned by contextual factors and partly by the socially, culturally and materially
positioned individual. In section 22.5 we will treat strategies for reduced energy
consumption through a focus on fields of rationality.
The model is relevant both for plain habitual behaviour and more cognitively
informed behaviour. Pertinent here is Ortner’s (2006) axis for behaviour which ranges
from plain routine informed by established conventions (reproducing habitus) at one
end, to agency with a high degree of reflexive thought and intentionality at the other.
At each extreme, people have a given rationale for doing what they do, and energy is, as
mentioned, a realm where habitual aspects are strong. However, we will in the following
concentrate on energy behaviour that involves reflection. We are concerned with situations
in which people either think of what they do or consider changing their behaviour
with the purpose of fulfilling certain goals. We will use two examples of fields of rationality
to illustrate our points concerning possible strategies for policy: the consumer field
and the citizen field. More generally, we hold that an important strategy for changing
energy behaviour towards sustainability is to focus on the field of rationality of the individual.
This strategy is discussed further in section 22.5.
22.4 CONSUMER AND CITIZEN: EXAMPLES OF FIELDS OF
RATIONALITY RELEVANT TO POLICY DESIGN
There is a body of literature which shows that behaviour is linked to the perspective
or rationale that forms the basis for it. A well-­known example is the study conducted
Notes: The box to the left illustrates a Norwegian individual positioned in the Norwegian cultural/
energy context who behaves in compliance with this. The box in the middle indicates the situation where
the Norwegian individual has moved to the French cultural/energy context. In the box to the right, the
Norwegian individual has adjusted to the French context and changed his/her behaviour accordingly. In this
example, the white color represents the group level and is left out of the discussion.
Figure 22.3  Shift of cultural context as a cause for changed behaviour
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 460 08/07/2011 14:41
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­461
by Gneezy and Rustchini (2000) on parents picking up their children after closing time
in the nursery. In a field experiment they introduced a monetary fine for latecoming
parents. As a result, the number of latecoming parents increased significantly, contrary
to what had been expected when the fine was introduced. This is referred to as the
‘crowding-­out effect’ of taxes and might be interpreted as a shift from one ‘decision area’
to another or, to use the jargon developed in the present work, as a shift in the field of
rationality.4
Before the fine was introduced, parents might have considered the act of
picking up children on time as a moral duty, but when they were fined for being late they
appeared to consider latecoming as part of a market transaction where latecoming was
morally acceptable. The field of rationality here shifted from moral obligation towards
a market-­based thinking. Hence, parents’ likeliness for picking up children after closing
time depended on which field of rationality they thought this decision belonged to.
A similar dichotomy between different fields of rationality is that between ‘the consumer’
and ‘the citizen’. Sagoff (1988) defines the citizen role as the one you take when
you are concerned with and behave according to the public interest. Thus as a citizen you
are concerned with the community rather than your own well-­being. On the other hand,
as a consumer you are primarily concerned with personal or self-­regarding wants and
interests, and put aside the community-­regarding values which you take seriously as a
citizen (Sagoff, 1988: 8).5
Nyborg’s (2000) Homo economicus–Homo politicus distinction
has much in common with Sagoffs’s consumer–citizen dichotomy. Homo economicus is
a person who maximizes their own well-­being; that is, a consumer field of rationality,
whereas a person acting in the Homo politicus mode puts themself in the role as a ethical
observer, and tries to consider what is best for the society (Nyborg, 2000: 309–10), that
is, a citizen field of rationality.
An example of a product that addresses people as citizens is renewable electricity
certificates.6
Electricity suppliers who offer such guarantees for an extra fee expect customers
to be positioned within a citizen field of rationality, which in turn will trigger
their decision (behaviour) to buy the guarantee. We return below to a study on such
certificates and the fields of rationality found in Norway. We note, however, that the
purchase of a certificate does not affect the electrons the customer gets in their outlet;
the electricity product they receive is exactly the same as before. The reason why some
people still pay extra for such a product is because they want to contribute to renewable
electricity development, and not as a result of their consumer rationality (Winther and
Ericson, forthcoming). The field of rationality in which they operate is the citizen field.
A citizen field of rationality is not always of equal relevance or significance. The
literature indicates that the citizen field is more dominant for behaviour that is civic-­
oriented than purely consumer-­oriented (see for instance Berglund and Matti, 2006 or
Westskog, 1997 for a discussion of this). One example of civic-­oriented behaviour is pro-­
environmental behaviour (that is, recycling or use of public transport instead of a private
car). From social psychology, we know that pro-­environmental behaviour is influenced
by more citizen-­oriented values like altruistic and biospheric values (for example Stern’s
value–belief–norm model – Stern et al., 1999; Schwartz’s norm activation theory –
Schwartz, 1977).
In the above discussion, we have been focusing on the field of rationality that triggers
an act. However, it is also important to note that individuals tend to have values, norms
and skills that are not act-­provoking in a given situation. Latent rationalities exist and
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 461 08/07/2011 14:41
462   Handbook of sustainable energy
Sagoff (1988), Sen (1985) and Nyborg (2000) all include the notion of different rationalities
in their discussions. The dichotomy between consumer and citizen, Homo economicus
and Homo politicus, points to the possibility of individuals operating within different
rationalities depending on the context. Even if you act within the citizen field of rationality,
you might at the same time have your Homo economicus rationality intact. In this
regard, changing the field of rationality that provokes the act might change the outcome
or behaviour, as the Gneezy and Rustchini (2000) study on nursery fines indicates.
The existence of latent rationalities brings a new perspective to policy. The way a
policy-­maker designs the policy instrument, or that a decision problem is framed for
the decision-­maker, could influence the outcome of the behaviour. A specific design or
context could realize the desired outcome.7
In our model this is referred to as changing
the field of rationality through design of the policy instrument or the decision problem.
In the next section we will look at findings from an ongoing study that will illustrate the
point further.
22.5 FIELDS OF RATIONALITY: A POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE
In the following we will use examples from qualitative interviews conducted in Kirkenes
and Vadsø (towns in Northern Norway) and a focus group study in Kirkenes and Oslo
to illustrate how our field of rationality thinking might be useful in policy formation.
The study focused on people’s electricity behaviour and the potential for change. More
specifically, we asked what may make people purchase renewable electricity certificates
and save electricity, and what role information could play in this respect.8
Specific behaviours and specific products might be more related to one field of rationality
than other, for example related to the citizen field rather than the consumer field.
People’s decision to purchase a renewable electricity product will tend to be based on a
citizen field of rationality, and by using this logic in the promotion of the product in specific
ways, one may increase the number of people wanting to buy this kind of product,
as illustrated below. The supplier of electricity in Kirkenes offers a renewable electricity
certificate for $5 per month. The renewable certificate does not imply that you receive a
benefit as a consumer, as the quality of the electricity (as noted earlier) remains the same.
Among customers who have bought the certificate, they said that their motivation for
doing so was related to a concern for the environment. Some explained in more detail
how they want to make use of their customer power and send a signal to the market, so
as to stimulate development of renewable production at the cost of fossil and nuclear
production. As ‘Sonja’ concluded: ‘It is like a statement. It will not have effect if only a
few people buy it. But it is a start.’9
This is clearly a citizen-­motivated act.
The content and design of information intended to trigger people’s motivation to
purchase the certificates appear to affect their likeliness for doing so, and thus also the
possibility that this will lead to increased production of renewable electricity. In our
focus group study in Kirkenes we tested how different designs of information regarding
the renewable electricity product were understood, and how the participants expected
that this might influence their behaviour. One of the designs tested provided the customer
with a short text on renewable certificates and the Norwegian ‘standard mix’ on
their invoice, and also a link to NVE10
for further information. In another treatment the
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 462 08/07/2011 14:41
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­463
customer was given information about how much CO2-­emissions were generated from
the consumption of electricity without a renewable certificate. These emissions were
compared to the emissions resulting from driving a car. A third treatment gave a narrative
where a story was told, focusing on why a named person had chosen to buy the
certificate. The narrative highlighted the relevance of a citizen field of rationality for the
interviewee’s motivation for buying the product: ‘if more people required this guarantee
it would mean less CO2 emissions in the long term. What matters is to use our power as
customers to influence the development.’
The first treatment produced considerable confusion: ‘I do not quite understand what
renewable energy is, where it comes from. Is it smart or is it stupid? . . . Do they mean a
heat pump, that one should install one of those?’11
Most participants did not have an idea
of the certificate before arriving for the discussion, and this information (which they were
exposed to first) did not seem comprehensible. Instead, this information appeared to
make people focus on their lack of understanding, thus producing a kind of ignorance. In
all four focus groups participants expressed disinterest in the message and even distrust
in the product, apparently preventing them from wanting to seek further information or
to choose the certificate. ‘To be honest, I do not think I would have even read it.’12
In this
treatment you provide people with information that is not made specifically relevant for
the citizen field, and as such you do not trigger people’s citizen motivation to act. On the
other hand the treatments focusing on environmental effects were more positively evaluated.
These two other treatments facilitated the translation of what the purchasing of
certificates may mean in terms of environmental consequences. Hence, the information
received about the product was made consistent with the citizen field of rationality in a
transparent way which seemed to open up the potential for obtaining a change – through
the purchase of certificates for those that are citizen motivated.
For electricity-­saving behaviour, people referred to a double set of motivating factors:
to save money (economical factors) and environmental concerns. Thus we found two
fields of rationality (consumer and citizen, respectively) to exist in parallel. The same
individual would highlight both aspects: ‘To me both the price and environmental concerns
would have been important’. Other participants stressed economic factors as most
important, highlighting the need for ‘getting the expenses down’. Another person put
weight on ‘environmental concerns’ only. Hence, this might imply that when promoting
energy-­saving behaviour, effects might be increased both by using cost-­saving arguments
and by pointing to environmental effects. There might also be gender differences related
to which field of rationality more easily comes into play. As Henning (2005) found for
Swedish homes in a study of heat pumps, men tended to be more concerned with economic
arguments (which have hegemony in the Swedish context, according to Henning).
Women were more attuned towards demonstrating environmental values when deciding
on such investments, but since heat pumps in Sweden belonged to men’s domain, women
had a less direct say in such cases.
22.5.1  Facilitate Shifts in the Field of Rationality
Based on the Kirkenes study we emphasized the importance of providing clarity and
consistency in the way citizen-­oriented information and products are presented (or translated)
in order to appeal to people as citizens and in turn trigger the desired behaviour.
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 463 08/07/2011 14:41
464   Handbook of sustainable energy
The information that had an effect was that which was consistent with a citizen field of
rationality. Shifts in the fields of rationality themselves may also potentially produce
more sustainable energy behaviour. We recapture some points that have been mentioned.
Above we discussed how a person’s change of cultural context (Norway–France)
may inform their changed behaviour. We explained this shift by pointing to the new
field of rationality that appeared in which the individual’s (changed) behaviour took
place. Policies may also induce changes in the field of rationality. In the general discussion
of the consumer – citizen dichotomy we drew on cases in the literature to show how
the introduction of new policies (for example money for blood donations, or fines for
latecoming parents) negatively affected people’s behaviour in relation to what had been
intended. The crucial point in this process was that the new policies induced a shift in
which decision area people felt that the actual behaviour belonged to.
In our general model (see Figure 22.2), a change in any one of the shadings of the three
squares (collective, group and individual level) indicates a change in the field of rationality.
This could potentially (but not necessarily) affect the logic (shading) of the inner
square and thus the behaviour of the individual. For example, a policy could make an
individual modify their attitudes; or a significant group to which the individual belongs
could be gaining new knowledge and cause the individual to change behaviour; or the
arrival of new regulations or taxes on the societal level could affect the overall field of
rationality and also the area of decision of the individual.
That being said, societal structures may also contain considerable fixity and therefore
be resistant to change. Socio-­material structures and cultural values have been
noted as relatively enduring. For example, in a cross-­cultural comparison of people’s
energy use in the 1990s, Japanese and Norwegian households referred to distinct sets
of cultural values in their ways of using energy (Wilhite et al., 1996). The Japanese
put cultural emphasis on bathing practices (with a link to notions of purity), but their
lighting practices appeared less culturally significant. In contrast, Norwegians stressed
the cultural value of providing a ‘cosy home’ by the use of an average of 14 light points
in the living room, preferably by the use of incandescent light. The authors concluded
that behaviours that are deeply culturally anchored are less likely to be influenced
by policies. Correspondingly, they advised that policy makers should focus on the
‘lighter’ practices that are not so culturally embedded (Wilhite et al., 1996). Following
this, and interpreted within our model of fields of rationality, in Japan it would make
more sense to try to change the field of rationality for lighting behaviour than bathing
practices.
But cultural values may also change. The field study in Norway referred to above
was conducted in 2009, just before an EU Directive putting a ban on incandescent
light was introduced. Norwegians had for some time started to readjust to the lack
of available incandescent bulbs in the shops, and the situation had also received
attention in the media. What we found in Kirkenes was that the 11 households interviewed
seemed less negative towards energy-­saving bulbs (compared to incandescent
light) than Wilhite et al. had found for Oslo in the 1990s.13
If this discrepancy is not
only caused by local variation between towns in Norway, this could indicate that
Norwegians, possibly due to the ban on incandescent bulbs and a generally increased
environmental awareness, may currently be modifying their perceptions of what the
value of ‘cosiness’ entails.
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 464 08/07/2011 14:41
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­465
This indication of a shift in the degree of fixity in Norwegian lighting practices points
to the realization that cultural practices are also open to change. The concept of fields
of rationality may help us further understand the dynamics embedded in such processes
of change. In the case of light sources in Norwegian homes, the individuals who express
a concern for the environment when justifying their choice of light source reflect that
they consider this decision to be located in a citizen field of rationality associated with
environmental concerns. This reference hence replaces the previous ‘cultural’ one, associated
with the value of cosiness.14
If more people adapt to the new field of rationality,
new, shared conventions guiding practices and behaviours may be invented (see section
22.2.1 above, ‘The basis: structures surrounding us’). We also notice how a ban or regulation
may have an effect on people’s norms and values. The introduction of the ban on
smoking in public places is a striking example of how regulations may induce shifts in
norms. Nyborg and Rege (2003) show how an introduction of a smoking regulation may
move a society from a situation where most smokers are non-­considerate to a situation
where they are considerate towards non-­smokers even in the unregulated zone. They also
refer to empirical evidence that social norms on considerate smoking behaviour have
changed dramatically in Norway. In 1999, only 10 per cent of non-­smokers reported that
smoking guests would usually smoke indoors in their home without asking for permission.
As much as 74 per cent reported that this was the most common behaviour among
smoking guests 10–15 years earlier.
Importantly for the presented model, the distinct factors on all levels together make
up the field of rationality and are mutually influencing each other. Changes in one
factor potentially affect the others. The embedded fundamental assumption is that for
understanding the individual, we need to see the world as they do. This is what we try to
capture with the concept of fields of rationality.15
22.6  CONCLUSION AND REMARKS
In this chapter we have focused on how energy behaviour can be understood and
explained by integrating perspectives from different disciplines. We have introduced a
model which includes the concept ‘field of rationality’ signifying the configuration of
factors on the individual, group and societal levels which are relevant for energy behaviour.
We argue that knowledge of the fields of rationality that guide energy behaviour
for groups and individuals might be an important tool for designing policies for change.
Although the model has general appliance, and may be used to assess the relevance of
tools ranging from economical incentives, regulations, to enhancing people’s access to
new technologies, we have primarily discussed information measures which presupposes
that people through conscious or reflexive processes change behaviour based on
the information provided. Specifically, we have focused on the dichotomy between the
citizen and the consumer fields of rationality and showed how these fields might form
behaviour and we have indicated how insights into such dynamics maybe used in shaping
information that will have effect. The material from Norway on people’s electricity use
and information interventions that address either ‘citizens’ and/or ‘consumers’, shows
that it matters how messages are designed. We argue that for information to have
the desired effect, the message must be translated so as to match the relevant field of
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 465 08/07/2011 14:41
466   Handbook of sustainable energy
­rationality on the part of individuals. Thus promotion of green electricity certificates
(citizen field) for instance had no effect if not activating the citizen field of rationality in
individuals. Thus we highlight consistency between the logic in message and the field of
rationality of the individual.
An effective policy for sustainable energy consumption needs to be based on knowledge
of how energy behaviour most likely might be influenced, as illustrated above. To
follow Stephen Turner (1994), whose quote opened this chapter, in order to form policies
for changed behaviour that work, one needs to address the experiences that actually
produce the habits one seeks to change. A central problem in the realm of energy has
been policy-­makers’ enduring trust in energy efficiency as a means to reduce consumption.
In Wilhite’s words: ‘What the record shows is that efficient technologies may well
increase the efficiency of energy throughout but that promised reductions in energy
demand seldom pan out’ (Wilhite, 2008b: 121). Technologies alone do not change
behaviour in a sustainable direction. Instead, as embedded in our model, one should
regard them in connection with the behaviours that produce the patterns one seeks to
change. Referring to a similar point, that energy efficiency depends not only on technology
but also on the choices of the users, Allcott and Mullainathan (2010) observe the
considerable investments that go into research and development (R&D) for providing
energy-­efficient technologies. They argue that a corresponding R&D effort should be
made in the field of behavioural science in order to develop policy innovations and even
large-­scale businesses that promote energy efficiency in practice, and thus energy conservation
(Allcott and Mullainathan, 2010). They also point to the cost-­effectiveness of
such programmes.
Within an R&D programme based in behavioural and social sciences one should
develop various policy instruments and focus on what kinds of designs would produce
the desired effects on people’s behaviour. Policy instruments like taxes and subsidies are
often believed to be of a more general nature with no need for specific testing. However,
as illustrated above, effects of policy instruments are dependent on both the sociocultural
and material context, and the individual whom these instruments are used towards.
When focusing on the effects of the instruments, knowledge of how ‘the context’ and
various groups and individuals would respond to different instruments and their design
is often crucial to achieving the desired outcome. Hence, effective interventions often
need to be tailor-­made.
Acquiring the necessary knowledge and tailoring interventions might of course be
very costly, and as such not a strategy that can be followed fully. However, in the same
way as R&D is used to transform ‘hard science’ into useful technological solutions, so
systematic effort needs to be made on developing pilot projects informed by behavioural
and social sciences and, successively, innovative policy tools for sustainable energy consumption.
According to the premises in our model, successful innovation at large would
most likely be achieved through efforts which include both hard and soft sciences. As
a start, testing policy instruments before implementing them is one way to understand
how behaviour is influenced by instrument use, and might be worth the money invested
in field studies – just as pilot projects are worth it for hard sciences to become useful
technologies.
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 466 08/07/2011 14:41
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­467
Acknowledgements
We thank Sylvie Douzou, Torgeir Ericsson, Catherine Grandclement, Isabelle Moussaoui
and Håkon Sælen for helpful comments and suggestions. Funding from the Norwegian
Research Council is gratefully acknowledged.
notes
  1.	 Presentations of this theory can be found in most standard textbooks on microeconomics, like Gravelle
and Rees (1992).
  2.	The elasticity of substitution measures the ease or difficulty of substituting between commodities, while
price elasticity tells how demand for a good changes with the price of that good or alternatively with the
price of another good (cross-­prices elasticity).
  3.	 Sewell theorizes about how structures and practices change, Warde elaborates on practice theory’s relevance
in the realm of consumption, and Ortner provides a model on the relationship between people’s
routine habits on the one hand and intentional, reflective behaviour or ‘agency’ on the other.
  4.	The effects observed are coupled to Frey’s (1997) crowding theory. Frey argues that an external incentive
might also affect the internal incentives for behaviour to crowd out moral motivation.
  5.	 Sen (1985) discusses people’s preferences and finds a dichotomy between well-­being and agency which has
resemblances to Sagoff ’s notions of consumer and citizen, respectively (Sagoff, 1988). Well-­being is connected
to an individual’s individualistic preferences or self-­interests (Westskog, 1997), whereas the agency
aspect of individual choice refers to the opinions and beliefs that an individual has, and this is often connected
to the individual’s participation in a society.
  6.	 When a customer buys a renewable electricity certificate, the supplier guarantees that the customer’s
total consumption will be purchased from production that is 100 per cent based on renewable sources.
A system of ‘guarantees of origin’ has been established in the European Union (EU) area, including
Norway. A disclosure regulation puts an obligation on suppliers of electricity to state on the customer’s
bills which fuel mix is behind their supply (percentage of fossil, nuclear, renewable and so on).
  7.	There is a lot of literature from the field of behavioural economics and social psychology on the effects
of design of policy instruments or framing of decision problems for behavioural outcomes. Much of this
literature is concerned with how a decision problem is understood by the decision-­maker, and is termed
‘framing’ (for example Tversky and Kahneman, 1981).
  8.	The project is titled ‘Do customer information programs influence household electricity consumption?’
and is financed by the Norwegian Research Council (2009–11).We conducted 11 in-­depth interviews in
Kirkenes and Vadsø in September and October 2009. The focus group discussions were held in Oslo
(November 2009) and Kirkenes (December 2009) and had eight sessions with eight persons in each group.
  9.	From interview with ‘Sonja’ in Kirkenes, 6 October 2009. Her name has been changed.
10.	NVE: Norsk vassdrags-­og energidirektorat (Norwegian Water Resources and Electricity Directorate).
11.	Young, female focus group participant no 8, Kirkenes 7 December 2009, Transcript 88322 Cicero Gr.6-­
Kirkenes, page #6.
12.	 Middle-­aged female focus group participant no 3, Kirkenes 7 December 2009, Transcript 88322 Cicero
Gr.5-­Kirkenes, page #7.
13.	Our informants referred to the cost and environmental benefit from energy-­saving bulbs; or they said that
incandescent was more beautiful; or they said that the quality of the light from the two types of sources
was the same. This shows more variation in people’s attitudes towards energy-­saving lights than was
documented in Oslo in the 1990s.
14.	To an anthropologist, this distinction between environmental and cultural values may appear a bit
strange, since environmental values can be considered as cultural as any other value. The distinction is
made to clarify the argument which seeks to highlight how policies may affect fields of rationality in ways
that produce sustainable consumption.
15.	It follows that we do not adapt the notion of rationality as premised on ‘the rationally optimizing man’, as
opposed to that informed solely by norms, which embedded much social science discourse some decades
ago. See for example Elster’s discussion of actions being influenced ‘both by rationality and by social
norms’ (1989: 102). The present work does not operate with such distinctions, but regard fields of rationality
as encapsulating norms and other factors relevant to people’s ways of behaving.
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 467 08/07/2011 14:41
468   Handbook of sustainable energy
REFERENCES
Allcott, H. and S. Mullainathan (2010), ‘Behavior and energy policy’, Science, 327, 1204–5.
Altman, I. and B. Rogoff (1987), ‘World views in psychology: trait, interactional, organismic, and transactional
perspectives’, in I. Altman and D. Stokols (eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, New York:
Wiley, pp. 7–40.
Aune, M. (2007), ‘Energy comes home’, Energy Policy, 35, 5457–65.
Baumol, W.J. and W.E. Oates (1988), The Theory of Environmental Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Berglund, C. and S. Matti (2006), ‘Citizen and consumer: the dual role of individuals in environmental policy’,
Working Paper 6, Sharp Research Program, Luleå University of Technology.
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrier, J.G. and D. Miller (1999), ‘From private virtue to public vice’, in H. Moore (ed.), Anthropological
Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 24–47.
Douglas, M. and B. Isherwood (1996 [1979]), The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption,
London: Routledge.
Elster, J. (1989), ‘Social norms and economic theory’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3 (4), 99–117.
Faiers, A., M. Cook and C. Neame (2007), ‘Towards a contemporary approach for understanding consumer
behaviour in the context of domestic energy use’, Energy Policy, 35, 4381–90.
Frey, B.S. (1997), Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation, Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Gifford, R. (2007), Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice, 4th edn, Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
Gneezy, U. and A. Rustichini (2000), ‘A fine is a price’, Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1–17.
Gravelle, H. and R. Rees (1992), Microeconomics, London: Longman, 2nd edn.
Gullestad, M. (1992), The Art of Social Relations. Essays on Culture, Social Action and Everyday Life in Modern
Norway, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS).
Henning, A. (2005), ‘Equal couples in equal houses: cultural perspectives on Swedish solar and bio-­pellet
heating design’, in S. Guy and S.A. Moore (eds), Sustainable Architectures: Cultures and Natures in Europe
and North America, New York, USA and London, UK: Spon Press, pp. 89–104.
Holden, E. (2002), ‘Boligen som grunnlag for bærekraftig forbruk’, Doctoral dissertation, Trondheim,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
Jackson, T. (2005), ‘Motivating Sustainable Consumption – a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and
behavioural change’, a report to the Sustainable Development Research Network.
Kallbekken, S., J. Rise and H. Westskog (2011), ‘Combining insights from economics and social psychology to
explain environmentally significant consumption’, in K.D. John and D.T.G. Rübbelke, Sustainable Energy,
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 109–28.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan (1989), The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Miller, D. (1998), A Theory of Shopping, New York: Cornell University Press.
Nyborg, K. (2000), ‘Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental
values’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42, 305–22.
Nyborg, K. and M. Rege (2003), ‘On social norms: the evolution of considerate smoking behavior’, Journal of
Economic Behaviour and Organization, 52, 323–40.
Ortner, S. (2006), Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject, Durham, NO: Duke
University Press.
Pepper, S.C. (1942), World hypotheses: A Study in Evidence, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sagoff, M. (1988), The Economy of the Earth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffer, L. (1979), ‘Another look at energy conservation’, American Economic Review, 69 (2), 362–8.
Schwartz, S. (1977), ‘Normative influences on altruism’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10,
222–79.
Sen, A. (1985), ‘Well-­being, agency and freedom: the Dewey Lectures 1984’, Journal of Philosophy, 82 (4),
169–221.
Sewell, W.H. (1992), ‘A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation’, American Journal of
Sociology, 98 (1), 1–29.
Shove, E. (2003), Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality, Oxford:
Berg.
Simon, H. (1972), ‘Theories of bounded rationality’, in C.B. McGuire and R. Radner (eds), Decision and
Organization: A Volume in Honor of Jacob Marscham, Amsterdam North-­Holland, pp. 161–76.
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 468 08/07/2011 14:41
A policy for reducing household energy consumption?  ­469
Stern, P. (1999), ‘Information, incentives and pro-­environmental behavior, Journal of Consumer Policy, 22,
461–78.
Stern, P.C. (2008), ‘Environmentally significant behaviour in the home’, in A. Lewis (ed.), Psychology and
Economic Behaviour, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 363–82.
Stern, P., T. Dietz, T. Abel, G. Guagnano and L. Kalof (1999), ‘A value–belief–norm theory of support for
social movements: the case of environmental concern, Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97.
Stokols, D. and I. Altman (eds) (1987), Handbook of En­­viron­­mental Psychology, New York: Wiley.
Turner, Stephen (1994), The Social Theory of Practices. Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and Presuppositions,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1981), ‘The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice’, Science, 211
(4481), 453–8.
Warde, A. (2005), ‘Consumption and theories of practice’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 5 (2), 131–53.
Werner, C.M., B.B. Brown and I. Altman (2002), ‘Transactionally oriented research: examples and strategies’,
in R.B. Bechtel and A. Churchman (eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, New York: John Wiley
& Sons, pp. 203–21.
Westskog, H. (1997), ‘The use of cost–benefit analysis to decide environmental policy’, Journal of
Interdisciplinary Economics, 8, 185–208.
Wilhite, H. (2008a), Consumption and the Transformation of Everyday Life: A View from South India, New
York, USA; London, UK; and Delhi, India: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilhite, H. (2008b), ‘New thinking on the agentive relationship between end-­use technologies and energy-­using
practices’, Energy Efficiency, 1, 121–30.
Wilhite, H., H. Nakagame, T. Masuda, Y. Yamaga and H. Haneda (1996), ‘A cross-­cultural analysis of household
energy-­use behaviour in Japan and Norway’, Energy Policy, 24 (9), 795–803.
Wilson, C. and H. Downlatabi (2007), ‘Models of decision making and residential energy use’, Annual Review
of Environment and Resources, 32, 169–203.
Winther, T. (2008), The Impact of Electricity. Development, Desires and Dilemmas, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Winther, T. and T. Ericson (forthcoming), ‘Norwegian customers’ responses to the introduction of an electricity
disclosure regulative’.
M2711 - MARKANDYA PRINT.indd 469 08/07/2011 14:41