The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

Social Marketing for Residential Energy Efficiency: Motivations and Barriers Relating to Home Improvements in the Puget Sound Region

Item

Title (dcterms:title)

Eng Social Marketing for Residential Energy Efficiency: Motivations and Barriers Relating to Home Improvements in the Puget Sound Region

Date (dcterms:date)

2014

Creator (dcterms:creator)

Eng Fischback, Jana

Subject (dcterms:subject)

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

SOCIAL MARKETING FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFECIENCY:
MOTIVATIONS AND BARRIERS RELATING TO HOME IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION

by
Jana Fischback

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2014

© 2014 by Jana Fischback. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Jana Fischback

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Kevin Francis, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
Social Marketing for Residential Energy Efficiency: Motivations and Barriers
Relating to Home Improvements in the Puget Sound Region
Jana Fischback
Increasing residential energy efficiency through home energy audits and upgrades
is a relatively easy and inexpensive way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
reduce energy consumption. However, only a small percent of homeowners have
audits and many of those don’t result in homeowners investing in upgrades.
Social marketing uses the tools of traditional marketing to foster behavior change
that is good for both an individual and society as a whole. It has been identified as
one method to encourage homeowners to increase their house’s efficiency. This
study surveyed nearly 300 homeowners in the Puget Sound region of Washington
State who had home energy audits through a non-profit organization called
Sustainable Works within the last three years. The goal of this research was to
determine barriers and motivations for investing in energy efficiency upgrades.
Identifying these barriers and motivations is an important step in a social
marketing campaign. Multiple motivational factors for participants were
identified as important, the most common being the desire to save money on
energy bills, followed by reducing carbon footprint. No significant differences
were found in demographic factors between those who invested in upgrades and
those who did not. In addition to those who participated in the SustainableWorks
and those who did not invest in upgrades, a third group of homeowners who
implemented recommended upgrades but not through SustainableWorks was
identified. In fact, over 50% of those previous identified as “non-participants”
actually did implement upgrades outside of the program, either on their own as a
do-it-yourself project or through an outside contractor. The most commonly
reported barrier for all groups was concern about affording the initial payment or
project. In addition, though none of the other 12 potential barriers were commonly
reported as important for all three groups, some useful distinctions were found. In
particular, both the non-participant group and the ‘DIY/outside contractor group”
were likely to agree that they did not want SustainableWorks as a contractor.
Members of the DIY/outside contractor group were also likely to be concerned
about the length of the payback period. These findings can inform future social
marketing campaigns and highlight where more research needs to be done.

Table of Contents
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………..vi
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………vii
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………1
Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………...9
Chapter 3: Methods………………………………………………………………37
Chapter 4: Results & Discussion………………………………………………...47
Chapter 5: Conclusion……………………………………………………………82
Appendices
Appendix A: Participant Survey…………………………………………84
Appendix B: Non-Participant Survey……………………………………94
Appendix C: Survey Respondent Demographic Information……………95
Appendix D: Example of Energy Performance Score Report…………...96
Appendix E: Example of Quote from SustainableWorks……………....112

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………116

List of Figures
Figure 1. End-use of energy consumption in Washington State…………………………………...4
Figure 2. Achievable carbon emissions reduction from household actions……………………… 17
Figure 3. Example of Likert-type Barrier Question……………………………………………….42
Figure 4. Example of Likert-type Benefit Question………………………………………………42
Figure 5. Example of Likert-type Conditions Question…………………………………………. 42
Figure 6. How Participants Overcame Barriers Question…………………………………………43
Figure 7. Participants’ Barriers to Investing in Upgrades…………………………………………54
Figure 8. DIY/Outside Contractors Group Barriers to Investing in Upgrades…………………….56
Figure 9. Non-Participants’ Barriers to Investing in Upgrades. …………………………………..57
Figure 10. Ordination Graph of the Three Groups’ Barriers………………………………………56
Figure 11. Barrier of Affordability of Project or Initial Payment…………………………………61
Figure 12. Barrier of concern about payback period………………………………………………62
Figure 13. Barrier of concern about SustainableWorks’ pricing being too expensive……………63
Figure 14. Barrier of concern about return-on-investment………………………………………..64
Figure 15. Barrier of concern about resale value………………………………………………….64
Figure 16. Barrier of not wanting SustainableWorks to act as the general contractor…………...65
Figure 17. Barrier of concern about inconvenience………………………………………………66
Figure 18. Barrier of concern about disagreeing with recommendations…………………………67
Figure 19. Barrier of concern about not being convinced of benefits…………………………….67
Figure 20. Barrier of the audit not being what the homeowner expected…………………………68
Figure 21. Barrier of not being interested in deep upgrades………………………………………68
Figure 22. Barrier of believing that the auditor was not thorough………………………………...69
Figure 23. Barrier of concern about moving soon………………………………………………...70
Figure 24. Participants’ Methods of Overcoming Barriers………………………………………..71
Figure 25. Decreasing cost to encourage participation……………………………………………72
Figure 26. More information about how to pay to encourage participation……………………... 73
Figure 27. More information about how ROI/Payback period……………………………………73


 

v
 

Figure 28. Conditions to Help DIY/Outside Contractor Group to Invest in Upgrades……………75
Figure 29. Conditions to Help Non-Participants Invest in Upgrades……………………………...76

List of Tables
Table 1. Participant’s Motivational Factors……………………………………………………….51
Table 2. Comparison of Most Common Barriers Across the Three Groups………………………59
Table 3. Conditions to Encourage Non-Participant and DIY/Outside Contractor………………...74


 

vi
 

Acknowledgements

Thank you first and foremost Kevin Francis, my thesis advisor, for your support,
excellent feedback and always-helpful insight. Thanks to Paige Cureton who went
above and beyond to help me develop my topic and provide me with connections
to SustainableWorks. Thank you Richard Wells and Laura Spencer from
SustainableWorks for providing me with information. Thank you Jean MacGregor
for introducing me to the area of Social Marketing. To my “shut up and write”
group in Tacoma: thank you for the encouragement and support, both emotional
and academic. Thanks to Martha Henderson and Gail Wootan. Special thanks to
goes to Robyn Andrusyszyn for help with my data analysis and to Erica Waliser
and Carola Tejeda for editing. And finally, to Tyler Fischback, for being a
moderately good listener and a fantastically patient husband.


 

vii
 

Chapter One: Introduction
Concern surrounding residential energy efficiency is not new. Research on
how to improve the efficiency of homes began over four decades ago with the energy
crisis of the 1970s. However, the dominant concern has shifted from a problem of
supply, to the issue of climate change. The benefits of increasing energy efficiency,
no matter what the motivator, have long been known. Now this research from the
previous energy crisis must be re-framed into the current issues we face today.
Because the primary way to increase energy efficiency in homes is through
homeowners investing in upgrades, there is a history of research focused on how to
influence behavior change in this area. This behavior change is sometimes
encouraged through concepts and tools from the area of social marketing, which is
explained in the next chapter.
Improving energy efficiency in homes offers multiple benefits, both for the
homeowner and society. For the individuals living in a home, improving
weatherization, upgrading inefficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) systems or installing insulation often provides significant cost savings and
increases the home’s comfort. Reducing the amount of energy consumed also has
societal and environmental benefits, no matter how that energy is produced. If the
home is heated by natural gas, oil, or electricity produced from fossil fuels such as
coal, there is the clear benefit of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In Washington State, 53% of homes are heated with electricity and 33% are
heated with natural gas (U.S. Department of Energy). This is inverted in comparison
to residential heating for the whole country, in which 30% of homes are heated with


 

1
 

electricity and 51% are heated with natural gas (U.S. Department of Energy). Heating
and cooling account for over half of an average home’s energy use, with electricity
for appliances and electronic devices accounting for about only 15% and lighting
about 13% (U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Energy Information Administration).
This illustrates that improving HVAC efficiency and reducing loss of heat in a home
through weatherization and insulation is a primary concern related to residential
energy efficiency. From an emissions standpoint, because the electricity in
Washington State comes primarily from clean hydropower, it makes sense to focus on
improving the efficiency of HVAC systems that use natural gas or oil, and improving
insulation to reduce the consumption of these fossil fuels.
However, even if the home is heated with electricity from a “clean” source
such as hydropower, reducing energy consumption still provides benefits unrelated to
carbon emissions. Increasing efficiency in homes will be important as the world’s
population grows and the demand for energy increases.
For example, reducing energy consumption of heating systems allows that
energy to be used in other areas that are increasing in demand, such as the charging of
electronic devices in the home or plug-in electric vehicles in the garage. The increase
of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles is expected to have serious implications for the
electric grid, especially if many people charge during peak hours during the day
(Hadley, 2006). Even though efficiency of traditional appliances has slightly
improved, there has been major growth in various technological devices such as
consumer electronics (International Energy Agency, 2009). An additional concern is
that people are spending more time inside buildings than they used to, which causes


 

2
 

an increase in the need for lighting, heating or cooling, and use of appliances and
electronics. Although new houses are much more energy efficient than older ones, the
retrofitting of older houses is necessary to make an impact in the residential sector, as
many houses last for 100 or more years.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Residential Sector in Washington State
Since the majority of Washington’s electricity is produced by non-polluting
hydropower, the emissions for the residential sector come primarily from those homes
that the burn natural gas for home and water heating. Even though energy
consumption from the residential sector’s equals almost a quarter of total energy
consumption in Washington (24.5%), the emissions from residential heating alone
equal only 5% of Washington’s GHG emissions at 5.2 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide (MMtCO2e) (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011; Sandlin,
2010). However, GHGs from the residential sector are greater than Washington’s
waste management (3.8MMtCO2) and fossil fuel industry (0.7 MMtCO2) and nearly
the same as emissions from agriculture (5.9 MMtCO2) and industrial processes (5.6
MMtCO2).


 

3
 

Figure 1. End-use of energy consumption in Washington State. Source: EIA.

The reduction potential by increasing home energy efficiency is significant
because the measures necessary to reduce these emissions are relatively inexpensive
and easy to implement in comparison to the expensive cost of implementing energy
efficiency measures in other sectors. For example, retrofitting older homes is more
affordable than replacing Washington’s car fleet with electric vehicles. As climate
change becomes an increasingly crucial global issue, governments, organizations and
concerned citizens are examining all aspects of the production of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions in order to identify areas where we can quickly and easily
reduce our impact on Earth’s climate.

The Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) in Washington State
In 2009, the Washington State University Energy Program was directed by the
Washington State Legislature to create the Community Energy Efficiency Program
(CEEP) to fund programs that would provide residential and commercial energy
efficiency upgrades. This was funded through the American Recovery and


 

4
 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. Eight projects or organizations were selected, including
the non-profit organization SustainableWorks. SustainableWorks has been
performing home energy audits and acting as a general contractor to complete retrofit
work since 2009. It currently operates in King, Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane
Counties and is primarily funded through city, county, and state funding (L. Spencer,
Personal Conversation, May 12th, 2014).
The organization uses a community-organizing model to encourage residents
to have home energy audits conducted. These audits are heavily subsidized to
encourage participation. After the audit, the homeowner receives a thorough
consultation that includes a prioritized list of improvements that can be made to
increase energy efficiency in the home (see Appendices D and E). To help with
financing their suggested improvements, SustainableWorks offers homeowners added
rebates in addition to the rebates and incentives that local utilities provide. Also, the
organization has partnered with a local credit union to provide easy access to
financing. The organization focuses on homeowners in the middle income bracket,
based on the assumption that households with income less than this are able to qualify
for a separate program outside of SustainableWorks, and that those with higher
incomes are more likely to be able to afford energy efficiency upgrades with less
financial assistance.
Despite the many incentives that they offer, approximately 70% of homeowners
who have had energy audits fail to move forward with investing in improvements
through SustainableWorks’ program (Personal conversation with L. Spencer, April
24, 2014). However, one conclusion of this study is that SustainableWorks might


 

5
 

underestimate the amount of retrofit work that is done after their home energy audits.
Of those who didn’t use SustainableWorks as a contractor, my research found that
53% actually do invest in upgrades, whether through another contractor or doing it
themselves. As of April 2014, 2955 audits had been conducted, resulting in 946
homes being retrofitted in the State of Washington through SustainableWorks
(Personal conversation with L. Spencer, April 24, 2014).

Conclusion
Improvements in efficiency by homeowners should be made in order to reduce
GHGs and alleviate competing demand for energy. These improvements are often
relatively easy and inexpensive compared to other methods of reducing emissions.
Though emissions from homes are less than those from transportation, residential
energy consumption creates significant enough emissions to have an impact. Along
with emissions reductions, other benefits of residential energy reduction include
accommodating a growing population and allowing more energy to be used for
growing demand such as consumer electronics and plug-in electric vehicles.
The primary purpose of this research is to discover the specific motivations
for and barriers to homeowners having retrofit work done in order to increase their
home’s energy efficiency. This is a crucial step in designing a community-based
social marketing campaign, which may be implemented by SustainableWorks in the
Tacoma-Pierce County area in the summer of 2014, following the results of this
study. The field of social marketing uses traditional marketing principles to influence
the behavior of a target audience, with the primary goal of benefiting not only the


 

6
 

individual through this behavior change, but also society as a whole. Social marketing
campaigns attempt to do this by selecting a specific behavior to change, identifying
barriers to and motivations for the behavior, and developing strategies to reduce
barriers and increase benefits.
The only factor that was commonly rated as an important barrier was the
affordability of the project or initial payment. There were no statistically significant
differences found in the reported barriers among the three groups of respondents
(those who invested in upgrades through SustainableWorks, those who took a do-ityourself approach or used an outside contractor, and those who made no upgrades).
SustainableWorks participants’ methods of overcoming barriers were found to be in
line with the barriers that were identified as most important. The most common
method cited was qualifying for financial incentives.
The majority (78%) of the nine motivational factors provided for the
respondents were most commonly rated as agree or strongly agree that they were
motivational indeed. This variety of motivators illustrates the multiple angles that can
be taken when encouraging homeowners to invest in upgrades. In addition, though
financial aspects are a common concern when considering investing, they were also
rated as highly motivational, such as in saving money on energy bills and upgrading
energy efficiency as a good financial investment.
Another goal of this research was to identify any demographic factors that
may influence whether or not a homeowner was likely to invest in energy efficiency
upgrades through the SustainableWorks program. This study found that no factors


 

7
 

such as higher income, level of education, homeowner age or house size were shown
to have a statistically significant influence.
As mentioned before, while a large portion of homeowners who have audits
do not move forward with using SustainableWorks as the general contractor, a good
portion of them do end up carrying out some of the recommended work.
The results can help researchers to better understand the complicated issues
that homeowners face when considering improving the energy efficiency of their
home, and the importance of increasing the benefits and removing the barriers.

Outline of this Report
The report begins with a literature review of research relevant to homeowner’s
behaviors related to investing in energy efficiency and to the methods of social
marketing to influence those behaviors. This is followed by a thorough description of
the methods, including the survey procedures and statistical analysis, and the
reasoning for the chosen methods of analysis. Finally, results are stated and
discussed.


 

8
 

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Introduction
The following chapter will begin with a discussion of social marketing and the
steps in a community-based social marketing campaign. I then provide a review of the
relevant studies from fields including sociology, social- and environmentalpsychology, behavior science and communication that examine behaviors specifically
related to household energy consumption and efficiency. The section concludes with
a review of a recent focus group designed to discover Washington State homeowners’
attitudes about home energy efficiency upgrades.

Social Marketing
Simply put, social marketing is the use of marketing for social good. The end
goal of social marketing is not to change attitudes or raise awareness about an issue;
the goal is to influence behavior. Towards this goal, it has proven to be more effective
than traditional methods such as informational campaigns or financial incentives
alone (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Social marketing does this through a systematic
process that uses marketing principles by focusing on a specific target audience.
Instead of using marketing to benefit an organization or company, however, the
primary beneficiary of social marketing campaigns is society (Lee & Kotler, 2011;
McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). According to Andreasen (2006), “greater social welfare
comes about only through individual behaviors” and the power of marketing can be
used to promote social good beyond just the marketplace.


 

9
 

The term “social marketing” was coined by Kotler and Zaltman (1971) in the
early 1970s in the Journal of Marketing as a way to use traditional marketing
methods, including the four P’s (product, price, place and promotion), as a way to
“influence the acceptability of social ideas.” The field continued to grow and evolve
throughout the next few decades. Andreasen (1994) formed an updated definition in
1994 that expanded to include the idea that the essence of social marketing was not
focused on changing ideas but on influencing behavior.
In 1999, Doug McKenzie-Mohr provided an introduction into “communitybased social marketing” (CBSM) that listed the steps to a pragmatic approach
including: 1) selecting the behavior to be promoted, 2) identifying barriers and
benefits that are associated with this behavior, 3) designing a strategy the uses
behavior-change tools to minimize barriers and maximize benefits, 4) piloting the
strategy and 5) evaluating its impact on the program once implemented broadly. The
CBSM approach is based on research in social psychology, which has found that
programs are often most effective at changing behavior when they are done at the
community level and involve face-to-face contact with people (Lee & Kotler, 2011;
McKenzie-Mohr, 2011).

Steps to a Community-based Social Marketing Campaign
1. Selecting the desired behavior and target audience
When choosing what behavior needs to be changed, one should study an
action that can significantly improve environmental quality (Steg & Vlek, 2009). As
discussed in the previous section, residential energy efficiency is an area with many


 

10
 

opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy for other uses
and growing population.
According to Lee and Kotler (2011), since different groups of people will
have different barriers and benefits, a campaign should focus on a target audience.
They state that what interests one individual may not appeal to another. Dividing the
market into segments allows the efforts and resources of the social marketing
campaign to be concentrated on a group, so the tools can be uniquely designed to
appeal to that group’s benefits, barriers and competition. The target audience that is
chosen includes those most likely to make the desired behavior change (Lee & Kotler,
2011).
In a study that attempted to predict the adoption of changes related to home
energy use, Archer et al. (1987) conducted a survey of California households and
identified primary variables that may predict a person’s likelihood of investing in
energy efficiency. These variables included people with higher disposable income,
those who own their homes, and those who have home repair skills or knowledge.
Also participants who sought information about energy conservation and thus were
more knowledgeable about their options and those who believed the United States’
energy crisis was worsening were more likely to invest in energy efficiency measures
(Archer et al., 1987). Costanzo, Archer, Aronson and Pettigrew (1986) stated that by
focusing efforts on households that meet these criteria, the success of the program
will likely be increased. Similarly, in a study of nearly 500 Massachusetts electricity
customers, Black, Stern and Elworth (1985) found that the strongest influence on the
likelihood of major investments in energy efficiency was homeownership. Also


 

11
 

significant was the belief that the homeowner would have personal benefits from the
increase in efficiency. Income was found to have only an indirect effect on
investment, through the variable of homeownership (Black et al., 1985).
The characteristics of the actual home are important as well. Gamtessa (2012)
found that homes that had more potential savings were more likely to be retrofitted in
Canada. Potential energy savings are often related to the age of a home. In this study,
homes built before 1991 had a higher probability of being retrofitted. This was also
found to be true by Ferguson (1993), whose study found that in regards to installing
insulation, the age of the home was a stronger predictor of participation than sociodemographic factors. Therefore, homeowners in older homes who anticipate large
energy savings may be more likely to be motivated to have a home energy audit
completed and possibly invest in efficiency measures (Gamtessa, 2012).
2. Identifying Barriers and Benefits
In order to encourage the desired behavior, practitioners must identify benefits
that motivate homeowners to act, and barriers that are inhibiting the desired behavior.
These can be identified using literature reviews, focus groups, and surveys.
According to Lee and Kotler (2011), “benefits” are what your target audience
needs or wants. These are the potential values that the desired behavior will provide
to the audience, and what motivates them to act. One of the goals of a social
marketing campaign is to increase the benefits that matter to your audience in an
attempt to move them to action (Lee & Kotler, 2011). It is crucial to ask the specific
audience to identify the benefits, rather than making assumptions, because if the
campaign focuses on motivational factors that are not relevant to the audience, it will


 

12
 

likely not be a success. For example, if reducing their carbon footprint motivates few
homeowners, implementing a campaign that focuses on the positive environmental
effects of reduced energy use would not encourage them to invest in home energy
efficiency improvements.
Barriers to an action can be internal or external, and like benefits, they can
vary for different audiences. In contrast to informational campaigns, social marketing
campaigns attempt to reduce or remove as many barriers as possible. Because barriers
are specific to certain behavior, a strategy for overcoming them can only be
developed after they are revealed.
There are significant pressures to skip the important step of identifying
barriers. These include planners believing that they already know the barriers, being
short on time to research the barriers, and financial constraints (McKenzie-Mohr,
2000). However, identifying barriers is a critical step in creating a social marketing
strategy. To identify benefits and barriers for a specific behavior, McKenzie-Mohr,
Lee, Schultz and Kotler (2011) recommends taking these steps:
1) Perform a literature review on existing articles and reports
2) Gather qualitative data through methods such as interviews and focus
groups
3) Survey a random sample within the target audience
4) Analyze using descriptive and multivariate statistics to identify who is
doing the activity and who is not, what are the factors that distinguish the two
groups and what is the relative importance of these factors


 

13
 

3. Developing Strategies
Multiple tools have been developed by social scientists to encourage
behavior change. These include asking for a commitment to change, using the
influence of social norms, using prompts to serve as reminders at the time the
behavior takes place, and offering personalized feedback (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek,
Rothengatter, 2007; McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). Community-based social marketing uses
the additional strategy of integrating the project into the community through
community-based events and meetings, local media coverage and partnering with
local organizations (Kennedy, Parker, Scott & Rowlands, 2000).
Combinations of appeals that include information, financial incentives, social
norms, and increased convenience have been proven to have a greater effect on
behavior compared to one or two interventions alone. This is true in part because
different households have different barriers to taking action. There are also several
separate barriers to any pro-environmental behavior (Dietz & Stern, 2002; Dietz,
Gardner, Gilligan, Stern & Vandenbergh, 2009; Gardner & Stern, 2002). By
supplementing financial incentives with other benefits such as convenience and
quality assurance, programs can reduce nonfinancial costs such as time, while at the
same time reducing financial costs (Dietz et al. 2009).
The following section provides an explanation of the importance of behavior
change in residential energy efficiency, and is followed by several methods that have
been proven to be effective devices to influence behavior change, especially when
used in combination. Tools related to curtailment behaviors, such as goal setting,
commitment, and tailored feedback have been proven effective but are not listed here


 

14
 

because they do not directly relate to investing in energy efficiency upgrades
(Abrahamse et al., 2007).
4. – 5. Pilot, Implement & Evaluate the Campaign
Once strategies have been developed based on the specific audience and
combination of barriers and benefits, it is important to pilot a program to identify any
problems that might arise before a broad-scale program is put into action. Pilots
should never include elements that are too expensive or difficult to include in the final
program (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011).
After the program has been implemented, it is crucial to appropriately
evaluate it. Most organizations only quickly summarize the program’s success in the
number of audits or retrofits completed, how much energy use was reduced, or the
cost effectiveness of the program. In order to provide an opportunity for improvement
for future studies, evaluations should also include the various social, behavioral and
organizational variables in the program’s design and implementation (Stern, 1992).
This will offer other researchers and practitioners valuable information on how to
design and conduct future programs.

Importance of Behavior Change for Residential Energy Efficiency
Attempting to influence household energy consumption behaviors has some
advantages over the multiple proposed options for addressing climate change and
energy independence. Changing household behavior is often less costly when
compared to the price of developing new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (Allcott & Mullainathan, 2010). Dietz et al. (2009) also states that behavior


 

15
 

change is something that can take place almost immediately, rather than waiting for
policies such as cap-and-trade programs to be implemented or for new technologies to
be mass marketed. Another benefit of these short-term actions is the “demonstration
effect” of individuals being able to see their impact and the impact of others. These
individual actions also “buy time” while new energy-saving technologies and policies
are being developed (Dietz et al., 2009).
With these advantages in mind, Dietz et al. (2009) produced a list of 17
actions that households can take now to reduce emissions at a relatively low cost with
no loss of quality of life (see Figure 2). These include one-time investments related to
weatherization, such as attic insulation or sealing drafts, and replacing inefficient
HVAC equipment. From the authors’ calculations of “reasonably achievable
emissions reduction,” if nearly all households in America took these steps to improve
energy efficiency in their homes, almost 50 million metric tons of carbon per year
would be saved within 10 years. Based on empirical studies of responses to
interventions, the estimated percentage of homeowners that will adopt the actions
when presented with the most effective interventions is approximately 80% according
to Dietz et al. (2009). This is equivalent to avoiding the carbon dioxide emissions
from approximately 37.4 million passenger vehicles annually (EPA, 2013). In
addition, these emissions reductions can be quickly and rather inexpensively
achieved.


 

16
 

Table 1. Achievable carbon emissions from household actions
Behavior change
Weatherization
HVAC equipment
Low-flow showerheads
Efficient water heater
Appliances
Low rolling resistance tires
Fuel-efficient vehicle
Change HVAC air filters
Tune up AC
Routine auto maintenance
Laundry temperature
Water heater temperature
Standby electricity
Thermostat setbacks
Line drying
Driving behavior
Carpooling and trip-chaining
Totals

Category*

Potential emissions reduction (MtC)†

Behavioral plasticity (%)‡

RAER (MtC)§

RAER (%I/H)§

W
W
E
E
E
E
E
M
M
M
A
A
D
D
D
D
D

25.2
12.2
1.4
6.7
14.7
7.4
56.3
8.7
3.0
8.6
0.5
2.9
9.2
10.1
6.0
24.1
36.1
233

90
80
80
80
80
80
50
30
30
30
35
35
35
35
35
25
15

21.2
10.7
1.1
5.4
11.7
6.5
31.4
3.7
1.4
4.1
0.2
1.0
3.2
4.5
2.2
7.7
6.4
123

3.39
1.72
0.18
0.86
1.87
1.05
5.02
0.59
0.22
0.66
0.04
0.17
0.52
0.71
0.35
1.23
1.02
20

*See text for definitions of categories W, E, M, A, and D.
†Effect of change from the current level of penetration to 100% penetration, corrected for double-counting. Measured in millions of metric tons of carbon (MtC).
‡Percentage of the relevant population that has not yet adopted an action that will adopt it by year 10 with the most effective interventions.
§Reduction in national CO emissions at year 10 due to the behavioral change from plasticity, expressed in MtC/yr saved and as a percentage of total US
2
individual/household sector emissions (%I/H). Both estimates are corrected for double counting.

refining (69 MtC), iron and steel (38 MtC), and aluminum (13
Our estimates of emissions reductions are based on
Figure
2. Achievable carbon emissions reduction from1970s.
household
actions. Categories relevant to this
MtC) industries, each of which is among the largest emitters in
scaling the interventions up to national application.
study
are weatherization
(W)ofand
efficiency
(E). Source:The
Dietz
al. (2009).
the industrial
sector (19). The cost
achieving
such a reduction
mosteteffective
interventions typically (i) combine several
through behavioral change may be far lower than the cost of
many alternatives (15, 17).
We analyzed 17 types of household action that can appreciably
reduce energy consumption using readily available technology,
with low or zero cost or attractive returns on investment, and
without appreciable changes in lifestyle. We first estimated the
potential emissions reduction (PER) from each action, that is,
the reduction that would be achieved nationally from 100%
adoption of the action (15, 17). We then estimated plasticity
(20)—the proportion of current nonadopters that could be
induced to take action—from data on the most effective proven
interventions. This introduces a behavioral realism to our estimates that is not included in analyses grounded solely in engineering or economics.
We based our plasticity estimates on empirical studies of
responses to interventions at the individual and household levels
aimed at changing energy consumption and related environmentally significant behaviors (12, 14, 21, 22) and on studies of
interventions to induce adoption of health-promoting behaviors
that resemble energy-saving behaviors (23–25). These studies
make it possible to consider how plasticity is affected by types of
intervention (e.g., media campaigns, information, and financial
incentives) separately and in combinations and also by the type
of behavior (12–14). Our approach contrasts with methods that
rely on generic indicators of plasticity, such as price elasticity of
demand. It facilitates consideration of the effects of both economic and non-economic stimuli in the same analysis. This is
important because evidence from past energy efficiency interventions indicates that responsiveness to price can vary by a
factor of 10, depending on nonfinancial aspects of policy implementation (21).
Our plasticity estimates reflect what has been achieved by the
most effective documented interventions that do not involve new
regulation of technology or behavior. These interventions have
been demonstrated in field experiments or in organized programs implemented at the community, city, regional, or state
level—many of them in response to the energy crises of the

policy tools (e.g., information, persuasive appeals, and incentives) to address multiple barriers to behavior change; (ii) use
strong social marketing, often featuring a combination of mass
media appeals and participatory, community-based approaches
that rely on social networks and can alter community social
norms; and (iii) address multiple targets (e.g., individuals, communities, and businesses) (12, 14, 23, 26).* Single policy tools
have been notably ineffective in reducing household energy
consumption. Mass media appeals and informational programs
can change attitudes and increase knowledge, but they normally
fail to change behavior because they do not make the desired
actions any easier or more financially attractive. Financial incentives alone typically fall far short of producing costminimizing behavior—a phenomenon commonly known as the
energy efficiency gap (27). However, interventions that combine
appeals, information, financial incentives, informal social influences, and efforts to reduce the transaction costs of taking the
desired actions have demonstrated synergistic effects beyond the
additive effects of single policy tools (12, 13, 28). The most
effective package of interventions and the strongest demonstrated effects vary with the category of action targeted.
We combined PER and plasticity to estimate RAER for each
action. PER and RAER estimates for actions were corrected for
double-counting (e.g., lower thermostat settings yield smaller
emissions reductions when combined with more efficient furnaces).† Details of all our calculations are provided in the SI Text.
Table 1 shows the actions and the associated estimates of 10-year
emissions reductions.

Pitt, Randolph, Jean and Chang (2012) also attempted to estimate the potential

energy and GHG emission that can be saved from residential retrofit programs. They
state that though it is easy to estimate energy and GHG savings in the retrofit of a

of home) make it difficult to estimate the nation’s overall potential energy and GHG

benefits from a large-scale retrofit program. They developed a four-step methodology
to estimate savings. They first estimated the local amount of residential energy

consumption and then created a baseline for heating demand in typical households.
Next they estimated the amount of energy saved from retrofits. Finally, they

*Multiple targets can create community-level effects that enhance behavioral change

what can be achieved with a single target. We do not include ‘‘spillover’’ savings
extrapolated these savings to all single-family above
homes
in the community. The authors
from businesses and other organizations in our calculations, so we are underestimating
the overall impact of the approach we propose.
†Our

estimates are not corrected for potential ‘‘takeback’’ (i.e., a portion of achievable

found that in Blacksburg, Virginia, a basic retrofit
justtechnical
a few
upgrades
such
asother benereductionswith
from improved
efficiency
that consumers forgo
to gain
fits, such as increased thermal comfort).

Dietz et al.
PNAS heat
! November
3, 2009 ! vol. 106 by
! no.17%.
44 ! 18453
replacing
windows and adding minimal insulation reduced
consumption

However, an “aggressive” retrofit using the best available technologies had the
potential to reduce heating demand by over 80%. Therefore, actual energy savings


 

17
 

SUSTAINABILITY
SCIENCE

single home, the wide variation in housing (size, home age, HVAC systems and type

would fall somewhere between those two numbers, depending on the extent of the
retrofit work completed (Pitt, et al., 2012).
With these potential energy savings, it is crucial to use interventions to
increase benefits and remove any barriers that homeowners may have to adopting
improved energy efficient home heating and cooling systems, appliances, and
weatherization techniques. The term “intervention” is used here to mean any
program, activity, appeal or event that intends to influence behavior (Wilson &
Dowlatabadi, 2007). As important as upgrading to energy efficient technology can be,
unless it is adopted by a significant number of households, its impact will not be
significant (Costanzo et al., 1986).
Encouraging behavior change is also important because we cannot rely on
emissions reductions from improved efficiency of new technology alone. In fact,
increased consumption and population can often overtake any increase in efficiency
that a new technology might provide (Midden, Meter, Weenig & Zieverink, 2007).

Influencing Behaviors
The following section will provide an overview of various theories that
explain how behavior change can be influenced. I begin by explaining the difference
between curtailment and efficiency behaviors. I then discuss the problems associated
with relying on rational thinking, affecting attitudes, or increasing knowledge to
change behavior.


 

18
 

Curtailment vs. Efficiency Behaviors. There are two main categories of
energy conservation decisions. Curtailment behaviors are frequently repeated actions
that require regular attention, such as turning off lights when leaving a room or
setting a thermostat. Efficiency behaviors, on the other hand, are one-time changes
that often require the purchase of energy efficient equipment or a service, such as
buying new insulation or having a home air-sealed (Stern & Gardner, 1981).
It is important to distinguish between curtailment and efficiency because the
factors that may influence every day behavior are likely quite different from those
that influence a large decision that is made only once (Stern & Gardner, 1981). A
Canadian study found that curtailment behaviors were much more influenced by
personal norms such as environmental attitudes than decisions to invest in energy
efficiency, which were predicted by pragmatic factors such as a desire for a more
comfortable home (Scott, Parker & Rowlands, 2001). Knowing these differences can
help to focus marketing towards the appropriate motivators depending on the type of
desired behavior change.
A home energy audit and retrofit work falls into the efficiency category,
because they are one-time decisions that do not need to be revisited often
(Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2005). This is one advantage in
encouraging this type of behavior change because action must be taken only one or
two times, rather than trying to encourage actions that must be done repeatedly.
Another advantage of working to encourage investment in efficiency
technology is that investment tends to have higher energy savings than curtailment
behaviors do (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner & Stern, 2008). For example, more


 

19
 

energy is likely saved by insulating a house once than by the homeowner turning
down the thermostat every night (Stern & Gardner, 1981).
The two behaviors also vary greatly in other ways that may affect their
adoption. Curtailment measures often mean sacrificing comfort, by having to sacrifice
things such as a home that is a comfortable temperature. This feeling of having to go
without something produces a very different psychological effect than the adoption of
efficient technology, which often provides increased home comfort along with energy
savings (Stern & Gardner, 1981). Therefore, very different methods must be used to
encourage curtailment behavior as compared to investment in efficiency.
However, efficiency measures are usually more expensive than curtailment
efforts, having a large initial cost. Usually there is no cost to performing curtailment
actions. All of these points demonstrate that there are significant differences in the
barriers that are present for improving energy efficiency compared to curtailment
(Gardner & Stern, 2008).

Rational Thinking vs. Action. Home energy efficiency is a good example of
how difficult it is to change behaviors or adopt new technology even when it benefits
the homeowner financially over the long-term. This difficulty illustrates that though
prices and technology are important, they are likely not the only barriers to better
home energy efficiency (Allcott & Mullainathan, 2010). Improved technology has
been available for decades, yet there is a persistent gap between potential savings
through technology and actual behavior (Wilson & Dowlatabadi, 2007). This is
known as the “energy efficiency gap” (Gardner & Stern, 2002; Jaffe & Stavins,


 

20
 

1994). For example, a homeowner might be informed, have positive attitudes about
efficiency and weatherization measures, and have the resources, yet all of these
factors may not result in action even when the outcome is obviously beneficial
(Wilson & Dowlatabadi, 2007).
The rational-economic model relies on the idea that people will make the
choice that is in their financial best interest (Coltrane, Archer & Aronson, 1986; Kurz,
2002). In order to influence behavior, the model suggests that homeowners only need
to be informed of the financial advantages of their choices, and they will act
accordingly. Unfortunately, many past interventions based on this model, including
the Residential Conservation Service that was mandated in response to the energy
crisis of the 1970s, have been unsuccessful (McKenzie-Mohr, 1994).
While substantial financial incentives are undoubtedly helpful in encouraging
a home energy audit and retrofit work, there are often many other situational factors
that override logic and inhibit their adoption of technology (Yates & Aronson, 1983).
Factors include lack of knowledge about what incentives are available, difficulty in
scheduling multiple contractors and difficult paperwork, plus long wait periods for
rebates. Even when an investment in energy efficient equipment is expected to
provide a good return over time, it can be hard to know exactly what that return will
be (Dietz et al., 2009; Gardner & Stern, 2008). Also, no matter what the financial
cost, all home improvements require the “cost” of people’s time and attention
(Gardner & Stern, 2008).
For an example of how non-monetary factors can be just as important as
financial incentives in changing consumer behavior, one study found that even when


 

21
 

the incentives for a home insulation program were identical for various utilities,
average participation rates varied from 1% to 5%. This was the case even when 93%
of the costs of the insulation were subsidized, almost eliminating the barrier of cost.
This illustrates that other factors, including the way the subsidy was marketed, had
large effect on the participation rates (Allcott & Mullainathan, 2010; Stern et al.,
1986).

Attitudes vs. Action. Those attempting to change behavior often make the
assumption that behaviors depend on attitudes. It seems intuitive that when a person
has a positive attitude towards something, their actions would reflect that. However,
this has been found to not always be true. According to Stern (2000),
“Environmentalist intent is only one of the factors affecting behavior, and often, it is
not one of the most important” (p. 415).
The theory of reasoned action provides insight into how to encourage
behavioral change in regards to home energy use. Though many campaigns focus on
changing people’s attitudes, attitudes alone have been found to be poor predictors of
behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Even when a person has pro-environmental
attitudes and motivation, they often do not result in the expected behavior. This is
because behavior is the result of many different motivational and contextual factors
(Costanzo et al., 1986; Steg & Vlek, 2009).
The contextual factors that surround the choices that a consumer has can often
be more important than the consumer’s attitudes. For example, Black et al. (1985)
found through a survey of Massachusetts’s electricity consumers that changes that are


 

22
 

relatively convenient or inexpensive were easily influenced by one’s attitudes,
whereas changes that are more difficult or expensive were less affected by beliefs and
attitudes, because they have other important factors involved in the decision. This is
especially relevant to increasing home energy efficiency, which is often a complex
and sometimes expensive process. For example, according to their study, temperature
settings of a home were more likely to be influenced by norms than difficult actions
such as installing insulation.
If efforts are focused on increasing pro-environmental attitudes alone,
behavior will likely not be affected. This is extremely important when designing
messages because “behavior change is the only goal of consequence” with respect to
energy conservation in homes (Costanzo et al., 1986, p. 521). Therefore, an important
aspect of behavior change is removing the contextual factors that act as barriers (Steg
& Vlek, 2009).

Knowledge vs. Action. Many programs designed to change behavior rely on
information campaigns, typically by trying to increase public knowledge about an
issue through advertising. Similar to campaigns attempting to change attitudes,
providing information for homeowners, though likely to result in increased
knowledge levels, does not always result in changed behavior (Abrahamse et al.,
2005; McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). This may be because providing information only
removes the barrier of lack of knowledge about a subject but does nothing to make
the desired behavior any easier for the homeowner or make it any more financially
attractive (Dietz et al., 2009).


 

23
 

Knowledge is still an important factor, however, because without accurate and
accessible information, people who are already motivated to make changes could be
prevented from taking this action due to lack of understanding (Gardner & Stern,
2008; Tabanico & Schultz, 2007). In a review of studies focused on household energy
conservation, it was found that homeowners often seemed to emphasize savings from
changes that are visible, such as turning off lights, frequently overestimating the
amount of energy that they think can be saved by taking these actions. In one study
the average homeowner believed that there was more potential energy savings in
using curtailment than in adopting energy efficient technologies, even though experts
have found that the most potential energy savings are almost always by taking
efficiency measures (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner & Stern, 2008).
McKenzie-Mohr (2011) cites several failed attempts of information-based
campaigns. These included three hour-long workshops with educational materials that
increased willingness to make changes but no actual change in behavior (Geller,
1981), and a study that provided general information about conserving home energy
that was not effective in creating significant behavior change (Midden et al., 1983).
These findings further illustrate the importance of identifying benefits and barriers
that homeowners have to investing in energy efficient technologies, rather than only
attempt to increase their knowledge.


 

24
 

Relevant Tools for Effective Behavior Change
This section highlights a few social marketing techniques that can be used to
encourage behavior change. A more detailed explanation of how these tools can be
used in the situation of a home energy audit is provided in chapter 5.

Tailored Information. In trying to affect behavior, tailored information has
an advantage over broad recommendations because the resident receives only relevant
information to their situation. Home energy audits are a good example of this. Studies
have found that audits can result in increased knowledge about home energy use, and
more importantly, significant reductions of energy consumption (Abrahamse et al.,
2007; Gardner & Stern, 2008; Gonzales, Aronson & Costanzo, 1988). Since savings
can be predicted by measurements through a home audit, personalized information
can give homeowners more confidence in making changes than general statements
about potential savings could do (Costanzo et al., 1986).

Social Diffusion. Information that is passed on socially is likely a better
influence on behavior change than non-personal sources of information such as mass
media or direct mail (Costanzo et al., 1986). However, improvements in residential
energy efficiency are not often obvious to those in one’s social network compared to
many other behaviors. In order to increase the visibility of these actions,
SustainableWorks provides yard signs to clients who implement the recommended
upgrades. They also provide case studies on their website with photos of clients in


 

25
 

front of their home with “before and after” information including costs of heating,
energy use, and tons of carbon emitted.
In some cases informal social networks can be used to increase the credibility of
home energy efficiency programs. Some homeowners may be motivated to consider a
home energy audit because they have heard from people that they trust that the
investment will pay off or because their neighbor was satisfied with the results of
their audit (Stern & Aronson, 1984). In another study, homeowners who installed
programmable thermostats were found to influence a portion of their network,
including friends, family and coworkers. However, this action was not found to
influence their neighbors (Darley, 1978).

Increase Convenience. Even if a person has the internal motivation to act, it
will likely not happen if the behavior is inconvenient, unpleasant or too timeconsuming (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). Methods to increase convenience would be to
act as a general contractor to provide one-stop shopping (Dietz et al., 2009; Gardner
& Stern, 2008). Another way to increase convenience is to have small services
available at the time of the audit, such as changing out old incandescent light bulbs to
new CFLs or LEDs and installing a programmable thermostat. Though these things
may not be expensive or difficult, the inconvenience of purchasing and installing the
items may be a barrier for homeowners (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011).
This approach is one that SustainableWorks has recently implemented with
their “Save Energy Today” program. For one fee, the homeowner receives a home
energy assessment from a building scientist at the same time that a weatherization


 

26
 

technician provides minor changes that can be done in one day, including air sealing,
installing new light bulbs, aerators, and shower heads, and insulating the hot water
heater (R. Wells, personal communication, March 2014).

Improving Credibility & Reducing Uncertainty. By providing a list of
approved sub-contractors plus an inspection of the completed work, organizations
like SustainableWorks can increase their credibility. This helps homeowners feel
more confident in having their homes retrofitted (Dietz et al., 2009; Gardner & Stern,
2008). Another strategy to overcome credibility issues is to create partnerships
between organizations, such as pairing up a utility that offers audits with a local nonprofit organization. Alternatively, an already existing neighborhood group could
provide support in reaching out to the community to encourage home audits (Stern &
Aronson, 1984). Stern (1992) provides an example where the same letter was sent
randomly to invite homeowners to request free audits and insulation. One version was
sent on a private company’s letterhead, one version from the company that also
mentioned the local county’s role in the program, and finally one version on county
letterhead. Of the households who received letters, requests for audits came from 6%,
11% and 31%, respectively, depending on the source of the letter (Stern, 1992). This
illustrates how, at no additional cost, the effectiveness of campaign can be greatly
altered depending on the audience’s perceived credibility of the source.

Framing. The manner in which information is presented can also influence
the decision. Through “framing” choices in a certain way, a person’s preference can


 

27
 

be reversed even when actual outcome has not been changed (Wilson & Dowlatabadi,
2007). For example, because people experience loss aversion, they do not get the
same amount of joy from gaining $100 as the amount of sadness they have from
losing $100, even though the value is exactly the same (Gonzales et al., 1988). For
example, an auditor explaining the importance of insulating a home may have more
success explaining it in terms of energy or money lost, not saved.

Previous Campaigns Regarding Residential Energy Efficiency
Though many social marketing campaigns have been focused on curtailment
behaviors in homes, it was difficult to find many that used social marketing tools in
the area of encouraging energy efficiency investments. The following case studies
provide a review of residential energy efficiency campaigns, some of which used
social marketing methods. However, due to the age of some of these studies, many of
which took place in the 1970’s and 1980’s during different social and economic
conditions, their findings may be limited to past circumstances and therefore less
relevant to present-day homeowners.

Home Energy Audits after the 1978 National Energy Act. In 1978 the
National Energy Act was passed, which required major utility companies to provide
conservation services to residential customers (Hirst, Berry and Soderstrom, 1981).
Through a review of evaluations performed by utilities, which were few and often
informal, it was found that the average participation rate was less than 5% for most
energy efficiency programs (Hirst et al., 1981).


 

28
 

This study also found that most participants were satisfied with their audit,
their auditor’s conduct and knowledge, and felt that the information from the auditor
was easy to understand and helpful. Participants were found to take actions that
required little investment and could be accomplished without a contractor, such as
weather-stripping, programming a thermostat and adding water heater blankets (Hirst
et al., 1981).
The review also looked at the demographic characteristics of the audit
participants. The researchers found that homeowners who participated in the utilitysponsored audits had higher incomes and more education than what was average for
their locations. Understandably, the homeowners were also found to have more
interest or concern about energy conservation than the general population. In
addition, audit participants’ homes were more likely to be larger than the average
home as well (Hirst et al., 1981).
In this review of 35 utilities, only three had published information about the
amount of energy saved due to their programs. These utilities had varied results, with
averages of 8.6% to 21% energy savings. However, one utility compared those who
had audits, those who did a self-directed audit, and those who had no audit, and found
no significant difference in energy consumption (Hirst et al., 1981).

Wisconsin Power and Light Company Audits. In another example of a
program during that same time period, Wisconsin Power and Light Company offered
free audits for gas customers, with over 19,000 homes audited in a little over two
years (Hirst & Grady, 1982). Consumption and demographic data was collected, and


 

29
 

it was found that those who had participated and those who had not had audits were
very similar. The audits did have a statistically significant influence on reducing
annual gas consumption (Hirst & Grady, 1982).

Residential Energy Efficiency Project: the Waterloo Region of Canada.
Kennedy et al. (2000) describes a Canadian home energy evaluation tool called
EnerGuide for Houses (EGH) that was used by the Residential Energy Efficiency
Project (REEP) in the Waterloo region of Ontario. This project used CBSM
techniques to encourage citizens to schedule an EGH home energy audit. They first
identified barriers from previous energy and environmental studies as 1) cost of the
audit 2) time commitment 3) the idea the audit would not be useful and 4) lack of
trust in the credibility of the organization conducting the audit. They then went on to
address these barriers by keeping the cost down to $25 (CDN) per audit, limiting the
audits to two hours, relying on the credibility of the national EGH program, and
partnering with a local university and non-profit organizations (Kennedy et al., 2000).
The REEP practitioners used community-based events and meetings to try to
have as much direct personal contact as possible in an effort to use personal appeals
to encourage homeowners to have audits. They also used direct and passive
marketing, and local media to promote the program. The practitioners then evaluated
how participants heard of the program after the audits were scheduled. They
performed almost 900 audits in the first year and found that the largest portion were
from referrals (36%), followed by media (28%) and then community-based events
and meetings (18%). The practitioners concluded that the number of audits that came


 

30
 

from referrals signifies the importance of these kinds of energy efficiency projects to
be recommended through someone whom people trust, like friends and neighbors
(Kennedy et al., 2000). Scott, et al. (2001), who also analyzed this case study,
emphasized the positive influence of social networks as an important finding of
REEP, saying that these programs will have a synergistic effect.
Another study looked at the decade-long effects of the REEP program by
analyzing thousands of evaluations made by REEP from 1999 to 2009 (Hoicka &
Parker, 2011). They analyzed the rates of adopted measures that were recommended
during audits. This study found that in general, achieved energy savings were less
than what was predicted from the audit. Also, those homeowners that had the most
energy savings were more likely to have treated the home as a system, making
multiple changes as once. In addition, they found that the improvements that were
implemented by homeowners were less extensive than what was recommended
during the audit (Hoicka & Parker, 2011).
In conclusion, despite some valuable information discovered from these
campaigns, there are gaps and weaknesses in these studies that my research attempts
to address. Discovering differences in those who participate in programs, especially
those homeowners who invest in recommended upgrades, can inform future
campaigns. In addition, identifying barriers and benefits from the actual homeowners
is an important step in these campaigns.


 

31
 

Focus Group Findings on Community Energy Efficiency Programs (CEEP)
Though a focus group was not conducted for my research, the Washington
State University Energy Extension Program (WSU Energy Program, 2013), recently
administered a focus group to discover homeowners’ attitudes related to home energy
efficiency and the importance of home energy upgrades. The participants were in two
groups: those who have participated in WSU’s Community Energy Efficiency
Program (CEEP) and had a home energy audit done and those who had not (some of
the participants who had audits continued to work with CEEP to invest in upgrades).
The results showed that homeowners who were participants felt educated, well
supported in their efforts to improve their home’s efficiency, and aware of the
resources available to them. Non-participants, however, felt frustrated with the results
of their efforts to improve efficiency and did not know where to get reliable
information (WSU Energy Program, 2013).
Several themes were highlighted through the participants’ comments during
the focus groups. Benefits of working with CEEP included a comprehensive and
prioritized list of recommended improvements and a clear idea of what the cost
effectiveness would be for those improvements. Motivations to work with CEEP
included hearing about the program through word-of-mouth, having a specific
problem with their home, or wanting to reduce their energy use, in terms of both cost
savings and energy savings. Other motivations included environmental concerns and
the low cost of home audits (WSU Energy Program, 2013).
Finally, barriers were discussed in the focus groups. The most common two
barriers were difficulty in scheduling/cost of the audit and implementation of the


 

32
 

recommendations. Other concerns included that the improvements would not be
worth the investment, that they would not learn any new information from the audit,
and that the recommendations would be cost-prohibitive. There were also concerns
about the quality of work done by the subcontractors. Lastly, communication
difficulties and the complexity of the project were identified as barriers (WSU Energy
Program, 2013).
Though qualitative focus groups were not a method used for this thesis
research, the focus groups conducted by the WSU Energy Program included a very
similar demographic of homeowners in Washington State, including several who had
worked with SustainableWorks. Their findings provide insights into the motivations
and barriers of homeowners that are similar to those of my target audience of
homeowners in Pierce County and the greater Puget Sound region.

In-Depth Interviews of SustainableWorks Clients
In 2011, SustainableWorks hired a consultant to do a qualitative assessment of
clients who had an audit but failed to move forward with home upgrades through the
program (Schulte, 2012). Forty-one in-depth interviews were conducted in Shoreline
and Spokane, WA.
The author found that 70% homeowners were satisfied with the audit process,
but had barriers that kept them from investing in the recommendations provided. The
most prevalent barrier was related to affordability, with 63% of respondents
mentioning factors related to affordability as a reason for not pursing upgrades. These
included the initial costs being too high, not being able to afford the upgrades,


 

33
 

concern of limited return-on-investment, and concern that the payback period (the
amount of time it takes to recover the cost of the investment) was too long.
Other barriers were related to a “do-it-yourself mindset” including the
homeowner preferring to do it on his/her own or having a “do-it-yourself” perspective
going into the audit (22% of respondents). Equally mentioned was the problem that
the homeowner was looking for different information, including short-term, easy
upgrades (22% of respondents). Very few respondents (5%) mentioned concern
because they were moving soon (Schulte, 2012).
Respondents also reported on whether they implemented upgrades to their
home and in many cases the upgrades were confirmed as the same as those
recommended by SustainableWorks. Several mentioned that they were doing the
upgrades themselves. At least six mentioned that they preferred to do the work with
another contractor, or that they had a relationship already established with someone
who could implement the upgrades for them (Schulte, 2012).

Conclusion
Much has been learned about the variety of factors than can influence
behavior. In order to encourage a homeowner to invest in energy efficiency, it is
likely that more needs to be done than just attempting to increase knowledge or
encourage pro-environmental attitudes. Social marketing is an emerging field that has
proven successful in behavior change, and provides tools that have the potential to
increase benefits and remove some barriers related to home energy efficiency.


 

34
 

There are few published studies that examine the specific benefits and barriers
that homeowners have to investing in energy efficiency. Because social marketing
campaigns focus on changing behavior, the campaigns that have been used in this
area are more likely to influence curtailment behaviors rather than investing in
efficient technologies, so there is a lack of evaluated campaigns that use social
marketing techniques to encourage homeowners to retrofit their homes.
In addition, the majority of literature on the subject of social psychology as it
relates to behaviors in household energy consumption and efficiency was published
during the 1980s, following the energy crisis. Comparatively very little has been
published since energy prices decreased in the 1990s and financial incentive to
conserve diminished with high energy prices. Therefore, there may be some
limitations to the previous review of studies because their findings may be limited to
the specific social and economic conditions of that time.
For example, current motivations to conserve energy may be very different
than in the 1970’s and 1980s, if one motivation is to reduce one’s carbon footprint.
On the other hand, if their perceived benefit is an increase in comfort and saving
money on energy bills, the necessary approach might be very similar to what it was
30-40 years ago. There are likely a variety of motivations that influence each
homeowner including more recently developed motivations such as reducing carbon
footprints since these the time of these studies.
There has been some resurgence in residential energy efficiency research
since the turn of the century, as the threat of climate change and peak oil has become
increasingly important global issues. Much of that research, however, has been


 

35
 

studies from outside the United States, including Canada and the Netherlands. More
research is needed at regional and local levels to determine the benefits that motivate
homeowners to invest in home energy efficiency upgrades and the unique barriers
that they face in doing so.
These issues highlight the necessity for further research to discover the
motivations and barriers that homeowners have to increasing their homes’ efficiency
through audits and home energy upgrades, under current conditions, at a local level.
My research attempts to meet this need by identifying the importance of multiple
factors in the decisions of homeowners in the Puget Sound area of Washington State.


 

36
 

Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter will describe the design of the study. This study used a survey of
homeowners who had a home energy audit conducted by SustainableWorks in the
Puget Sound area of Washington State within the last three years. It was designed to
determine the primary motivations for and barriers to investing in recommended
energy efficiency upgrades for the respondent’s home. To identify these factors, I am
following the steps that McKenzie-Mohr et al. (2011) recommends, including:
1) Performing a literature review on existing articles and studies.
•

See the previous chapter.

2) Gathering qualitative data through methods such as focus groups.
•

See the previous chapter for information on a recent focus group
that was conducted by the WSU Energy Extension. Open-ended
questions in the survey provide some qualitative data. Each
question included an open ended section for respondents to add
additional information if they wished. There was also an option at
the end of the survey to include anything else about their
experience with SustainableWorks.

3) Surveying a random sample within the target audience.
•

I conducted a survey of over 1,110 homeowners who have had a
home energy audit through SustainableWorks. Because my
population was relatively small, I was able to make my survey
available to the entire population rather than choosing randomly
from within the population.


 

37
 

4) Analyze using descriptive and multivariate statistics to identify who is
doing the activity and who is not, what are the factors that distinguish the
two groups and what is the relative importance of these factors.
•

Using data from the surveys, I was able to determine the primary
barriers that were identified for each group of respondents. In
addition, I look for differences among the groups, and relationships
between demographic variables and group. I also was able to
identify primary motivational factors for those who invested and
possible conditions that could be changed to encourage those who
did not invest to do so.

The participants of the study are described, the study’s various measures are
explained, procedures are covered and statistical analysis is described.

Survey Participants
Two slightly different surveys were conducted in January 2014 by emailing
SustainableWorks clients a survey to complete online. Email addresses were collected
from the organization’s database. Only those with working email addresses were
surveyed. All clients living within the Puget Sound region of the state were included.
Clients from Spokane, WA were excluded from the study because of the different
climate and demographics in that area of Washington. Because only about 3.5% of
SustainableWorks’ audits are conducted for renters, the assumption was made that all
clients in the database were homeowners and no attempt was made to exclude renters
(L. Spencer, personal communication, April 28, 2014).


 

38
 

“Participants.” The first survey was sent to 404 homeowners who
implemented some or all of the recommended upgrades through SustainableWorks.
Clients who had audits and work completed since January 2011 were included in the
survey sample. Of the 404 emails sent, 150 respondents, or 37.1%, completed the
survey.

“Non-Participants and DIY/Outside Contractors.” The second survey
collected data by emailing 743 homeowners who had an audit with SustainableWorks
but have failed to implement any of the recommended retrofit work through the
organization. This survey included clients who had an audit from January 2011 to
July 15th of 2013, approximately six months before the survey, in order to exclude
recent clients who may still be considering moving forward with the program. Of the
743 emails sent, 143 respondents, or 20.3%, completed the survey. Of this group, 68
reported investing in no upgrades. For this study they will be referred to as “NonParticipants.”
This study was initially divided into only two groups: those who chose to have
energy efficiency upgrades through SustainableWorks and those who did not.
However, after seeing that the remaining 75 respondents reported that they did
implement changes after their audit, but not through SustainableWorks, a third
category was created to differentiate those who were considered “Non-Participants”
but who implemented changes, whether through another contractor or on their own. 1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1

 There are benefits to having a non-profit organization like SustainableWorks act as a general contractor after
performing an audit themselves. First of all, the organization is subsidized by state money, so more incentives are available than


 

39
 

Investing in recommended upgrades, no matter who completes the work, is a
desirable effect of an audit because it still works towards increasing the energy
efficiency of a home. For this study, this third group of respondents will be referred to
as “DIY/Outside Contractors,” in reference to the fact that they either completed the
upgrades themselves or used a contractor outside of the SustainableWorks program.
The total number of this type of completed surveys equaled 75, which is 53% of those
who did not participate in the SustainableWorks retrofit program.

Measures
The surveys included up to 18 questions of various types. They included
multiple-choice questions to collect demographic information such as age range,
education level, and income level. They also included questions about the
respondents’ home, such as year built and square footage. All of the upgrades that
SustainableWorks offers were listed and the respondent was asked to choose either
what upgrades were recommended to them (for Non-Participants) or what upgrades
they invested in (for Participants and DIY/Outside contractors).

Likert-Type Rating Scales. To measure the importance of various factors
relating to investing in energy efficiency upgrades, several of the questions were
composed of Likert-type scale questions. These rating scales ask respondents to
identify their level of agreement of a statement on a 5-point symmetric scale from

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
if a homeowner when through another contractor or attempted to do the upgrades themselves. The work done by
SustainableWorks’ approved subcontractors is checked for quality after the upgrades have been completed. Also, the homeowner
is offered a limited amount of choices, therefore reducing the confusion of what to choose when making upgrades. Finally,
having upgrades performed through organizations such as SustainableWorks is advantageous because it is verifiable for
governments and organizations to see what kind of impact they were having on communities.


 

40
 

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), in order to determine their attitude toward
the importance of a specific factor in their decision to invest in upgrades. This format
is often used by marketing researchers to discover the intensity of agreement, feelings
or attitudes about a statement (Burns & Bush, 2008). A recent study found that results
are similar whether a 5-point scale or 7-point scale is used, so a 5-point scale was
chosen to increase the ease of analysis (Dawes, 2008). A copy of each survey can be
found in the appendix.
One issue that arose in this study was an oversight in implementing the
surveys. The Participants were given an option of “not applicable” when choosing
what factors were barriers for them, but this was not provided to either of the nonparticipating groups. Therefore, in order to more appropriately compare data, those
items that were designated as “not applicable” for certain barriers were converted into
“neutral,” which is not necessarily equivalent.
Similar Likert-type questions were used to measure how important certain
barriers were for all respondents (Figure 3). For Participants only, a list of potential
motivators was rated (Figure 4). For Non-Participants and DIY/Outside Contractors, a
list of potential methods to overcome barriers was listed, and they were asked to rate
how important these factors would be in increasing their likelihood to invest in
upgrades (Figure 5).


 

41
 

Figure 3. Example of Likert-type Barrier Question. Respondents were provided 13 Likert-type items to
rate from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree” to measure the importance of various barriers to
investing in home energy efficiency upgrades All respondents were asked to rate barriers.

Figure 4. Example of Likert-type Benefit Question. Respondents were provided nine Likert-type items
to rate from “Strongly disagree to “Strongly agree” to measure the importance of various motivating
factors in investing in home energy efficiency upgrades. Only participants were asked to rate
motivations.

Figure 5. Example of Likert-type Conditions Question. An example of the question for nonparticipants regarding what conditions may help them to invest in energy efficiency upgrades. The
respondents were provided 9 Likert-type items to rate from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.”
Only Non-participants and DIY/Outside Contractors were asked to respond to this question.


 

42
 

In an attempt to identify methods that participants used to overcome barriers,
they were provided a list of potential methods that they might have used to overcome
the previously stated barriers, and asked to choose all that applied (Figure 6).

Figure 6. How Participants Overcame Barriers Question. Participants were asked to identify all
methods they may have used in order to overcome any barriers to investing in energy efficiency
upgrades. They were asked to choose all that applied.

Procedures
Both surveys were created using SurveyMonkey.com and were sent from the
email address of SustainableWorks’ Director of Marketing and Outreach so they
would come from a recognizable source. The first round of emails were sent at 10:00
am on Thursday, January 16th. A reminder email was sent the following week at 2:00
pm on Wednesday, January 22nd. The survey was closed and no more responses were
collected 12:00 pm on Monday, January 27th.


 

43
 

The surveys began with a letter from the Director of Marketing and Outreach,
explaining that a graduate student was conducting this research. Following that letter,
another letter explained the research in further detail. Finally, a consent form was
required before moving ahead with taking the survey. See the appendices A and B for
the letters and consent form, along with the actual surveys.
As an incentive to complete the survey, participants were able to enter a
random drawing for one of three $50 gift cards to a home improvement store of their
choice (Home Depot, Lowe’s or Ace Hardware). The survey participants were
informed that the survey was completely optional and anonymous, and that it should
take them approximately 10 minutes to complete.

Statistical Analysis
Once the surveys were completed, the data was downloaded from
SurveyMonkey.com into an Excel spreadsheet. Only adequately complete surveys
were included in the data analysis. To be included in the analysis, the respondent had
to have answered if they made any recommended updates after their audit, whether
that was through SustainableWorks or not, and the majority of the Likert-type and
demographic questions. Other measures where taken to ensure complete surveys were
used. For example, if a respondent stated “yes” that they made improvements to their
home outside of the SustainableWorks program, but didn’t identify any of the
upgrades, their responses were not included in the analysis because of their
conflicting response.


 

44
 

The Likert-type data was coded for analysis. The ratings of “strongly
disagree” were given a value of 1, “disagree” a value of 2, “neutral” a value of 3,
“agree” a value of 4, and “strongly agree” a value of 5. The Likert-type rating scales
that have been coded numerically provide ordinal data, since the categories chosen
are intrinsically ordered but can not have true numeric properties because they are not
necessarily evenly distanced (Weisberg, Krosnick & Bowen, 1996). Therefore, some
researchers criticize performing certain statistical tests, such as calculating averages,
on Likert-type rating scale. They propose that the mode - the answer that occurred the
most often – is the most appropriate way to report results. However, both mean and
mode are used in practice. For this reason, both approaches are adopted in this
analysis.
Demographic data was coded for analysis as well. The demographic make-up
of the respondents in each group was calculated to determine the most commonly
reported age range, race, income and education levels, and whether or not children
live in the home. Then the average homes ages and sizes were calculated. To examine
any relationships between household characteristics such as age group or income
level and group type, nonparametric Chi-Square tests of independence were
performed in Excel.

Motivations and Barriers - Descriptive Statistics. Descriptive statistics
were calculated to determine the primary barriers for each group, the primary
motivational factors and methods to overcome barriers for the participants, and the
conditions that could be changed to encourage non-participants to invest in upgrades.


 

45
 

Percentages, mode and the average rating were calculated for each Likert-type
question.

Comparing Barriers Among Groups - Multivariate Analysis. Finally, the
barriers of the groups were compared using multi-response permutation procedures
(MRPP) in PC-ORD software. This determined if there were significant differences in
importance of barriers among the three groups of respondents. Following MRPP, an
ordination graph was created in order to visualize any differences among groups.
To see if there were significant differences between any two of the groups, I
then ran a pair-wise comparison among the groups. I then did a Bonferonni correction
to account for the extra error created when running multiple tests on the same data.
This was followed with a species indicator analysis, to determine if any specific
barrier was significantly different than the rest.


 

46
 

Chapter Four: Results & Discussion
This section will provide an overview of the results of this study, through
descriptive statistics and deeper statistical analysis. It also includes analysis of the
results and recommendations for their use in future social marketing campaigns for
SustainableWorks in the Puget Sound region of Washington State.

Household characteristics
Participants were predominately white (89%), within the age range of 40-69
(76%), and had a variety of education levels with 4% holding an AA or technical
degree, 32% with bachelor’s degrees and 36% with master’s degrees. Nearly half
reported household yearly incomes between $50,000 and $99,000 (46%), with
another 30% reporting an income between $100,000 and $149,000.
DIY/Outside Contractors reported similar demographic factors, with a few
differences. These respondents were also predominately white (91%), within the age
range of 40-69 (71%). Education levels were somewhat different than participants,
with 13% with AA or technical degrees 26% holding bachelor’s degrees, and 33%
with master’s degrees. Again, nearly half reported household yearly incomes between
$50,000 and $99,000 (49%), with 25% reporting an income between $100,000 and
$149,000.
Finally, Non-Participants reported as 89% white, with 82% within the age
range of 40-69. Education levels were similar to the other two groups, with 8%
holding an AA or technical degree, 23% with a bachelor’s degree, and 37% with a


 

47
 

master’s degree. Over 40% reported an income between $50,000 and $99,000 and 17%
reported an income between $100,000 and $149,000.
The average age of all of the homes in the three groups was similar. The
average year built for both Participants and Non-Participants was in 1948, and for the
DIY/Outside Contractor group was in 1945. Because Participant’s homes were not
found to be considerably older, this study does not support Ferguson’s (1993) or
Gamtessa’s (2013) previous findings that age of the home is one of the best variables
used to distinguish those who invest in upgrades and those who don’t.
All groups reported the same average home size, between 1,500 and 1,999
square feet. The majority of all groups reported having no children under the age of
18 living in the home: 67% for Participants, 71% for DIY/Outside Contractors, and
65% for Non-Participants. For complete demographic data for all respondents, see
Appendix C.
Homeowners in older homes, with high levels of education and income may
be more likely to have an audit done, as found in previous studies (Hirst et al., 1981).
However, based on the results of this study, these variables do not appear to have an
effect on whether or not a homeowner is more likely to have upgrades done.

Relationships Between Household Characteristics and Group. Using ChiSquare tests for independence, I was able to examine the relationships between
certain characteristics and whether or not the homeowner invested in efficiency
measures through SustainableWorks, had work completed outside of their
organization, or didn’t invest at all. The test was run for relationships with group type


 

48
 

(Participant, DIY/Outside Contractor, and Non-Participant) and income level, age
range, education level, and house size.
The relationship between all of these variables was not significant. Income
ranges were separated into two group, those who earned under $100,000 per year and
those who earned $100,000 and over X2 (2, N=252) = .09, p=.96). Homeowner’s ages
were divided into those under 50 years old and those 50 and over X2 (2, N=286) = .98,
p=.61). Education levels were grouped into two categories, those with less than a
Bachelor’s degree (high school diploma or GED, associate’s or technical degree, or
some college) and those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (some graduate school, a
graduate degree, a PhD or a professional degree) X2 (2, N=276) = .88, p=.64). Finally,
house sizes were divided into two groups, with houses under 2,000 square feet in one
group and those 2,000 square feet and over in another X2 (2, N=286) = 1.33, p=.33).
Therefore, no demographic factors such as higher income or level of
education, age or house size were shown to have an influence on whether or not a
homeowner was likely to be a participant in the SustainableWorks program. A strong
difference in a demographic characteristic between Participants and the DIY/Outside
Contractor group or the Non-Participant group would have illustrated that that
characteristic would be important to focus on in marketing strategies, as those with
that characteristic would be more likely to follow through with recommended
upgrades through SustainableWorks. For example, it could be hypothesized that those
with higher incomes have more disposable income and are more likely to overcome
the barrier of cost. However, no such differences were found to be significant in this
study.


 

49
 

Some may find the lack of significant differences in characteristics among
groups counter-intuitive. However, just because a homeowner has certain
characteristics doesn’t necessarily mean they will or will not invest in home energy
efficiency. For example, two homeowners with similar income, age and education
might approach home energy efficiency differently if one does not have experience in
home upgrades and is willing to trust SustainableWorks to act as general contractor.
However, the other may be experienced in do-it-yourself projects or know someone
who is professional in the field and could do it for them.
An interesting finding was that there was not a bigger difference among the
three groups in income. However, income may be only one financial aspect to take
into account when one considers making large investments in home upgrades. Other
factors such as savings and other financial commitments such as loans may influence
decisions as well. The finding that average income level was not reported as different
among groups once again illustrates that there are multiple factors relating to
investing in home energy efficiency, each with distinct barriers.
Archer et al. (1987) found that higher disposable income increased the
likelihood of a homeowner investing in energy efficiency upgrades. This study,
however, did not differentiate between income and disposable income, which may be
an important distinction. Black et al. (1985), had more similar findings to this study,
in that income was only indirectly related to the likelihood of investing in efficiency,
through the factor of homeownership.


 

50
 

Motivational Factors
In the survey, participants rated nine motivational factors that led them to the
decision to invest in recommended upgrades. Over half were rated very highly, with a
mode of “strongly agree,” including saving money, concern about carbon footprint,
increasing comfort, supporting a non-profit program, and upgrades being a good
financial investment. Of these motivational factors, saving money was rated highest,
with an average rating of 4.70, followed closely by increasing comfort with an
average of 4.65. Increasing the home’s value and supporting quality jobs followed,
both with modes of “agree.” The lowest rated motivation was having a friend or
family member recommend the upgrades, rated at 2.61 with the most common
response being “not applicable.”
Please rate the importance of the following factors
in your decision to invest in home energy efficiency
upgrades that were recommended after your audit
from SustainableWorks.

Most Common Response
(mode)

Average
(out of 5)

I wanted to save money on my energy bills.

Strongly Agree

4.70

I wanted to reduce my carbon footprint.

Strongly Agree

4.46

I wanted to increase the value of my home.

Agree

3.95

I wanted my home to be more comfortable.

Strongly Agree

4.65

I wanted my home to be safer.

Neutral

3.26

I wanted to support quality jobs.

Agree

3.37

I wanted to support a local, non-profit program.

Strongly Agree

3.90

I felt it was a good financial investment.

Strongly Agree

4.38

A friend or family member recommended increasing
my home’s energy efficiency.

Not Applicable

2.61

Table 1. Participants’ Motivational Factors.


 

51
 

The multiple recognized benefits of investing in home energy upgrades were
illustrated through the fact that the importance of five out of nine motivational factors
were most commonly rated by Participants as “strongly agree,” and none were
commonly rated “disagree” or “strongly disagree.”
Though financial aspects are a common concern when considering investing
in home energy efficiency upgrades, they were also rated as highly motivational, such
as in saving money on energy bills and upgrading energy efficiency as a good
financial investment. Knowing that financial benefits are strong motivational factors
for those who followed through with recommendations through the SustainableWorks
program, they should be highlighted in promotional materials and mentioned by
SustainableWorks staff often.
For other factors that were rated slightly lower, there could be improvement in
highlighting their importance and possibly providing some education about their
benefits.
For example, increasing the resale value of the home was rated most often as “agree,”
so auditors and staff could mention this to those who say they may be interested in
moving somewhat soon. There could also be more emphasis on job creation that the
SustainableWorks program provides, since wanting to support quality jobs was
commonly rated as “agree” as well. While these factors may not be primary
motivators, highlighting them as additional benefits may be of value to a campaign.
Finally, the most common response for the importance of a family member or
friend recommending investing in home energy efficiency was “not applicable,”
illustrating that it was not a important factor in the decision to move forward with


 

52
 

upgrades. Spreading awareness through word-of-mouth may increase the amount of
audits, as found by Kennedy et al. (2000), but based on these findings it may have
less of an affect in the decision to actually invest in the recommendations.

Barriers to Investing in Home Energy Efficiency
In the survey I provided 13 factors that were potential barriers for investing in
upgrades. In the following section, I identify responses from each individual group
and then compare barriers among the three groups.
The differences in groups is best described with central tendency and
summary statistics such as median and mode, but there are times when it is useful to
look at the variation of responses within groups as well. Good example of this are the
barriers of moving soon, believing SustainableWorks’ pricing is too expensive, and
not wanting SustainableWorks to act at the general contractor (see Figures 23, 13 and
16, respectively). In order to visualize the variation, all raw data is included in
horizontal bar graphs (see Figures 7, 8 and 9) with additional graphs of individual
barriers (see Figures 11 through 23).

Participants. For participants, the barrier that had the highest average rating
(mode of “agree,” mean of 3.56 out of 5) with over 50% of the respondents either
agreeing or strongly agreeing, was about affording the project or initial payment. The
two next highly rated barriers were also both related to finances, including being
concerned about the payback period (mean of 2.66) and the return on investment
(mean of 2.41). However, the most common response for these two barriers and the


 

53
 

majority of others was “disagree.” In fact, almost 60% of respondents disagreed or
strongly disagreed about concern of return on investment being an important barrier,
and almost 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed that concern about the payback
period being an important barrier. Somewhat surprisingly, even though financial
concerns were rated the highest among the other barriers, over 25% of respondents
chose strongly disagree that SustainableWorks’ pricing was too expensive, with just
over 10% agreeing or strongly agreeing.
The only two barriers that were most commonly rated as “strongly disagree”
were moving soon (mean of 1.61) and the auditor not being thorough enough (mean
of 1.67).

Figure 7. Participants’ Barriers to Investing in Upgrades. Participants responses when asked, “Were
any of the following factors barriers to moving forward with home energy efficiency improvements?
Please rate the following factors.”


 

54
 

DIY/Outside Contractors. For those who chose to have upgrades done
outside of SustainableWorks, the barrier ranked the highest was also concern about
affording the project/initial payment, with the most common response being “agree”
and almost 74% saying they agreed or strongly agreed (average rating was 3.85 out of
5). There were two other barriers that also had the most common response of “agree,”
that the homeowner didn’t want SustainableWorks to act as the general contractor,
with over 66% stating they agreed or strongly agreed (mean of 3.58), and concern
about the payback period, with 45% stating that they agreed or strongly agreed (mean
of 3.11). The third highly rated concern was that SustainableWorks’ pricing was too
expensive (mean of 3.45), though the most common response was “neutral.”
Both Participants and DIY/Outside contractors rated the same two barriers as
the least concerning, both with a mode of “strongly disagree”: planning on moving
soon was the lowest (mean of 1.86), followed by the auditor not being thorough
enough (mean of 2.08). The rest of the barriers had the most common response of
“disagree.”


 

55
 

Figure 8. DIY/Outside Contractors Group Barriers to Investing in Upgrades. DIY/Outside Contractor
group’s responses when asked, “Were any of the following factors barriers to moving forward with
home energy efficiency improvements? Please rate the following factors.”

Non-Participants. As with the other two groups, Non-Participants rated
concern about affording the project/initial the payment as the highest barrier, with
over 80% agreeing or strongly agreeing. The next two barriers that followed were
concerns were also about finances, including concern about the payback period and
SustainableWorks’ pricing, both with an average rating of 3.21. However, the most
common for both of these barriers was “neutral.”
Again, the majority of responses to the rest of the barriers were “disagree.”
The only barrier that was rated as relatively low for the Non-Participant group was
moving soon, with the most common response being “strongly disagree” (mean of
1.95).


 

56
 

Figure 9. Non-Participants’ Barriers to Investing in Upgrades. Non-Participants responses when asked,
“Were any of the following factors barriers to moving forward with home energy efficiency
improvements? Please rate the following factors.”

Comparison of Barriers Among Groups
Only slight difference in ratings of all barriers between the three groups was
found using MRPP (A=0.03, p=0.00). A Bonferroni correction reduced the necessary
p-value to p=0.016, which is irrelevant since the p-value equaled near zero. No
difference would be illustrated with an agreement statistic “A” of zero, and a very
significant difference would be close to 0.1. The A statistic of 0.03 illustrates that the
three groups identified barriers as a whole very similarly.
The small, but not statistically significant difference in barriers between
groups is represented in the ordination graph in Figure 10. If differences in the three
groups’ ratings of barriers were significantly different from each other, distinct
clusters of points would be visible on the graph, rather than overlapping with only a
small amount of clustering by shape/color.


 

57
 

Figure 10. Ordination Graph of the Three Groups’ Barriers. An ordination graph visually displays the
slight difference in barriers for Participants.

Through pairwise comparisons, individual groups’ barriers are compared to
one another. There was also a slight difference between Participants and DIY/Outside
groups’ barriers and Participants’ and Non-Participants’ barriers (A=0.03, p=0.00 and
A=0.028, p=0.00 respectively). However, no significant difference in ratings of all
barriers was found when comparing DIY/Outside and Non-Participants (A= 0.0022,
p=0.147).


 

58
 

Were any of the following factors barriers to
moving forward with home energy
efficiency improvements? Please rate the
following factors.

Participants Most
Common
Response (mode)

DIY/Outside
Contractors Most
Common
Response (mode)

Non-Participants
Most Common
Response (mode)

Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Return on investment

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Payback period

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Inconvenient to schedule

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Disagreed with recommendations

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Not convinced of the benefits

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No resale value

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Wasn't what I expected

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

More into quick, inexpensive options.

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Didn't want SustainableWorks as contractor

Disagree

Agree

Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Neutral

Affording the project/payment

Moving soon

Auditor wasn't thorough
Pricing too expensive

Table 2. Comparison of Most Common Barriers Across the Three Groups. Most common responses
(mode) from all three groups when asked what factors were barriers to investing in energy efficiency
improvements.

The clear barrier across the three groups is affordability, with both
Participants and the DIY/Outside Contractor group most commonly responding
“agreed” that it was a barrier and Non-Participants responding “strongly agreed.”
This finding is in line with the findings of Leiserowitz, Maibach and Roser-Renouf’s
2009 study that surveyed over 2,000 American adults, and found that the most
frequent reason for not purchasing a variety of energy efficiency upgrades was “I
can’t afford it.” As that report also states, this illustrates the importance of incentives
and rebates are in reducing barriers for homeowners to upgrade their homes. It also


 

59
 

has implications for how SustainableWorks approaches homeowners for whom cost is
a significant barrier: even if they have no other barriers at all, or if the program is able
to help overcome other barriers, this may be significant enough to keep them from
being able to invest in upgrades.
It is easy to understand why many people agreed that affording the project or
initial payment was a barrier. Besides not wanting SustainableWorks as a contractor,
financial barriers were the only other barriers that did not have common responses of
“disagree.” Concern about return on investment, payback period, and pricing being
too expensive all had common responses of “neutral” and “agree.”
An interesting finding from this study was that for all three groups, the most
common response about the importance of a barrier was “disagree.” Out of 13 given
barriers, the large majority of barriers were reported as not important, with the one
exception of difficulty in affording the initial payment or project. Comparing across
groups, the non-participants reported affordability as a more important barrier than
the other two groups.
From the responses, it appears that many barriers are, in fact, not strong
barriers at all. In all three of the groups, six out of the 13 factors were commonly
rated as “disagree” that they were important barriers. These included concern about
return on investment, disagreeing with recommendations, not being convinced of
benefits, not believing it would add to resale value, the audit not being what the
homeowner expected, and being interested in more quick, inexpensive options. One
potential barrier, moving soon, was rated as “strongly disagree” by all three groups.


 

60
 

Comparison of Individual Barriers. With almost 54% of Non-Participants
strongly agreeing about the concern of affording the project or initial payment, they
were more than twice as likely to respond this way than Participants, at 24.3% (see
Figure 11). The average rating of this barrier by Non-Participants was 4.17, larger
than the other two groups’ averages at 3.56 and 3.85, respectively. It was the only
barrier out of all three groups with the most commonly response of “strongly agree.”

Affordability
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

24.32%
 

Disagree
 

Neutral
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 

31.51%
 
53.97%
 

35.14%
 
42.47%
 
26.98%
 

18.92%
 
14.19%
 
7.43%
 

10.96%
 
9.59%
 
5.48%
 

7.94%
 
4.76%
 
6.35%
 

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 11. Barrier of Affordability of Project or Initial Payment. Responses when asked to rate how
concerned the respondent was about affording the project or initial payment.

A few factors showed more disagreement between the groups. In regards to
concern about payback period as an important barrier, participants’ most common
response was disagree, the DIY/Outside Contractor group was agree, and nonparticipants was neutral. Figure 12 shows the distribution of the group’s responses
regarding payback period.


 

61
 

Payback
 Period
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 
2.03%
 
23.65%
 

Disagree
 

Neutral
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 

10.96%
 

17.74%
 

34.25%
 

20.97%
 

17.81%
 

30.65%
 

27.03%
 
34.46%
 

28.77%
 

25.81%
 

12.84%
 

8.22%
 

4.84%
 

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 12. Barrier of concern about payback period. Responses when asked to rate how concerned the
respondent was about the payback period.

The distribution of responses related to the prices of upgrades was even more
varied, with much higher percentages of the DIY/Outside Contractor group strongly
agreed or agreed to the statement “SustainableWorks’ pricing is too expensive” in
comparison with the Participants. This may have been a primary reason why this
group decided to invest in upgrades outside of the SustainableWorks’ program. NonParticipants, however, were most likely to respond as neutral and were less likely to
agree or strongly agree than the DIY/Outside Contractor group (Figure 13).


 

62
 

SustainableWorks'
 Pricing
 too
 
Expensive
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

1.38%
 
8.97%
 

Neutral
 

25.68%
 

22.07%
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
16.13%
 
16.13%
 

22.97%
 
42.07%
 

46.77%
 
29.73%
 
13.51%
 

14.52%
 

8.11%
 

6.45%
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

25.52%
 
Participants
 

Figure 13. Barrier of concern about SustainableWorks’ pricing being too expensive. Responses when
asked about agreement for the statement, “SustainableWorks’ pricing was too expensive.”

The two other financially-related barriers were concern about return-oninvestment, and concern about the investment increasing resale value of the home.
The distributions of ratings were similar for these two factors (see Figures 14 and 15).
Non-Participants were much more likely to strongly agree that they were concerned
about the return on investment than the other groups (Figure 14). For concern about
resale value, the DIY/Outside Contractor group was slightly more likely to strongly
agree about their concern (Figure 15).


 

63
 

Return
 On
 Investment
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

2.68%
 
14.09%
 

Neutral
 

Agree
 

4.17%
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
15.87%
 

19.44%
 

17.46%
 

24.83%
 

18.06%
 
14.29%
 

40.27%
 

40.28%
 

18.12%
 

18.06%
 

15.87%
 

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

36.51%
 

Figure 14. Barrier of concern about return-on-investment. Responses when the respondents were asked
about agreement for the statement, “I didn’t believe there would be a good return on my investment.”

Resale
 Value
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

Neutral
 

1.36%
 
6.12%
 

4.11%
 
6.85%
 

23.13%
 

21.92%
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
1.59%
 
17.46%
 
26.98%
 

41.50%
 

42.47%
 
34.92%
 

27.89%
 

24.66%
 

19.05%
 

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 15. Barrier of concern about resale value. Responses when asked about agreement for the
statement, “I did not feel that the upgrades would add resale value to my home.”


 

64
 

One highly rated factor that both Non-Participants and DIY/Outside group
members often agreed about was the statement, “I did not want SustainableWorks as
a General Contractor” (Figure 16). Though the primary goal of a home energy audit is
that the homeowner will follow through with recommendations through their
organization, it cannot be considered a failure if a portion of clients who participate in
an audit end up having work completed outside of the program. However, if there are
ways to encourage homeowners by increasing credibility such as testimonies from
past clients, this could be one way to convert more audits to finished projects
SustainableWorks’ projects.

Did
 not
 want
 SustainableWorks
 as
 
Contractor
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

0.68%
 
13.51%
 

Neutral
 

18.06%
 

16.89%
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
11.29%
 
32.26%
 

48.61%
 

37.84%
 

24.19%
 
13.89%
 

16.13%
 

31.08%
 

12.50%
 
6.94%
 

16.13%
 

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 16. Barrier of not wanting SustainableWorks to act as the general contractor. Responses when
asked about agreement with the statement, “I wanted the work done but I wasn’t sure I wanted to go
through the SustainableWorks program to make the improvements.”

The next six factors were not related to finances. They include inconvenience
of scheduling (Figure 17), disagreeing with the recommendations (Figure 18), not


 

65
 

being convinced of the benefits (Figure 19), the audit not being what the homeowner
was expecting (Figure 20), being more interested in quick or inexpensive options
(Figure 21) and finally, believing that the auditor was not thorough enough (Figure
22). This distribution of agreement for all of these factors was relatively similar, as
can be seen in the following six figures.

Inconvenient
 to
 Schedule
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

1.39%
 
9.72%
 

2.72%
 
8.84%
 
21.09%
 

Neutral
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
4.84%
 
20.97%
 

29.17%
 
30.65%
 

45.58%
 

43.06%
 
25.81%
 

21.77%
 

16.67%
 

17.74%
 

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 17. Barrier of concern about inconvenience. Responses when the respondents were asked about
agreement for the statement, “It was inconvenient to schedule the work.”


 

66
 

Disagreed
 about
 Recommendations
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

0.00%
 
5.44%
 
12.93%
 

Neutral
 
2.82%
 
2.82%
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
1.56%
 
15.63%
 

26.76%
 

12.50%
 

51.02%
 

39.06%
 

43.66%
 

30.61%
 

31.25%
 

23.94%
 

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 18. Barrier of concern about disagreeing with recommendations. Responses when the
respondents were asked about agreement for the statement, “I disagreed with what was recommended
to me.”

Not
 Convinced
 of
 BeneJits
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

2.03%
 
10.14%
 

Neutral
 

4.11%
 
10.96%
 

16.22%
 

21.92%
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
6.35%
 
23.81%
 
11.11%
 

44.59%
 

36.99%
 

34.92%
 

27.03%
 

26.03%
 

23.81%
 

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 19. Barrier of concern about not being convinced of benefits. Responses when asked about
agreement for the statement, “I was not fully convinced of the benefits of the recommended upgrades.”


 

67
 

Audit
 not
 what
 Expected
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

0.68%
 
4.73%
 

Neutral
 
2.78%
 

Agree
 

7.69%
 

13.89%
 

15.54%
 

Strongly
 Agree
 

18.46%
 

19.44%
 
16.92%
 

41.89%
 
38.89%
 

29.23%
 

25.00%
 

27.69%
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

37.16%
 

Participants
 

Figure 20. Barrier of the audit not being what the homeowner expected. Responses when asked about
agreement for the statement, “The audit was not what I expected.”

Interested
 in
 quicker,
 inexpensive
 options
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 
1.35%
 
6.08%
 

Disagree
 
Neutral
 
4.17%
 
13.89%
 

14.19%
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
1.64%
 
24.59%
 

25.00%
 
26.23%
 

42.57%
 
36.11%
 
35.81%
 

Participants
 

26.23%
 

20.83%
 

21.31%
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 21. Barrier of not being interested in deep upgrades. Responses when asked about agreement
for the statement, “I was more interested in quick, inexpensive options.”


 

68
 

Did
 not
 believe
 Auditor
 was
 Thorough
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 

Disagree
 

0.00%
 
5.41%
 
6.76%
 

Neutral
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 

4.17%
 
8.33%
 

12.31%
 

18.06%
 

13.85%
 
9.23%
 

38.51%
 
30.56%
 

35.38%
 

49.32%
 

Participants
 

38.89%
 

DIY/Outside
 

29.23%
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 22. Barrier of believing that the auditor was not thorough. Responses when asked about
agreement for the statement, “I didn’t feel that the auditor was thorough enough in assessing my
home.”

Finally, the barrier of moving soon was rated low for all groups (Figure 23),
and increasing the value of the home was rated in the bottom half of motivational
factors, which also indicates that it is not something the homeowners are worried
about. They appear to be more interested in the benefits that will affect them sooner,
such as saving money on energy bills, reducing carbon footprint and increasing
comfort, rather than benefits that they will get later on, such as having a home that is
higher in value.
 


 

69
 

Moving
 Soon
 
Strongly
 Disagree
 
Disagree
 
Neutral
 
Agree
 
0.00%
 
2.78%
 
1.37%
 
1.39%
 
6.85%
 
20.83%
 
53.42%
 

9.84%
 
21.31%
 

29.17%
 

21.31%
 

45.83%
 

45.90%
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

38.36%
 

Participants
 

Strongly
 Agree
 
1.64%
 

Figure 23. Barrier of concern about moving soon. Responses when asked to rate concern the
homeowner had with investing because they were planning to move soon.

As is seen from the previous bar charts, though significant differences in
barriers were not found in the three groups overall, comparing the distribution of
agreement provides further insight into the variation of responses.
Overcoming Barriers. When Participants were asked what methods were
used to overcome barriers, the highest response was qualifying for financial
incentives (73%). Forty percent of respondents said they were reassured by the
quality assurance and warranty. Nearly 40% reported doing their own research about
the recommended improvements and 30% asked their auditor for more information.
Financing through SustainableWorks’ partnership was reported by 39%, and
financing through an outside institution was reported by 17%. See Figure 24 for the
rest of the responses.
Participants’ methods of overcoming barriers are in line with the barriers that
were identified as most important. The most common method was qualifying for


 

70
 

financial incentives, which helps to increase affordability. Many also reported
financing through SustainableWorks partner credit union or an outside lender.
It is interesting that people rated concern about return on investment and
payback period somewhat lowly, often as “neutral.” Also, participants didn’t often
identify calculating those as a common way to overcome barriers. The concepts are
more confusing than outright affordability, so they may not be well understood by
homeowners. For example, Kempton, Gladhart and Keefe (1983) found that
homeowners often failed to take into account future price increases and therefore
underestimated potential savings when considering installing insulation in their
homes.

Figure 24. Participants’ Methods of Overcoming Barriers. Participants were asked to select all of the
methods they used to overcome the previously listed barriers.

Conditions that may help non-participants to move forward
Both Non-Participants and the DIY/Outside Contractor groups were asked to
rate conditions that might help them move forward with making home energy


 

71
 

efficiency upgrades. The factor rated highest for both groups was decreasing the cost
through incentives and rebates, with the DIY/Outside Contractor group most
commonly answering agree and the non-participants strongly agreeing (Figure 25).
The averages for that factor where very similar, however, with DIY/Outside
Contractor group’s average at 4.35 out of 5 and Non-Participants with an average of
4.30.

Decrease
 Cost
 through
 Incentives
 &
 
Rebates
 
Not
 Applicable
 

Strongly
 Disagree
  Disagree
 

Neutral
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 

1.35%
 
43.24%
 

51.56%
 

45.95%
 

34.38%
 

6.76%
 

7.81%
 
4.69%
 

1.35%
 
2.70%
 

DIY/Outside
 

1.56%
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 25. Decreasing cost to encourage participation. DIY/Outside Contractor and Non-Participants
responses when asked to rate if decreasing the cost through incentives and rebates could help them
move forward in making upgrades. .

Non-Participants also agreed that more information about how to pay (Figure
26) and more information about the return on investment and/or payback period
would help (Figure 27). These may be areas that could be improved to increase the
number of SustainableWorks clients. Both groups most commonly responded with
“neutral” or “disagree” for the rest of the given conditions.


 

72
 

More
 information
 about
 how
 to
 
pay
 
Not
 Applicable
 

Strongly
 Disagree
  Disagree
 

Neutral
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 

19.44%
 

21.88%
 

11.11%
 
29.69%
 
31.94%
 
25.00%
 
33.33%
 
4.17%
 

17.19%
 

0.00%
 

4.69%
 

DIY/Outside
 

1.56%
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 26. DIY/Outside Contractor and Non-Participants responses when asked to rate if having more
information about how to pay might help them move forward in making upgrades.

More
 information
 about
 ROI/
Payback
 Period
 
Not
 Applicable
 

Strongly
 Disagree
  Disagree
 

Neutral
 

Agree
 

Strongly
 Agree
 

13.89%
 

14.52%
 

25.00%
 

41.94%
 

34.72%
 
24.19%
 

19.44%
 

2.78%
 
4.17%
 

14.52%
 

DIY/Outside
 

4.84%
 

Non-­‐Participants
 

Figure 27. DIY/Outside Contractor and Non-Participants responses when asked to rate if having more
information about return on investment or payback period might help them move forward in making
upgrades.


 

73
 

The most common response for both groups was often “neutral,” which may
indicate that most of the time, more information is not the solution to overcoming
their barriers. Again, financial issues were highlighted with “decrease the cost with
incentives and rebates” being the most agreed upon factor in both groups. The two
groups did not agree on other statements, such as, “provide more information about
how I could pay for the improvements;” the DIY/Outside Contractor group was most
likely to disagree with that statement while the Non-Participants were more likely to
agree.
Would any of the following conditions help you
move forward with making home energy
efficiency upgrades?

DIY/Outside Contractor
most common response

Non-Participants most
common response

Agree

Strongly Agree

More information about how to pay

Disagree

Agree

More information about the work

Neutral

Neutral

More information about ROI/payback period

Neutral

Agree

More convenient to schedule the work

Neutral

Neutral

Improve communication

Neutral

Disagree

Make the recommendations easier to understand

Neutral

Neutral

Help me better understand the value of making
home energy efficiency improvements.

Neutral

Neutral

More info about the program/quality assurance

Disagree

Neutral

Decrease the cost

Table 3. Most Common Response Regarding Conditions to Encourage Non-Participant and
DIY/Outside Contractor groups to Invest in Upgrades. Most common responses (mode) from
DIY/Outside contractor and Non-Participant groups when asked what factors were barriers to investing
in energy efficiency improvements.

The Non-Participants were also more likely to agree that they would like more
information about the return on investment and/or payback period, while the
DIY/Outside contractor group was neutral. These comparisons give a little more


 

74
 

insight into what barriers the groups have, and how they may differ. For example, for
those who did some of the recommended upgrades outside of SustainableWorks (the
DIY/Outside Contractor group), more information about how to pay will likely not
affect them, whereas it may help the homeowners in the Non-Participant group to
better understand their options and could possibly increase their likelihood to invest.
It also provides some insight into what SustainableWorks is doing well, and
thus what the organization does not need to take great strides for improvement. For
example, Non-Participants’ most common response about the need to improve
communication was “disagree,” showing that this is not a problem for that group.
Also, DIY/Outside Contractor group most often responded “disagree” that they
needed more information about quality assurance. This allows the SustainableWorks
staff to better understand what is working well, and where they should put effort into
improvement.

Figure 28. Conditions to Help DIY/Outside Contractor Group to Invest in Upgrades. DIY/Outside
Contractor group’s responses when asked, “Would any of the following conditions help you move
forward with making home energy efficiency upgrades? Select all that apply.”


 

75
 

Figure 29. Conditions to Help Non-Participants Invest in Upgrades. Non-participant responses when
asked, “Would any of the following conditions help you move forward with making home energy
efficiency upgrades? Select all that apply.”

Implications and Recommendations for Social Marketing Campaigns
SustainableWorks already uses many social marketing techniques that attempt
to reduce barriers, including utilization of neighborhood block leaders, attending
various community events and working with local community organizations.
Partnering with local municipalities and utilities has helped to increase both their
reach and their credibility. By acting as a general contractor, they remove the barrier
of homeowners having to find multiple sub-contractors. They also have removed the
inconvenience of having to apply for multiple rebates and incentives; the amounts are
removed from the SustainableWorks bill immediately and their staff works to apply
for the rebates through the state and local utilities on the homeowners’ behalf.
These are great ways to overcome barriers, but if the only commonly reported
barrier is affordability, to increase participation more must be done to bring the prices


 

76
 

down in some way. While they are able to provide some incentives above what the
local utilities and state provides, this is apparently not enough to overcome the barrier
of cost for many homeowners.
Even though the amount of subsidies provided by utilities and the state is out
of control of SustainableWorks, there are a few things that could help homeowners to
better realize the cost savings of investing in home energy efficiency over time. The
organization already provides the client a prioritized list of recommended work after
the comprehensive audit, starting with the projects that would have the highest impact
for their cost, or “bang for their buck.”
To further remove barriers related to finances, a tailored, easy-to-understand
explanation of how the investment can financially benefit the homeowner should be
provided. This is especially true in regards to the concepts of return on investment
and payback periods, which can be difficult to calculate. This explanation can help to
illustrate that even with high initial cost, energy efficiency upgrades can be wise
investments over time. Also, highlighting the partnership that SustainableWorks has
with a local credit union can encourage homeowners to invest. However, if a
homeowner simply does not have the capital to make the initial payment, these points
are irrelevant.
Home energy audits provide a very important step to making the decision to
have retrofit work done. This opportunity to have face-to-face interaction with
homeowners allows organizations like SustainableWorks to help overcome potential
barriers, especially reducing uncertainty and gaining trust in the program. Research
like this study in which I attempt to identify the most significant barriers is crucial to


 

77
 

effectively use this valuable time with homeowners. Studies have found that the most
effective information to promote home energy efficiency is simple, relevant, and
easily understandable, rather than very technical, factual information that is difficult
for the homeowner to relate to (Kempton & Montgomery, 1982; Yates & Aronson,
1983).
Home energy audits not only offer homeowners the rare ability to have
personal contact with someone in their own home, they also provide auditors the
ability to use a variety of social marketing tools in order to encourage homeowners to
choose to make their home more energy efficient. The following section provides
some possible methods to overcome a variety of barriers, using the home energy audit
as an opportunity to tailor their messaging to the specific homeowner.

Using Social Marketing Techniques during Home Energy Audits
Primarily, audits allow an opportunity for education, through explaining
options for increasing energy efficiency by literally walking the homeowner through
the home, explaining how it consumes energy. The auditor then provides a
comprehensive report to go over. It helps to reduce uncertainty by listing potential
upgrades in order of which changes will be most effective in conserving energy and
most cost effective. When an organization is able to act not only as auditor but also as
a general contractor, like SustainableWorks does, the difficulty of finding a reliable
contractor is removed as well. Studies have found that programs that did all of these
elements were much more successful than those that only did one or two (Stern et al.,
1986; Stern, 2000).


 

78
 

In a review of home audit programs, Hirst (1984) comes to the conclusion that
auditors should spend more time with household members rather than just collecting
the necessary measurements. By encouraging them to participate in the audit, the
auditor can attempt to make the homeowner more interested in the process. This will
likely also increase their commitment to conservation measures in general. Gonzales
et al (1988) states that involving the homeowner in the process invokes the feeling
that they care about the audit, which in turn makes them feel like they should follow
through with improving their home’s efficiency. In spending more time interacting
with household members, less time should be spent on the technical details of the
audit. This is not an issue, according to Hirst (1984), who states that in a comparison
of technical versus simple procedures, the simpler audits were just as effective.
Framing can be used in an audit situation as well. Rather than explaining
benefits of upgrades in terms of saving or gaining money, auditors can refer to the
current losses that the homeowner is experiencing by not having an insulated home or
having an inefficient technology (Gonzales et al., 1988).
There is an important need to take time to explain the benefits of investing in
home energy efficiency. Even if the auditor provides perfectly accurate information,
if it is not presented in a manner that is very understandable and easy to act upon,
then the audit will likely fail to encourage the desired behavior, which is improving
the energy efficiency of the home (Yates & Aronson, 1983). For example, many
homeowners do not appropriately measure the amount of energy they use, often
measuring their consumption in dollars rather than technical units such as kilowatthours, which is inaccurate since rates can change. Kempton and Montgomery (1982)


 

79
 

refer to this as “folk quantification.” This often creates an inaccurate picture of how
much energy they are consuming and makes their cost-benefit analyses inaccurate. If
home auditors can clearly explain energy consumption and the potential return on
investment, homeowners may be more likely to invest in retrofit work.
In order to use the tool of social diffusion, the actions of the homeowners must
be made more visible to their friends and neighbors. One way SustainableWorks does
this is by providing yard signs to clients who implement the recommended upgrades.
They also provide case studies on their website with photos of clients in front of their
home with “before and after” information including costs of heating, energy use, and
tons of carbon emitted.

Limitations To This study
One limitation to this study was the ability to analyze Likert-type data. As
mentioned before, it is not entirely appropriate to assume equal distances between
each given option on the 5-point scale, so some liberty was taken with the decision to
report results as averages.
Another limitation was the inability to ask further question in a survey, as
would be possible in focus groups. For example, after asking a homeowner to rate the
importance of a factor, a follow up question could have been asked to explain their
choice and gain further insight into how the homeowner makes his or her decision.


 

80
 

Recommendations for Future Research
This research brings up other questions that can be further investigated.
Though most motivational factors were rated highly, having respondents rank their
top motivations would provide better insight into what is truly important in making
their decision. This would allow practitioners to design campaigns completely
tailored to the homeowner’s strongest motivational factors.
The effect of increasing knowledge through education could also researched for
the factors that were identified as barriers and motivators. For example, does
increasing knowledge about how much money can be saved increase that factor as a
motivator? For a barrier such as concern about payback period, could calculating the
specific payback period for each homeowner reduce this concern?
Since affordability was the only highly rated concern, it would be beneficial to
research further into this problem for homeowners. Though income level was not
shown to be different among groups, there are other financial factors such as savings
and debt that may play a large part into whether or not a homeowner can afford the
initial payment or project cost.
Finally, another interesting follow-up study would be identifying the reasons that
the DIY/Outside contractor group did not want to use SustainableWorks as their
general contractor. It is possible that some had personal or professional connections
to contractors who could do the upgrades, or they were able to do the upgrades
themselves. However, finding out if there were any other reasons may benefit
SustainableWorks in contracting the highest possible percentage of those who have
audits through the organization.


 

81
 

Chapter Five: Conclusion
This survey of nearly 300 homeowners in the Puget Sound region of
Washington State who had home energy audits conducted for their homes by
SustainableWorks found no significant difference in demographic characteristics or
ratings of barriers among the Participants, DIY/Outside Contractor group and NonParticipants. Studies that attempt to identify important barriers are crucial to a social
marketing campaign. If barriers are assumed, much time and money may be wasted in
overcoming barriers that simply do not exist for the target audience.
The only factor that was commonly rated as a barrier was the affordability of
the project or initial payment, and that held true for all three groups. Understandably,
the two groups who did not participate in the SustainableWorks program were more
likely to report that they did not want SustainableWorks to act as a general contractor.
Also, the DIY/Outside Contractor group was more likely to be concerned about the
length of the payback period.
By continuing practices to reduce uncertainty while increasing credibility and
knowledge of the numerous benefits of increasing a home’s efficiency,
SustainableWorks can continue to work to overcome the barriers that are within their
control. One opportunity for improvement may be to better explain payment options
and provide more information about the return on investment and payback period for
investments, since both of these factors were identified by non-participants as
something that may help them move forward with making upgrades.
Though ideally homeowners who have audits would move forward with
upgrades through SustainableWorks, the audits can be considered partially successful


 

82
 

from the finding that over half of the homeowners do invest in some upgrades,
whether through another contractor or doing it themselves. Future research could
identify why some homeowners chose to implement the work outside of
SustainableWorks in attempt to encourage more to take advantage of the non-profit,
state-funded program.
SustainableWorks already utilizes many social marketing techniques and tools
in their program to encourage homeowners to have home energy audits and efficiency
upgrades. The finding that many factors were not identified as barriers to investing in
efficiency upgrades may be a testament to their neighborhood-based, communityorganizing model that utilizes partnerships with community organizations and
volunteers.


 

83
 

Appendices
Appendix A: Participant Survey

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
 

Dear
  SustainableWorks
  Participant,  
Thank
 you
 for
 participating
 in
 the
 SustainableWorks
 program.
 You
 are
 receiving
 this
 letter
 because
 
you
  have
  participated
  in
  a
  home
  energy
  assessment
  with
  SustainableWorks.
   
SustainableWorks
  is
  one
  of
  eight
  non-­‐profit
 organizations
 in
 Washington
 State
 helping
 homeowners
 
save
  energy
  through
  home
  energy
  assessments
  and
  improvements.
  Our
  community-­‐based
  program
 
believes
 in
 the
 continued
 improvement
 of
 our
 services
 through
 input
 from
 our
 community
 and
 
program
 participants.
   
Our
  organization
  has
  been
  asked
  by
  Jana
  Fischback,
  Master
  of
  Environmental
  Studies
  Candidate
  with
 
The
  Evergreen
  State
  College,
  to
  participate
  in
  her
  graduate
  study
  about
  what
  motivates
  people
  to
 
improve
 their
 home
 for
 energy
 efficiency
 and
 what
 some
 of
 the
 barriers
 are
 for
 making
 
improvements.
 Ms.
 Fischback
 provides
 more
 information
 about
 her
 study
 in
 the
 following
 
documentation.
 Your
 participation
 in
 the
 study
 will
 help
 us
 better
 understand
 the
 opportunities
 and
 
challenges
  around
  home
  energy
  efficiency
  in
  our
  community.
  This
  study
  is
  completely
  optional,
  and
 
only
 Ms.
 Fischback
 will
 see
 your
 personal
 responses
 to
 the
 survey.  
Thank
 you
 for
 your
 participation
 in
 the
 SustainableWorks
 program.
 If
 you
 have
 any
 questions
 about
 
SustainableWorks,
  please
  contact
  me
  at
  (206)
  575-­‐2252
 or
  kellie.stickney@sustainableworks.com.  
Sincerely,  
Kellie
  Stickney  
Director
  of
  Marketing
  and
  Outreach  
 

Dear
  Participant,  
I
 am
 a
 graduate
 student
 at
 The
 Evergreen
 State
 College
 earning
 my
 Masters
 of
 Environmental
 
Studies.
  As
  part
  of
  my
  thesis
  research,
  I
  am
  studying
  motivations
  and
  barriers
  to
  energy
  efficiency
 
improvements
  for
  homeowners
  in
  Washington
  State.
  The
  purpose
  of
  my
  project
  is
  to
  gather
 
information
  about
  homeowners
  who
  have
  had
  energy
  audits
  and
  produce
  a
  thesis
  research
  paper
 
and
 presentation
 about
 my
 findings.
   
Your
 responses
 will
 be
 confidential
 and
 the
 survey
 will
 not
 collect
 identifying
 information
 such
 as
 
your
  name,
  email
  address
  or
  IP
  address.
  All
  data
  is
  stored
  in
  a
  password
  protected
  electronic
  format.
 
Only
  I will
  be
  able
  to
  access
  your
  individual
  responses
  to
  the
  survey.
  Aggregates
  and
  summaries
  of
 
the
  responses,
  however,
  will
  be
  shared
  with
  SustainableWorks
  and
  may
  appear
  in
  publications
  and
 
presentations
 of
 the
 research
 findings.  
Page 1


 

84
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
Your
  participation
  is
  completely
  voluntary.
  You
  may
  withdraw
  your
  participation
  at
  any
  point
  or
  skip
 
any
  question
  you
  do
  not
  wish
  to
  answer
  without
  penalty.
  As
  a
  way
  of
  thanking
  those
  who
  participate,
 
all
  participants
  who
  complete
  the
  survey
  will
  be
  entered
  in
  a
  random
  drawing
  for
  one
  of
  three
 
$50
  gift
  cards
  to
  a
  home
  improvement
  store
  of
  your
  choice
  (Home
  Depot,
  Lowes,
  or
  Ace
 
Hardware).
   
If
  you
  have
  any
  questions
  about
  this
  project
  or
  your
  participation
  in
  it,
  you
  can
  email
  me
  at
 
fisjan16@evergreen.edu.
 The
  person
  to
  contact
  if
  you
  experience
  problems
  as
  a
  result
  of
  your
 
participation
  in
  this
  project
  is
  John
  McLain,
  Academic
  Grants
  Manager
  at
  The
  Evergreen
  State
  College,
 
Library
 3821,
 Olympia,
 WA
 98505;
 Phone
 (360)
 867-­‐6045.
   
Thank
  you
  for
  your
  participation.  
Sincerely,
 
Jana
  Fischback  
Master
 of
 Environmental
 Studies
 Candidate  

Consent Form

 

Page 2


 

85
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
I
 hereby
 agree
 to
 serve
 as
 a
 participant
 in
 the
 research
 project
 titled
 “Motivations
 for
 and
 Barriers
 
to
 Energy
 Efficiency
 Investments
 for
 Homeowners
 in
 Washington
 State.”
  It
 has
 been
 explained
 to
 
me
  that
  its
  purpose
  is
  to
  gather
  information
  about
  my
  home
  energy
  audit
  and
  reasons
  why
  I
  did
  or
 
did
  not
  move
  forward
  with
  recommended
  upgrades.
  This
  online
  survey
  should
  take
  about
  10
 
minutes.  
I
  also
  understand
  that
  my
  responses
  will
  be
  reported
  in
  publications
  and
  presentations
  of
  the
 
research
  findings,
  and
  my
  identity
  will
  be
  kept
  confidential
  and
  no
  identifying
  information
  about
  me
 
will
 be
 included.
 Ms.
 Fischback
 has
 agreed
 to
 provide,
 at
 my
 request,
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 final
 draft
 of
 the
 
research
 report.
   
I
 understand
 that
 the
 risks
 to
 me
 are
 minimal,
 would
 likely
 be
 nothing
 more
 than
 inconvenience
 
from
 filling
 out
 the
 survey
 and
 sharing
 about
 my
 reasons
 on
 why
 I
 did
 or
 didn’t
  move
  forward
  with
 
recommended
  energy
  efficiency
  upgrades.
  I
  understand
  the
  results
  from
  my
  personal
  survey
  will
 
only
  be
  seen
  by
  Ms.
  Fischback
  and
  her
  faculty
  advisor.
  The
  findings
  of
  the
  research
  will
  be
  shared
 
with
  SustainableWorks
  after
  Ms.
  Fischback
  has
  processed
  the
  data
  and
  my
  identity
  will
  remain
 
confidential.
   
I
 understand
 that
 I
 can
 skip
 any
 question
 or
 stop
 the
 survey
 and
 withdraw
 my
 full
 participation
 
from
  the
  research
  at
  any
  time
  without
  penalty.
  I
  understand
  that
  if
  I
  have
  any
  questions
  about
  this
 
project
  or
  my
  participation
  in
  it,
  I
  can
  contact
  Mrs.
  Fischback
  at
  fisjan16@evergreen.edu.
  Likewise,
 
the
 person
 to
 contact
 if
 I
 experience
 problems
 as
 a
 result
 of
 my
 participation
 in
 this
 project
 is
 John
 
McLain,
 Academic
 Grants
 Manager
 at
 The
 Evergreen
 State
 College,
 Library
 3821,
 Olympia,
 WA
 
98505;
  Phone
  (360)
  867‐6045.
   

*1. By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you are at least 18 years old, have
read and understood this consent form and agree to participate in this research study.
 I  Agree





 

Questions 2-­6

 I  Do  Not  Agree





 

 

2.
How did you hear of SustainableWorks?
 

Page 3


 

86
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
3.
When did you have a home energy audit performed? (If exact date is unknown, please estimate)
MM

DD

YYYY

/

Date  /  Time

/

4.
Which upgrades did you invest in through SustainableWorks? (Please check all that apply)
 Attic  insulation  




 Wall  insulation  





 
 

 Insulation  of  flooring  or  crawl  space  




 Air-­sealing





 

 

 Duct-­sealing





 

 New  hot  water  heater





 

 New  furnace  or  heating  system




 New  heat  pump




 New  windows





 

 

 

 Solar  PV  system





 

Other  (please  specify)  




5. After your audit, did you make any of the recommended home energy efficiency
improvements outside of the SustainableWorks program?
 

 Yes




 No





 

Page 4


 

87
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
6.
If yes, which types of improvements did you make?
 Attic  insulation




 Wall  insulation





 
 

 Insulation  of  flooring  or  crawl  space




 Air-­sealing





 

 

 Duct-­sealing





 

 New  hot  water  heater





 

 New  furnace  or  heating  system




 New  heat  pump




 New  windows





 

 

 

 Solar  PV  system





 

Other  (please  specify)  




Question 7

 

Page 5


 

88
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
7.
Please rate the importance of the following factors in your decision to invest in home energy
efficiency upgrades that were recommended after your audit from SustainableWorks.

I  wanted  to  save  money  on  

Strongly  Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly  Agree

N/A





































































































































































































































































































































my  energy  bills.
I  wanted  to  reduce  my  
carbon  footprint.
I  wanted  to  increase  the  
value  of  my  home.
I  wanted  my  home  to  be  
more  comfortable.
I  wanted  my  home  to  be  
safer.
I  wanted  to  support  quality  
jobs.
I  wanted  to  support  a  local,  
non-­profit  program.
I  felt  it  was  a  good  financial  
investment.
A  friend  or  family  member  
recommended  increasing  
my  home’s  energy  
efficiency.
Other  (please  specify)  




Question 8

 

Page 6


 

89
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
8. Were any of the following factors barriers to moving forward with home energy
efficiency improvements? Please rate the following factors.
Strongly  Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly  Agree

N/A





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































I  was  concerned  about  
affording  the  project  or  
initial  payment.
I  didn’t  believe  there  would  
be  a  good  return  on  my  
investment.
I  felt  the  payback  period  in  
the  investment  might  be  too  
long.
It  was  inconvenient  to  
schedule  the  work.
I  disagreed  with  what  was  
recommended  to  me.
I  was  not  fully  convinced  of  
the  benefits  of  the  
recommended  upgrades.
I  was  planning  to  move  
soon  so  I  wasn’t  sure  about  
investing  in  the  home.
I  did  not  feel  that  the  
upgrades  would  add  resale  
value  to  my  home.
The  audit  wasn’t  what  I  
expected.
I  was  more  interested  in  
quick,  inexpensive  options.
I  wanted  the  work  done  but  I  
wasn’t  sure  I  wanted  to  go  
through  SustainableWorks’  
program  to  make  the  
improvements.
I  didn’t  feel  the  auditor  did  
a  thorough  enough  job  in  
assessing  my  home.
SustainableWorks’  pricing  
was  too  expensive.
Other  (please  specify)  




Questions 9 & 10

 

Page 7


 

90
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
9.
How did you overcome any of the barriers listed previously? Select all that apply.
 I  qualified  for  incentives  to  reduce  the  project  cost.





 

 I  used  the  financing  through  SustainableWorks  to  help  finance  the  project.




 I  financed  the  work  separately  from  SustainableWorks’  partner  lender.





 

 

 I  asked  my  auditor  for  more  information  about  the  improvements  and  my  options.




 I  found  out  more  information  by  reading  through  my  audit  report.




 I  did  my  own  research  about  the  recommended  improvements.




 I  was  reassured  by  the  quality  assurance  and  warranty.





 

 

 

 I  know  of  others  who  have  invested  and  been  satisfied  with  their  results.




 I  calculated  the  return-­on-­investment  or  payback  time.





 

 

 

Other  (please  specify)  




10. Please share anything else you’d like about your experience with SustainableWorks:

  

Demographic Information

 

11. Are you the primary decision-­maker for your household?
 Yes,  or  equal  with  another





 

 No,  someone  else  is  the  primary  decision  maker





 

 

Page 8


 

91
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
12. Which category below includes your age?
 17  or  younger




 18-­20




 21-­29




 30-­39




 40-­49




 50-­59




 60-­69





 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 70  or  older





 

13. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
  

14. What is your race?
 White





 

 Black  or  African-­American





 

 American  Indian  or  Alaskan  Native




 Asian





 

 

 Native  Hawaiian  or  other  Pacific  Islander




 From  multiple  races





 

 

Some  other  race  (please  specify)  




Home Information

 

15. Do any children aged 17 or younger live in your household?
 No





 
 

 Yes





Page 9


 

92
 

SustainableWorks Participant Survey
16. What is your approximate average household income?
 $0-­$24,999





 

 $25,000-­$49,999




 $50,000-­$74,999




 $75,000-­$99,999





 
 
 

 $100,000-­$124,999




 $125,000-­$149,999




 $150,000-­$174,999




 $175,000-­$199,999




 $200,000  and  up





 
 
 
 

 

17. In what year was your house built? (Please estimate if exact year is unknown)
 

18. What is the approximate size of your home?
 Less  than  1,000  square  feet




 1,000-­1,499  square  feet




 1,500-­1,999  square  feet




 2,000-­2,499  square  feet




 2,500-­2,999  square  feet





 

 
 
 
 

 3,000  square  feet  or  more





 

Drawing for one of three $50 gift cards

 

Thank  you  for  participating  in  my  thesis  research.  Your  responses  will  be  kept  completely  confidential.  If  you  would  like  to  be  entered  into  
the drawing to win one of three $50 gift cards to  a  home  improvement  store  of  your  choice,  please  provide  your  contact  information  below.  This  
information  will  be  in  no  way  linked  with  your  responses.  

19. Contact Information
Email Address
Phone Number

20. If your name is drawn, which store would you like a gift card to?
 Home  Depot




 Lowe's





 

 

 Ace  Hardware





 

 
Page 10


 

93
 

Appendix B: Non-Participant Survey
Note: Only the additional question for Non-Participants and DIY/Outside is included.
The rest of the survey was similar to the Participant survey found in Appendix A.
SustainableWorks Survey
Questions 8 & 9

 

8.
Would any of the following conditions help you move forward with making home energy efficiency
upgrades? Select all that apply.

Decrease  the  cost  of  

Strongly  Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly  Agree

N/A





































































































































































































































































































































upgrades  through  increased  
incentives  and  rebate  
programs.
Provide  more  information  
about  how  I  could  pay  for  
the  home  energy  efficiency  
improvements.
Provide  more  information  
about  how  the  work  would  
be  performed.
Provide  more  information  
about  my  return  on  my  
investment  or  the  payback  
period.
Make  it  more  convenient  to  
schedule  the  work,  such  as  
evenings,  weekend  and  
non-­traditional  hours.
Improve  communication  
during  the  whole  process.
Make  the  recommended  
improvements  easier  to  
understand.
Help  me  better  understand  
the  value  of  making  home  
energy  efficiency  
improvements.
Provide  more  information  
about  the  program  and  
quality  assurance.

9. Please share anything else you’d like about your experience with SustainableWorks:

  

 

Page 7


 

94
 

Appendix C: Demographic Information

 
Age
21-29

Participants
 

DIY/Outside
 

Non-­‐Participants
 


 


 


 

1.38%

5.41%

2.99%

30-39

15.86%

14.86%

10.45%

40-49

22.07%

22.97%

32.84%

50-59

24.83%

28.38%

28.36%

60-69

28.97%

20.27%

20.90%

6.90%

8.11%

4.48%

HS/GED

3.62%

1.37%

0%

< College

10.87%

8.22%

10.77%

Bachelors

31.88%

13.70%

7.69%

Associates

3.62%

26.03%

23.08%

<Graduate

4.35%

9.59%

10.77%

Graduate

36.23%

32.88%

36.92%

8 PhD

2.90%

4.11%

7.69%

Professional

6.52%

4.11%

3.08%

2.44%

1.45%

1.67%

$25-49

11.38%

10.14%

15.00%

$50-74

21.95%

21.74%

21.67%

$74-99

24.39%

27.54%

20.00%

$100-124

19.51%

11.59%

15.00%

$125-149

9.76%

13.04%

1.67%

$150-174

4.07%

5.80%

10.00%

$175-199

3.25%

0%

8.33%

$200+
3.25%
Home size (approximate square
feet)

8.70%

6.67%

<1000

10.96%

4.11%

10.45%

1000-1499

27.40%

27.40%

16.42%

1500-1999

24.66%

28.77%

25.37%

2000-2499

21.23%

21.92%

22.39%

2500-2999

8.90%

6.85%

16.42%

3000+

6.85%

10.96%

8.96%

70+
Education level

Income (thousands of dollars)
Under $24

Home Age
Mode
Average

1954

1955

1904

1948.36

1945.64

1948.66


 

95
 

Appendix D: Example of Energy Performance Report from SustainableWorks


 

96
 

Energy Performance Score
What is the Energy Performance Score?
A C ertifie d Score The Energy Performance Score calculation is based on a home energy assessment. Anyone may use the EPS
assessment methodology for evaluating energy performance and upgrades of a home, but only a certified EPS analyst has been trained
and qualified to conduct an EPS.

Energy

Carbon

E n ergy Score C a lcul a tion The energy score is based on a
home's shape, size, insulation levels, air leakage, heating and
cooling systems, major appliances, lighting, and hot water
heating. Occupancy, behavior, indoor temperature, and regional
weather are standardized to calculate normal energy use. A
home’s actual energy use will vary with behavior, weather, and
changes to the home.

C arbon Score C a lcul a tion The Carbon Score is based on the
greenhouse gas emissions for the annual amounts, types, and
sources of fuels used in the home. For electricity, the carbon
emissions are based on electricity consumed and the mix of
sources used in the sub-region. For natural gas, heating oil, and
propane, carbon emissions are based on the therms or gallons
used in the home.

M e a sure m e nts D e fin e d
Electricity is measured in kilowatt hours (kWh). Natural gas is
measured in therms. Oil and propane are measured in gallons
(gal). Units of energy can be converted from one to another. Total
energy use is represented in kilowatt hour equivalents.

M e a sure m e nts D e fin e d
While site energy is used to determine a home's annual energy
consumption, source energy is used to calculate the home's
associated carbon emissions. This is reflected in the sub-region
emissions factor for electricity.
B e nchm arks D e fin e d
†With e n ergy from re n ewa ble sourc e s indicates the carbon
emissions produced if the homeowner chooses to offset the
carbon emissions associated with electrical use. Check with your
utilities to learn more about these options.
Aft er Upgra d e s indicates the improvement in the predicted
carbon emissions if all of the Recommended Energy Upgrades
suggested on the Energy Analysis Report are implemented.

E n ergy Costs - Fuel costs are based on prices at the time the
EPS is issued* and do not include taxes, surcharges, or fees for
renewable energy.
B e nchm arks D e fin e d
Aft er Upgra d e s indicates the improvement in the predicted
energy use if the lower and higher cost Recommended Energy
Upgrades are implemented.

Wa shington Average is the average carbon emissions of
households in Washington State as of 2007.
Wa shington Targe t is equivalent to 50% of the Washington
Average carbon emissions benchmark, and is associated with a
single family residence in Washington.

Wa shington Average is the average energy use of households in
Washington State as of 2006.
Wa shington Targe t is equivalent to 50% of the Washington
average energy use, and represent the state's energy reduction
goals.

*Estimated energy costs are based on the following rates.
Ele ctric = $0.08 / kWh

Oil = $2.95 /gal

N a tura l G a s = $1.07 / therm

Prop a n e = $3.45 /gal

Page 2 of 17


 

97
 

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT
Date:

10 / 1 / 13

Reference Number:
Address:

530500858
Jana Fischback
4107 N 36th St
Tacoma, WA 98407

Contents
•
•
•
•

Annual Estimated Energy Use and Fuel Costs
Comparing Your Utility Bills with the EPS Score
Summary of Energy Performance Related Elements
Summary of Recommended Energy Upgrades

•
•
•
•

Detailed Notes Explaining Energy Upgrades
Energy Upgrade Descriptions
No- and Low-Cost Energy-Savings Strategies
Financial Incentives

Annual Estimated Energy Use and Fuel Costs
Current Home

Heating

After Upgrades

Energy (kWhe)*

Fuel Cost †

Carbon (tons)

Energy (kWhe)*

Fuel Cost †

Carbon (tons)

33,900

$1,239

6.1

13,800

$503

2.5

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Water Heating

6,000

$220

1.1

6,000

$220

1.1

Lighting & Appliances

10,500

$894

3.5

10,300

$876

3.4

Total (Rounded-off)

50,000‡

$2,353

10.7

30,000

$1,599

7.0

Cooling

*All energy forms are converted to their electrical energy equivalents, expressed in kilowatt-hours electric (kWhe).
†Fuel costs are based on prices at the time this report is issued and do not include taxes and surcharges.
‡Total Annual Estimated Energy Use is rounded to the nearest 1000 kWhe.

Comparing Your Utility Bills with the EPS Score
You can determine how your household's energy use compares
to the estimated average use for your home by comparing the
energy totals on your utility bills with the EPS Score.
To calculate your actual annual energy use, you will need to
know the amount of energy that you used for each fuel type in
your home for a full year. This information is available on your
utility bills. The formulas on the back of the EPS Scorecard will
allow you to convert combustion fuels to KWH. The EPS Score
should be compared to the annual totals of all fuel types.

Bedrooms: 4
Year Built: 1944

If th e tot als from your utility bills are:
• lower than the Energy Score, you are using less energy
than would be average for your home. Reasons for this may
include housing fewer people than would be average in this
home, and /or the occupants of this home are using energy
more conservatively than is typical.
• similar to the Energy Score, you are using a typical amount
of energy for the condition of your home.
• high er than the Energy Score, you are using more energy
than average for your home. Reasons for this may include
housing more people than would be average in this home,
and /or occupants in this home are using more energy than
is typical. There may be no- and low-cost ways that you can
use to save energy.

Audit Date: 09 / 30 / 2013
Auditor Sustainable Works
Vollan, David

SIMPLE EPS Version 2.0 v20121005

Page 3 of 17


 

98
 

Energy Performance Score
Summary of Energy Performance Related Elements
Element

Description

Notes

Current Performance
Very Poor • Poor • Average • Good • Excellent

Air Leakage How tight your
home is against air leaks.

Major leakage areas include: Attic
hatch, Crawl space doors

You are losing about 60% of all the hot
air out of your home every hour. See
detailed notes.

Ceiling and Attic The

Batts

You have about 3" or less of insulation in
your attic. Energy Code today calls for
18" of fiberglass insulation (R49). See
detailed notes.

Ducts How well sealed and
insulated are the ducts.

All ducts in conditioned space

Your heating system duct work is located
within heated space so any losses will
flow up into your rooms above.

Walls The amount of
insulation inside the walls.

2x4

While you have some insulation in the
remodeled walls on the top floor your
main floor walls are not insulated. See
detailed notes.

amount of insulation above the
ceiling or in the roof.

Floors / Foundation Walls

Most of your basement walls are
insulated. You aren't going to see
significant savings by insulating the last
bit. See detailed notes.

Windows The insulation value Single pane, Double pane, Wood frame,
of the windows.
Vinyl frame, Metal frame

You have quite a mixture of window
types but from a comfort / efficiency
perspective windows should be your last
priority. See detailed notes.

Water Heating How efficient Gas, Storage tank

Your gas water heater isn't the most
efficient option but all the alternatives
are really expensive. See detailed notes.

Lights and Appliances How Energy Star Refrigerator, Energy Star

About 75% of your lighting is inefficient.
Your appliances are efficient with the
exception of your washing machine. See
detailed notes.

The amount of insulation below
the floors.

and insulated is the hot water
system.
efficient are the lighting and
appliances.

dishwasher, Electric clothes dryer

Heating How efficient is the
heating system.

Below 78% efficient

You have probably the oldest gas
furnace I have ever seen:) and it
probably is the original one that came
with the house. See detailed notes.

Cooling How efficient is the
cooling system.

None

N /A

Very Poor

Poor

Not Applicable

Poor

Average

Poor

Average

Poor

Very Poor

Not Applicable

Page 4 of 17


 

99
 

Energy Performance Score
General Notes
Priorities
Hi Jana and Tyler,
It was nice to meet you. Below are my recommended projects in order of priority. Let me know if you have any questions.
HEALTH & SAFETY
1. If you don't know how old the existing carbon monoxide detectors are it would probably be a good idea to replace them as the sensors only last 5
years. If you have us complete weatherization work on your home you get one for free.
2. Consider upgrading your kitchen microwave /range hood to a dedicated range hood only design and ensure it is vented to outside. See detailed
notes under "appliances".
WEATHERIZATION
- Replace all the incandescent bulbs that aren't on dimmers with CFL light bulbs.
- Seal and insulate the attics and attic access doors on your top floor.
- Insulate your main floor walls.
- Replace your furnace with a 95% efficient model.

Page 5 of 17


 

100
 

Energy Performance Score
Summary of Recommended Energy Upgrades
These recommended upgrades will improve the energy performance of this home. The cost for the upgrades will vary with the size and complexity of
the home and the scope of work required. The Approximate Annual Savings are based on the estimated energy reductions with each upgrade.

Notes

Typical Cost
Range

Approximate Annual Savings
$

kWh Equivalent

Air Sealing
Attic / Ceiling Insulation

If it is not possible for attic to achieve R-38, then
completely insulate attic to highest practical level
using best practices.

$2.00 - $5.00 /sf

$157

4,200

Dense pack uninsulated wall cavity with cellulose
insulation.

$1.25 - $2.50 /sf

$284

7,600

$500 - $1,500
/window

$146

3,900

$3,000 - $6,000

$169

4,600

Duct Sealing
Duct Insulation
Wall Insulation
Floors / Foundation Walls
Windows

Upgrade to high efficiency windows.

Water Heater Upgrade
Solar Water Heater
Appliances
Heating System Upgrade

Upgrade to condensing gas furnace (Primary
HVAC System)

Cooling System Upgrade
Solar PV

Financial Incentives

See web site for more sources of financial assistance.

See http:/ /www.dsireusa.org/ for incentives in your area.
DSIRE is a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility and federal incentives and policies that promote renewable energy and energy
efficiency. Established in 1995 and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, DSIRE is an ongoing project of the N.C. Solar Center and the Interstate
Renewable Energy Council.

Page 6 of 17


 

101
 

Energy Performance Score
Air Leakage

These attic access doors are one of the primary reasons for your discomfort on the
top floor.

One of your top flat attic access panels is stuck part way open and should be
replaced or cut down to fit.

Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
Your home loses about 60% of all the hot air out of it every hour. Most homes lose between 60 and 100% every hour. The tightest homes in the world lose about 3% per
hour. It would be difficult if not impossible to seal your home too tightly by implementing the projects I recommend in this report.
Tech note: CFM50 3600 , ACH50 10.45 , ACHn .6 , Volume 21,162ft3

Recommended Upgrades Detail
- Your #1 project is to air seal and insulate the two side attic access doors and the two top flat attic access panels.
- Cut in rigid foam blocking beneath your attic knee walls to prevent cold air from flowing beneath your main and top floors.

Deep Energy Retrofit Options

Energy Upgrade Description
Air S e a ling Air sealing is one of the most cost-effective energy upgrades
you can make and should be done before installing insulation. Cold air can
infiltrate small cracks and openings during the winter, while hot outdoor
air can over- heat your home in the summer resulting in drafts, moisture,
and indoor air quality issues. There are many types of air leaks and many
strategies for sealing them. You can under- take this work yourself or hire
a contractor who can use a blower door to identify and measure the

effectiveness of various air sealing measures.
After your home is sealed, it is important to make sure that there is
adequate ventilation to maintain proper indoor air quality and to prevent
back drafting of combustion appliances. An EPS Auditor or qualified
professional will identify any potential ventilation problems.

No-Cost or Low-Cost Strategies
Clos e your fire pl a c e d a mp er when your fireplace is not in use (but first
allow the fireplace to cool completely). If you have fireplace doors, keep
them closed.

Put b a throom ve ntil a tion f a ns on a tim er or on a humidity s e nsor
which will automatically switch off the fan when the room is dry.

Page 7 of 17


 

102
 

Energy Performance Score
Ceiling and Attic

Your attic is composed of lower flat attics, insulated knee walls, sloping un
insulated rafters and top flat attic.

Here you can see the undersized opening for your roof vents (it should be about 6"
by 9").

Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
You have 2 to 6" of insulation in your attic. Energy Code today calls for 18" of fiberglass insulation (R49). While the North and West walls and knee walls are insulated
on the top floor the sloping rafters are not insulated. The top flat attic only has 3" of insulation and isn't properly ventilated. Overall, your average attic insulation number
is under R10 and code is R50.

Recommended Upgrades Detail
- Install cardboard baffles held 1" off the roof sheathing to maintain the pathway for ventilation air from bird blocks to existing mushroom vents. Enlarge holes leading
to roof vents.
- Blow lower and upper flat attics to 18" with fiberglass insulation. It is pretty easy to "whip" air into loose blown fiberglass insulation such that while it appears to be
blown to the correct level the density is too low and it won't perform as expected. The best way to prevent this is to request the number of bags blown into the attic and
compare it with the number suggested by the manufacturer on their insulation coverage chart. For example, here is a link to Certainteed's attic coverage chart: http:
/ /www.certainteed.com /resources/ 30-49-189%20TrueComfort.pdf.
- While in violation of current building code I suggest you dense pack cellulose insulation in your attic rafters. The building code is concerned that moisture could
migrate through the drywall ceiling and condense on the cool underside of the roof sheathing, causing rot. Of course, the question is how much moisture will make it to
this surface. If, as is the case in your home, there aren't a lot of pathways for moist indoor air to reach the rafter cavity (lots of can lights, T&G ceiling without drywall
etc.) I suspect the risk of condensation induced rot is minimal (low income weatherization contractors have been dense packing short sections of rafters for a long time 30+ years). There are definitly energy efficiency/ comfort benefits of dense packing rafters but ultimately you have to be ok with some risk. Alternately, you could add
rigid foam to the underside of the rafter and then cover it in new drywall and paint but this would be significantly more expensive.
- The last piece of the puzzle would be adding an additional blanket of insulation (6" R19 fiberglass) to the back side of the attic knee walls.

Deep Energy Retrofit Options

Energy Upgrade Description
C eiling & Attic Insul a tion Attic or ceiling insulation is one of the most
cost-effective upgrades you can make and should be done after air sealing
in the attic. Attic or ceiling insulation slows heat loss through the roof in
the winter and also slows heat gain through the roof in the summer. The
insulation is usually installed on the floor of an unfinished attic (the ceiling
of the finished room below) and under the roof if the attic space is

finished. Insulation is measured with an R-value, and the higher the Rvalue, the more effective the insulation value. Insulation is made of
different materials and comes in several forms: batts, loose-fill or blown-in,
foam, and rigid. Each type of insulation varies in terms of advantages,
applications, and pricing.

Page 8 of 17


 

103
 

Energy Performance Score
Walls

Insulating your main floor walls is one of the top priority projects that should be
completed on your home.

Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
With the exception of your West, North walls and knee walls on the top floor - your main floor and 2nd floor walls are not insulated.

Recommended Upgrades Detail
I recommend you insulate your walls from the exterior by pulling a row of siding and "dense packing" the walls with the "tube fill method". This method gives the installer
feedback as to the presence of blocking and ensures an even high density, which prevents settling of the insulation. Make certain you have the wall insulation checked
with an infrared camera while the insulation crew is still on site so they can fill any missed wall cavities (a common occurrence).

Deep Energy Retrofit Options
If at some point in the future you consider replacing your siding, add as much rigid foam to the exterior of the wall as you can afford.

Energy Upgrade Description
Wa ll Insul a tion Insulating walls will help you to keep heat inside your
home during the winter and slow heat gain into your home during the
summer. Retrofitting walls with insulation is generally more work and more
costly than insulating an attic ceiling or a floor. Walls may be insulated

from the outside or inside and this is more easily accomplished during
remodeling work which involves removal of or painting either of these
surfaces.

Page 10 of 17


 

104
 

Energy Performance Score
Floors / Foundation Walls

While technically you should insulate the exposed concrete basement walls it is
such a small area that it isn't going to make much of a difference in how your
home functions.

Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
Your basement walls are already mostly insulated.

Recommended Upgrades Detail
None. It wouldn't make a noticeable difference if you insulated the walls in the furnace / laundry room and it would be a fairly expensive project.

Deep Energy Retrofit Options
Remodel the basement with a single stud wall (spaced 10" off the concrete walls). Make certain at least one inch of foam is applied to the concrete wall prior to framing
the wood stud wall as this will prevent condensation forming on the concrete and should prevent pipes from freezing in the wall. Net and blow dense pack fiberglass
into this assembly for about an R40 wall.

Energy Upgrade Description
Floor Insul a tion Floor insulation is mainly a cold climate energy saving
measure. The importance of floor insulation varies with the type of
foundation in the home. The lowest floor cavity in a home should only be
insulated if the basement or crawlspace below it is unheated. In a heated

basement or crawlspace the insulation will be found in a different location.
Slab floors on-grade or in a basement can be retrofitted with insulation
above the slab if no insulation was installed beneath the slab before it was
poured.

Page 11 of 17


 

105
 

Energy Performance Score
Windows

If you want to significantly influence how your home feels with windows you need
to explore triple glazed window technology.

Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
You already have mostly double pane windows so you aren't going to see a big difference in terms of comfort or energy bill savings if you replace the aluminum and
wood framed windows with double pane vinyl frame windows.

Recommended Upgrades Detail
None.

Deep Energy Retrofit Options
After you have completed all the other weatherization work I have recommended the heat loss and discomfort generated by your windows will be a more significant part
of the problem. At this point you could upgrade to triple glazed windows with low conductive spacers for R values in the 5 to 7 range (Alpen, Euroline, Cascadia etc.) vs
your current R3 windows. These high performance windows actually will feel quite a bit warmer than your current windows.

Energy Upgrade Description
Windows Older windows can be responsible for drafts, heat loss in winter
and heat gain in summer. They can significantly impact your comfort and
energy use for heating and cooling. Storm windows can help eliminate

some of these issues. High efficiency, double-paned, low- e, argon-filled
windows with insulated frames can help save energy, make rooms more
comfortable and also makes them quieter.

No-Cost or Low-Cost Stra t egie s
C a pture fre e sol ar h e a t. On cooler days, open curtains to catch the heat
from the sun and warm your home.

Pl a nt tre e s, bush e s, a nd trellis e s th a t block unwa nt e d sun in th e
summ er. Strategically located plants on the east, west, and south sides of
a house can provide natural cooling through shade. Deciduous plants will
shade in summer and allow more light in winter. Plants can also form
windbreaks to protect your home from winter winds. Be sure to plant away
from the house so you do not trap moisture against the building.

Block th e sun in hot we a th er. To keep your home cool, adjust window
coverings to block the sun's hot summer rays. In the evening, open
windows to catch cool breezes.

Page 12 of 17


 

106
 

Energy Performance Score
Water Heating

Your water heater drafts well and still has a lot of life left in it.

Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
Your gas water heater isn't the most efficient option but all the alternatives are really expensive. Your water heater was installed in 2007. Water heaters have between a
6 and 12 year warranty. Given that you are leasing it from PSE I bet it has a 12 year warranty and they will get in contact with you when it gets close to wearing out.

Recommended Upgrades Detail
None. You have much higher priorities elsewhere.

Deep Energy Retrofit Options
Replace your current water heater with a "sealed combustion 95% efficient" gas water heater ($4k to 5k). Sealed combustion water heaters are the most efficient water
heaters (either tankless or storage tank models). Water heater efficiency is measured by something call an Energy Factor (EF). This energy factor attempts to quantify
what percentage of the heating fuel actually ends up as hot water during normal usage. The most efficient sealed combustion water heaters are in the .95 EF range or
95% of the heating fuel ends up as hot water. Old gas water heaters are in the .65 EF range or 65% of the energy in the gas ends up as hot water. I typically don't
recommend tankless models as their design inherently takes longer to deliver hot water to the faucet and people tend to be disappointed. If you are ok with waiting
longer then probably the best model on the market is the Navien as it has a recirculation pump that reduces the time it takes to get hot water to the faucet.

Energy Upgrade Description
Wa t er H e a t er Upgra d e The life cycle of water heaters is approximately
12-15 years. If your water heater is older, consider replacing it with a
newer, more efficient one. All new tank water heaters have a built-in
insulation layer to conserve energy. Solar water heating may also be an
option: it can provide as much as 75% of your hot water needs and offers
significant savings over time.

Sol ar Wa t er H e a t er Installing a solar water heater on a roof that
received adequate sunlight can be a relatively cost-effective means of
reducing your energy costs over the long term. These systems can preheat
the water going to your hot water heater and significantly reduce, and at
times eliminate, the need for additional water heating.

No-Cost or Low-Cost Stra t egie s
Lower your wa t er h e a t er th ermost a t to 1 2 0 d egre e s, or the lowest
setting that is acceptable to you for bathing and dishwashing.

Don't le t th e hot wa t er run while shaving or washing dishes.
Inst a ll high-e fficie ncy showerh e a ds a nd f a uc e t a era tors. New
showerheads are required to meet a 2.5 gallon per minute standard; the
lower the number, the more you will save. If you have a pre-1992
showerhead, it could be using 5.5 gallons of water per minute or more.
Look for low-flow aerators of 2.5 gallons or less to fit bathroom and
kitchen faucets.

Turn off hot wa t er during v a c a tions. Turn your electric water heater off
at the breaker panel if you are leaving town for more than a couple of
days. But don't do this during freezing weather. If you have a natural gas
water heater, turn it to the "low" or "vacation" setting, but do not turn it off.

Page 13 of 17


 

107
 

Energy Performance Score
Lights and Appliances

The new LED lighting technology looks great and is fully dimmable.

Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
As I walked through your home I noticed the majority of your lighting is inefficient and the washing machine is also on the older side. Your main floor fridge is an efficient
Energy Star model while the 1950s era model in your basement uses 4x as much energy as a Energy Star Fridge today.

Recommended Upgrades Detail
- Replace your incandescent bulbs that aren't on dimmers with CFL bulbs.
- Replace your washing machines with side loading models when you get a chance as they use half as much water as a standard washing machines.
- Consider replacing your incandescent bulbs on dimmers with LED lights. The technology has come a long way in the last 4 years. Cree has recently come out with
probably the best and most cost effective LED A lamp (the normal old style 60w light bulb we are used to). They can be purchased at Home Depot for about $14. See
this link for more info: http:/ /www.cree.com / lighting/ products/ indoor/ lamps/ 60w-replacement-warm-white-type-a-led-bulb. The light is produced in a "donut" of light
which is much better than cheaper LED bulbs.

Deep Energy Retrofit Options

Energy Upgrade Description
Appli a nc e s Older appliances can use significantly more energy than
newer, energy efficient appliances. Look for ENERGY STAR refrigerators,
freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, and air conditioners. Even within
ENERGY STAR there are more and less efficient models and you should

look for the most efficient appliance that fits your budget and needs. If you
consider the full life cycle costs, more efficient appliances often make up
for any difference in price within a few years of operations.

No-Cost or Low-Cost Stra t egie s

Page 14 of 17


 

108
 

Wa sh l a undry in cold wa t er wh e n ever possible . Ninety percent of
energy used for washing laundry goes toward heating water. Only run the
washer when you have a full load.

H a ng your cloth e s outsid e to dry whenever possible to reduce the use
of your energy-intensive electric or gas dryer.
Elimin a t e unn e c e ss ary lights and replace incandescent bulbs with
energy-saving compact fluorescents (CFLs) or LED lights. You can save at
least 75% of the energy used for lighting. CFLs that emit a warm color
similar to in- candescent bulbs (soft white color) and that turn on more
quickly are now available. It is important to handle and recycle broken and
burned out CFLs appropriately as they contain small amounts of mercury.
Motion detectors and timers can eliminate unnecessary lighting outside
and in infrequently used rooms.

Us e th e dishwa sh er e n ergy-s a ver mod e and run the dishwasher only
when it is full.
Elimin a t e Ph a ntom Lo a ds. Many home electronics such as computers,
televisions, and battery chargers use energy when not in use or turned off.
Unplug these or plug them into a power strip that can be turned off when
not in use.

Page 15 of 17


 

109
 

Energy Performance Score
Heating

Your furnace isn't producing large amounts of Carbon Monoxide.

While not inexpensive these units do a great job of heating open floor plans like
your top floor.

Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
You have a 70% efficient gas furnace.

Recommended Upgrades Detail
- Upgrade to a 95% efficient model when you get a chance.
- If after you complete the weatherization work on your top floor you still aren't comfortable consider installing a mini-split heat pump to heat / cool your master bedroom.

Deep Energy Retrofit Options

Energy Upgrade Description
H e a ting Syst e m Upgra d e Older, poorly maintained, and less efficient
furnaces and heat pumps use more energy than newer, high-efficiency
models. You may achieve energy savings by upgrading your system.
Additionally, you should have your existing system periodically

inspected to identify potential problems and extend the life of your system.
When upgrading a heating system, you should also have any connected
duct system inspected for air leaks.

No-Cost or Low-Cost Stra t egie s
Turn down th e h e a t. A good energy-saving setting when you are at home
is 67-68 degrees and 55 degrees at night or when you are away. Each
degree you lower your thermostat saves an estimated two percent (2%) on
your heating bill. In summer, turn off your heating system or raise the
thermostat setting to save on air conditioning.

Us e a progra mm a ble th ermost a t. Older, manual thermo- stats are
often not as accurate as new electronic models, and they require that you
manually set them back each night. Some programmable thermostats
have smart features such as preprogrammed "night" and "vacation"
energy-saving settings that lower the temperature auto- matically.
Different heating systems require different thermostats. Check the owner's
manual to be sure that your thermostat and heating system work
effectively together.

High er h e a t is not f a st er h e a t. Turning the thermostat higher will not
warm your house faster; it just wastes energy. Lowering the air
conditioning setting won't cool your house faster either.

Page 16 of 17


 

110
 

Energy Performance Score
Cooling
Current Conditions Observed by Auditor
N /A

Recommended Upgrades Detail

Deep Energy Retrofit Options

Energy Upgrade Description
Cooling Syst e m Upgra d e . Cooling is not the predominant energy use in
a home in our climate zone. However, older, poorly maintained cooling
equipment will still use more energy than newer, more efficient
equipment. Heat pumps should be commissioned and regularly

maintained to maximize their efficiency potential. Air conditioners should
be inspected and serviced by a professional to help extend the life of the
system.

No-Cost or Low-Cost Stra t egie s
Block th e sun in hot we a th er. To keep your home cool, adjust window
coverings to block the sun's hot summer rays. In the evening, open
windows to catch cool breezes.

Pl a nt tre e s, bush e s, a nd trellis e s th a t block unwa nt e d sun in th e
summ er. Strategically located plants on the east, west, and south sides of
a house can provide natural cooling through shade. Deciduous plants will
shade in summer and allow more light in winter. Plants can also form
windbreaks to protect your home from winter winds. Be sure to plant away
from the house so you do not trap moisture against the building.

Us e a ir move m e nt to cool p e ople during hot d ays. When it's warm,
use natural ventilation or window and ceiling fans to keep cool. Remember
that fans cool people, not rooms. If these are insufficient, consider
installing a whole house fan which will vent warm air from the home and
pull in cooler outside air throughout the house at night.

Page 17 of 17


 

111
 

Appendix E: Example of Quote from SustainableWorks


 

112
 

All Measures
4000 Airport Way South, Seattle, WA 98108 | 206-575-2252
Prepared For:
Jana Fischback
4107 N 36th St
Tacoma, WA 98407

Prepared By:
David Vollan
david.vollan@sustainableworks.com
Phone: (206) 227-4259
Mobile:

Date: 10/1/2013
Quote Expires: 10/14/2013

Scope of Work
Tier 1 – House Shell Measures – Prevent heated or cooled air from escaping your home.
Attic Insulation - Utility Incentives*: $400.00
Attic Ventilation - Rafter Bay Channels - Standard
- Labor (each)
Attic Ventilation - Rafter Bay Channels - Materials
(each)
Attic Insulation - Blown-in Fiberglass - Blower
Set-up
Attic Insulation - Blown-in Fiberglass - Labor (cu
ft)
Attic Insulation - Blown-in Fiberglass - Materials
(cu ft)
Attic Insulation - R-19 Knee Wall (2X6) Fiberglass Batt - Difficult - Labor (sq ft)
Attic Insulation - R-19 Knee Wall (2X6) Fiberglass Batt - Materials (sq ft)
Attic Insulation - Vaulted Roof - Blown-in
Cellulose - Standard - Labor (cu ft)
Attic Slope Wall Insulation - Blown-in Cellulose 2X4 Interior Walls - Materials (sq ft)
Install Vent Pipe for Fan

7

7
1
430
430
96
96
120
120
2

Roof Jack for venting Bathroom fan no damper
Attic Insulation - Blocking at Joist Bays (ln ft)

2
24

52.04

19.6

Install baffles in a 4/12 pitched roof or larger. These will
maintain the flow of ventilation air from low vents to high vents
in the attic.
Cardboard or foam baffles to ensure attic ventilation.

175

439.46

433.44

282.24

60.48

154.56

75.6

420

420

184.8

2,717.22

Labor to prepare attic and install Loose fill fiberglass insulation.
Loose fill fiberglass insulation materials.
R-19 Fiberglass batt.
R-19 Fiberglass batt.
Blown-in cellulose insulation materials.
Mountain Fiber or Green Fiber.
Replace existing flex duct or install new hard pipe and insulate to
a minimum of R-8. Required for blown cellulose. This will cover
venting the bath fan and the dryer duct through the roof.
Install 4" roof jack to supply bathroom vent in attic These are
the new roof vents for the bath fan and the dryer.
Labor and materials to install foam blocking at joist bays to
reduce air movement between conditioned and unconditioned
spaces, establish continuous thermal boundary, and retain
blown-in insulation. This is the foam blocking we discussed that
will prevent the cold air from flowing between the main and top
floor.
Subtotal (before tax): $2,717.22

Tier 1 – House Shell Measures – Prevent heated or cooled air from escaping your home.
Air Sealing - Utility Incentives*: $300.00
Air Sealing - Labor & Materials

4

431.2

431.20

SustainableWorks Quote: All Measures


 

Includes CAZ test and completing Air Seal Forms. This will cover
weather stripping and insulating 6 attic access panels.
Subtotal (before tax): $431.20

Quote #: 00004697 October 1, 2013 Page 1 of 3

113
 

Tier 1 – House Shell Measures – Prevent heated or cooled air from escaping your home.
Wall Insulation - Utility Incentives*: $400.00
Carpentry - Additional Work - Labor (hrs)

5

Wall Insulation - Blown-in Cellulose - 2X4 Exterior
Walls - Labor (sq ft)

983

Wall Insulation - Blown-in Cellulose - 2X4 Exterior
Walls - Materials (sq ft)
Rim Joist Insulation - 2" Rigid Foam Board Materials (ln ft)
Rim Joist Insulation - 2" Rigid Foam Board Standard - Labor (ln ft)

983
24
24

490

3440.5

619.29

27.55

81.98

4,659.32

This covers cutting in a new attic access point into the lower
attic area without access. We will also expand the undersized
opening for the roof vents.
Remove and replace siding. Touch up paint- Customer supplied
paint. This covers the main floor and uninsulated sections of the
top floor walls.
Mountain Fiber or Green Fiber.
Rigid Foam Insulation. R-11 minimum.
Labor to install rigid foam blocks installed against rim joist.
Unhindered access. Installed from a standing position. This rigid
foam board will be used to block the bottom of the rafter
cavities so we can blow them full of insulation.
Subtotal (before tax): $4,659.32

Tier 2 – Home Energy Systems – Improve the efficiency of equipment that heats and cools your home.
Heating - Utility Incentives*:
American Standard Freedom Upflow 60K 2 Stage
Variable Speed 95% Efficient Gas Furnace

1

Furnace -Lowboy removal and duct rework

1

Gas -New service bonding - standard

1

4730.6

1120

196

6,046.60

Kit # GF-SA-10 American Standard Gas Furnace packages include
Honeywell F100 4 in. Media filter, condensate pump and
TH8320U1008 Control.
Remove old oil furnace and reconfigure duct for new furnace or
air handler
Bond furnace or hot water tank gas line to service. Easy access,
less than 50 ft.
Subtotal (before tax): $6,046.60

Tier 3 – Windows and Renewable Energy Sources
- Utility Incentives*:
0.00

Subtotal (before tax): $0.00

Ventilation
Ventilation - Bathroom Fan Panasonic FV-11VHL2
110 CFM Heater / Fan / Light Combo - Labor &
Materials (each)

1

826

826.00

Install Panasonic FV-11VHL2 110 CFM. Power and controls from
existing circuit. Additional control not included.
Subtotal (before tax): $826.00

Permits
Tacoma - Electrical Permit

1

Tacoma - Mechanical Permit

1

70

Modify 1-4 Circuits for boiler, furnace, heat pump, mini split
recirc water pump, etc

159.25

229.25

Subtotal (before tax): $229.25

Other
Weatherization - Additional Work - Labor (hrs)

4

336

336.00

SustainableWorks Quote: All Measures


 

This is labor to protect the plants around the house with
plastic.
Subtotal (before tax): $336.00

Quote #: 00004697 October 1, 2013 Page 2 of 3

114
 

Total Project Costs
Non-Taxable Construction Costs
Taxable Construction Costs
Sales Tax
Total Before Incentives
Less Gas Utility Incentives*
Less Electric Utility Incentives*
Less SustainableWorks Incentives
Less Other Incentives & Rebates
Total After Incentives
Standard Deposit (40%)
Actual Deposit

$0.00
$15,245.59
$1,448.33
$16,693.92
$1,100.00
$0.00
$2,500.00
$0.00
$13,093.92
$5,237.57

 I have read the proposal, have received an exact copy and accept the proposal subject to the provisions and contract
provisions included with this proposal.
 I have received the EPA Renovate Rights Pamphlet ________ (Please Initial)
Payment (deposit)
 Cash/Check
$ ____________
 Credit Card (Visa, Mastercard) $ ____________
Card # _______________________________________________________
Expiration Date: ______________

Security Code: ____________

 Loan Financing
I authorize _______________________________________________ (Financial
Institution) to release 40% deposit at upon contract signing and balance of funds to SustainableWorks upon
completion of this work.
Name of Purchaser: _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
(Authorized Signature of Purchaser)

SustainableWorks Quote: All Measures


 

__________________________
Date

Quote #: 00004697 October 1, 2013 Page 3 of 3

115
 

Bibliography
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of
intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored
information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use,
energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 265-276.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allcott, H., & Mullainathan, S. (2010). Behavioral science and energy policy.
Science, 327(5970), 1204-1205.
Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing: its definition and domain. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 108-114.
Andreasen, A. (2006). Social marketing in the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Archer, D., Pettigrew, T., Costanzo, M., Iritani, B., Walker, I., & White, L. (1987).
Energy conservation and public policy: The mediation of individual behavior.
Energy efficiency: Perspectives on individual behavior, 69-92.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences
on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 3.
Boone Jr., H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of
Extension, 50(2).


 

116
 

Burns, A. & Bush, R. (2008). Basic Marketing Research (Second ed.). New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Chan, S., Dolderman, D., Savan, B., & Wakefield, S. (2012). Practicing Sustainability
in an Urban University: A case study of a behavior based energy conservation
project. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 11(1), 9-17.
Coltrane, S., Archer, D., & Aronson, E. (1986). The social-psychological foundations
of successful energy conservation programmes. Energy Policy, 14(2), 133148.
Costanzo, M., Archer, D., Aronson, E., & Pettigrew, T. (1986). Energy conservation
behavior: The difficult path from information to action. American
Psychologist, 41(5), 521.
Darley, J. M. (1978). Energy conservation techniques as innovations, and their
diffusion. Energy and Buildings, 1(3), 339-343.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale
points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales.
International Journal of Market Research, 51(1).
Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (Eds.). (2002). New tools for environmental protection:
education, information, and voluntary measures. National Academies Press.
Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009).
Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US
carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44),
18452-18456.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.


 

117
 

Accessed February 14, 2014. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energyresources/calculator.html#results
Ferguson, M. R. (1993). Energy-saving housing improvements in Canada (1979-82):
a nested logit analysis. Environment and Planning A, 25(5), 609-625.
Gamtessa, S. F. (2012). An explanation of residential energy-efficiency retrofit
behavior in Canada. Energy and Buildings.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior.
(2nd ed.) Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions US
households can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy
for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 12-25.
Geller, E. S. (1981). Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report
enough?. The Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), 331-335.
Geller, E.S. (2002). The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. In
Bechtel, R. B., & Churchman, A. (Eds.). Handbook of environmental
psychology. Wiley.
Gonzales, M. H., Aronson, E., & Costanzo, M. A. (1988). Using Social Cognition and
Persuasion to Promote Energy Conservation: A Quasi-Experiment. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 18(12), 1049-1066.
Greening, L.A., Greene, D. L., & Difiglio, C. (2000). Energy efficiency and
consumption—the rebound effect—a survey. Energy policy, 28(6), 389-401.
Hadley, S.W. (2006). Impact of plug-in hybrid vehicles on the electric grid (No.
ORNL/TM-2006/554). October.


 

118
 

Hirst, E. (1984). Household energy conservation: A review of the federal residential
conservation service. Public Administration Review, 421-430.
Hirst, E. (1988). The Hood River Conservation Project An Evaluator's Dream.
Evaluation Review, 12(3), 310-325.
Hirst, E., Berry, L., & Soderstrom, J. (1981). Review of utility home energy audit
programs. Energy, 6(7), 621-630.
Hirst, E., & Grady, S. (1982). Evaluation of a Wisconsin utility home energy audit
program. Journal of environmental systems, 12(4), 303-320.
Hoicka, C. E., & Parker, P. (2011). Residential energy efficiency programs, retrofit
choices and greenhouse gas emissions savings: a decade of energy efficiency
improvements in Waterloo Region, Canada. International Journal of Energy
Research, 35(15), 1312-1324.
International Energy Agency. (2009). World Energy Outlook 2009. Accessed Feb 2,
2014.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2009/WEO2009.pdf
Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1994). The energy-efficiency gap: What does it mean?
Energy policy, 22(10), 804-810.
Kempton, W., Gladhart, P., & Keefe, D. (1983). Home insulation: The user's view. In
Thermal Insulation, Materials, and Systems for Energy Conservation in
the'80s: A Conference (No. 789, p. 69). ASTM International.
Kempton, W., & Montgomery, L. (1982). Folk quantification of energy. Energy,
7(10), 817-827.


 

119
 

Kempton, W., & Neiman, M. (1986). Energy efficiency: Perspectives on individual
behavior.
Kennedy, R.D., Parker, P., Scott, D., & Rowlands, I.H. (2000). Social marketing of
the residential energy efficiency project, Environments, 28(3), pp. 57-72.
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: an approach to planned social
change. Journal of Marketing 35, 3-12.
Kurz, T. (2002). The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: Fitting
together pieces of the puzzle. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,
2(1), 257-278.
Lee, N. R., & Kotler, P. (2011). Social marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good,
3rd edition. Sage Publications, Inc.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., and Roser-Renouf, C. (2009). “Saving Energy at Home
and on the Road: A Survey of Americans’ Energy Saving Behaviors,
Intentions, Motivations, and Behaviors.” Working Paper, Yale Project on
Climate Change.
Lerman, D. I., & Bronfman, B. H. (1984). Process evaluation of the Bonneville
Power Administration Interim Residential Weatherization Program (No.
ORNL/CON-158). Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (USA).
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (1994). Social marketing for sustainability: The case of
residential energy conservation. Futures, 26(2), 224-233.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to
community - based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 543 554.


 

120
 

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to
community - based social marketing (3rd ed). Gabriola Island, Canada: New
Society Publishers.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Lee, N. R., Schultz, P. W., & Kotler, P. (2011). Social
marketing to protect the environment: What works. Sage.
Midden, C. J., Meter, J. F., Weenig, M. H., & Zieverink, H. J. (1983). Using
feedback, reinforcement and information to reduce energy consumption in
households: A field-experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3(1), 6586.
Midden, C. J., Kaiser, F. G., & Teddy McCalley, L. (2007). Technology's four roles
in understanding individuals' conservation of natural resources. Journal of
Social Issues, 63(1), 155-174.
Olsen, M. E. (1981). Consumers' attitudes toward energy conservation. Journal of
Social Issues, 37(2), 108-131.
Parker, P., Rowlands, I. H., & Scott, D. (2005). Who changes consumption following
residential energy evaluations? Local programs need all income groups to
achieve Kyoto targets. Local Environment, 10(2), 173-187.
Pitt, D., Randolph, J., Jean, D. S., & Chang, M. (2012). Estimating Potential
Community-wide Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from
Residential Energy Retrofits. Energy & Environment Research, 2(1).
Sandlin, G. “Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2009-2010.” Air
Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology.


 

121
 

Scott, D., Parker, P., & Rowlands, I. H. (2001). Determinants of energy efficiency
behaviours in the home: A case study of Waterloo Region. Environments,
28(3), 75-100.
Schulte, D. (2012). A Qualitative Assessment of Lost Interest Among
SustainableWorks Home Energy Assessment Recipients in Shoreline and
Spokane. DMS Consulting.
Skumatz, L., & Juri Freeman, D. (2010). The Broadlands Project: Measuring the costeffectiveness and impacts of social marketing. Resource Recycling, 44.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An
integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
Stern, P. C. (1992). What psychology knows about energy conservation. American
Psychologist, 47(10), 1224.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of
environmentally significant behavior. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Stern, P. C., & Aronson, E. (1984). Energy use: The human dimension. New York:
W.H. Freeman.
Stern, P. C., Aronson, E., Darley, J. M., Hill, D. H., Hirst, E., Kempton, W., &
Wilbanks, T. J. (1986). The effectiveness of incentives for residential energy
conservation. Evaluation Review, 10(2), 147-176.
Stern, P. C., & Gardner, G. T. (1981). Psychological research and energy policy.
American psychologist, 36(4), 329.
Tabanico, J. J., & Schultz, P. W. (2007). Community-based social marketing.


 

122
 

BioCycle, 48(8), 41.
Takahashi, B. (2009). Social marketing for the environment: An assessment of theory
and practice. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 8(2),
135-145.
Vandenbergh, M., Barkenbus, J., & Gilligan, J. (2008). Individual carbon emissions:
The low- hanging fruit. UCLA Law Review, 55, 08-36.
U.S. Department of Energy. Washington Residential Energy Consumption. Accessed
Feb 2, 2014. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/residential.cfm/state=WA
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Washington State Profile and Energy
Estimates. Accessed May 11, 2014. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA#tabs-1
Washington State University Energy Extension Program.
 “Focus Group Findings on
Community Energy Efficiency Programs.” August 2013.
Weisberg, H., Krosnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An Introduction to Survey
Research, Polling, and Data Analysis. Sage.
Wilson, C., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2007). Models of decision making and residential
energy use. Annual Rev. Environ. Resource, 32, 169-203.
Yates, S. M., & Aronson, E. (1983). A social psychological perspective on energy
conservation in residential buildings. American Psychologist, 38(4), 435.


 

123