Fotos de Cultivo y observación microscópica de hongos dimórficos

Similar to barriers, eight motivations were identified; however three motivations were the most often cited, accounting for 88% of total responses. They were the same three broad categories as identified by Caird et al. [Caird et al., 2008]: save money; save the environment; save resources (energy) [Pelenur & Cruickshank, 2013a].

Save money

Saving money was the most commonly mentioned motivation for installing energy efficiency measures in the home. While the idea of simply saving money and in-creasing disposable income were mentioned, this theme also included the more nuanced ideas of avoiding the outright need to pay for energy, and the perceived view that fuel prices are too high. Two illustrative quotes highlight this point,

Interviewer: “What was the motivation[for installing energy efficiency measures]?” Respondent: “Well we’ve only got one world is the pri-mary one, and secondary is knowing how much we’re getting ripped off for everything.” The second quote, Interviewer: “Why do you[want to install energy efficiency measures]?” Respondent: “Because once you have it you don’t need to pay for fuel . . . .”

Environmental/emissions

Environmental and green issues were the second most mentioned motivation. This theme covered a broad range of ideas such as: minimising harm to the local ecosys-tem; avoiding fossil fuel and nuclear energy due to environmental concerns; and reducing carbon emissions (by using less energy) to address climate change. The following illustrative quotes highlight these ideas:

“Trying to do our bit to save the planet . . . ”; “Because we’re quite into green issues.”; “For long term environmental reasons. Anything that’s

more natural than the alternatives which include nuclear.”; and “I’m concerned about the effects[of energy use] on the atmosphere.”

Resource efficiency

Resource efficiency was a nuanced theme identified by probing respondents who stated that ‘saving energy’ was their motivation to install energy efficiency mea-sures. Specifically this theme covers the following ideas: conserving energy out of a general principle of reducing waste; being more self-sufficient with resources;

increasing national energy security; and being conscious about future resource needs. The temporal nature of this theme (protecting the future) was also shared by the environmental theme; however the responses here specifically only focused on ensuring future resource abundance as opposed to protecting the environment for future generations. Some illustrative quotes:

“Well just as a general principle, we use too much of certain things.”;

“Just basically being conscious about the future . . . you see these com-panies and the amount of money they’re investing in R&D which just shows you how important it is to not neglect the fact we will have to change in the future.”; “Because there’s a shortage of gas, and we don’t have gas always in this country.” and “I’d rather use less energy because there’s not a lot of it being generated in a renewable way.”

None (no personal motivation)

This non-motivation specifically included respondents who did not want change their household energy use because they either: had no motivation (apathy); were content with the status quo; or because they were not responsible for energy in their home. Illustrative examples of these ideas:

“I don’t see there’s much I can do about it [household energy use]

anyway.”; “My husband did it [install energy efficiency measures], I didn’t have anything to do with it.”; and “I leave[energy efficiency] up to my husband.”

It’s interesting to note how this theme touched on the feelings of helplessness, apathy, and shifting personal responsibility. While this study identified existing motivations, this theme highlighted how some households may require further in-formation about energy efficiency measures, in order to spark an initial motivation to change.

These motivations, apart from the non-motivation of apathy, related to the saving of measurable physical items (save money, save the environment, save re-sources); however, the interview transcripts also highlighted other non-physical drivers to improve energy efficiency. The following motivations supported the hypothesis that it is often non-energy benefits that drive the adoption of energy efficiency measures[Mills & Rosenfeld, 1996].

Warmth and comfort

This motivation centred around the idea of installing energy efficiency measures in order to improve home comfort and heating. Particularly relevant given that this aim does not necessarily align with the government energy demand reduction targets. The following two quotes illustrate this point:

“Better insulation on the walls means I can keep the heating on for a long time.”, and“If I want to turn the heating up, I’m not going to sit there and put on a jumper. They say instead of turning the heating up put on a jumper - no way! I like to be comfortable.”

This motivation highlighted how even though personal comfort can drive the adop-tion of energy efficiency measures, the end result may not lead to a reducadop-tion in energy use (i.e. the “Rebound Effect”[Madlener & Alcott, 2009]).

Aesthetics and space

While most energy efficiency measures are often invisible to the household (ex-amples: loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, central heating), some energy ef-ficiency measures are adopted for their aesthetic value, as well as their practical value. This motivation captured this idea, as well as the idea that saving space can drive households to adopt smaller energy efficiency solutions. Illustrative quotes,

Interviewer: “Why did you get . . . double glazing and wall insula-tion?” Respondent: “To keep[house] warm and looks good. That’s it basically.” Interviewer: “What are the reasons that you want to change the boiler and explore [solar thermal]?” Respondent: “. . . Trying to utilise some space, because the old fashion[boiler] uses a lot of space, so I have to have this big tank in the ironing cupboard,[which] is bad.”

Health and safety

Relating more to energy efficiency behaviours as opposed to retrofit technolo-gies, health and safety was a reason a few households gave when asked why they changed their household energy use. The following quote illustrates this idea,

Interviewer: “Why try to keep[energy use] to a minimum? What mo-tivates you?” Respondent: “Well, especially with televisions on, stuff that comes off the TV, waves that rattle your brain don’t they, too much [adverse health affects] going on. . . . We have flat screen TVs in all the rooms,[because we] want to reduce the transmission of the waves that come off the TV . . . because they get hot . . . [and] some can give you headaches.”

Another idea captured by this motivation is with respect to energy supply safety, specifically to reduce our energy consumption and reliance on nuclear, not for resource efficiency or the environment, but because of safety. An example quote,

“look what’s happened in Japan . . . there’s a nuclear power plant about 100 miles from here, it could just easily happen there too, it’s on a fault line[also].”

Time and convenience

This final motivation related to households who felt that being energy efficient can help them save time or increase convenience, for example by reducing the time needed to do house chores or heat water. When asked what motivates one household to save energy, one respondent said, “It’s time consumption, with the

combination boiler you switch the tap on and it’s hot water rather than waiting 30 min for the water to heat.”

Summary of motivations

While the majority of motivations fell into one of the three main themes, save money, save the environment, or save resources (energy) [Caird et al., 2008];

there were other non-conventional motivations identified, such as saving time and aesthetics/space. This result was consistent with Mills & Rosenfeld [1996]

who found that it was often non-energy benefits that motivated households to be energy efficient, such as improved comfort, reduced noise, labour and time sav-ings, and increased convenience. Similarly, another study found that the perceived amount of disruption; the presence and awareness of any accreditation regime;

and whether the retrofit measure had been recommended to the household were important drivers for the adoption of retrofit technologies[Oxera, 2006].

Taken together, the barrier and motivation results from this research underscore the need for policy makers, engineers and retrofit professionals to move beyond simple economic based incentives or initiatives. Instead, a more holistic approach should be adopted to overcome barriers, utilise motivations, and increase the ef-fectiveness of future policies and retrofit programmes.