Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
EnergiesEnergies
PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

1 June 2020

Climate Change Mitigation in Households between Market Failures and Psychological Barriers

,
and
1
Lithuanian Energy Institute, Breslaujos 3, LT-44403 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics, A. Vivulskio g. 4A-13, 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies2020, 13(11), 2797;https://doi.org/10.3390/en13112797
This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Energy Reviews
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Though there are areas of climate change mitigation linked to household’s energy consumption having huge greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potential as energy renovation or installation of micro generation technologies using renewable energy sources, these GHG emission reduction potentials are not realized so far. The main input of the paper is to overcome this gap and to provide a systematic review of the main barriers of climate change mitigation behavior linked to energy consumption in households and to develop policies to overcome these barriers. The main policies and measures to reduce GHG emissions of energy combustion in households are promotion of renewable energy consumption and energy efficiency improvements however, these policies have been not successful in overcoming some important barriers of climate change mitigation in households. The empirical evidence of behavioral failures is deepened in this paper and the correlation between market barriers, unsuccessful climate change mitigation policies and behavioral and psychological barriers is provided based on systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

Climate change mitigation measures in households linked to energy consumption can provide many benefits to households, including external benefits linked to reduction of negative environmental and health impacts, however there are many barriers for these measures and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potential is not fully utilized. Buildings consume one third of global final energy, and the same share of GHG emissions related to this sector, and in the European Union (EU), this sector is responsible for 40% of primary energy and for 36% of total economy wide GHG emissions [1].
Therefore, the main climate change mitigation measures linked to energy consumption in households are energy efficiency improvements and use of renewable energy sources by implementing micro generation technologies at home. Energy efficiency improvement in households by deep energy retrofitting of residential buildings has the highest GHG emission reduction potential in households. It is necessary to stress that though energy efficiency improvements are the most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions, the so-called Energy Efficiency Paradox was revealed by scholars [2]. Consequently, due to important barriers related to energy efficiency measures in buildings the “energy efficiency paradox” [3]. It indicates the divergence between optimal or desired and real obtained energy efficiency improvement levels. The similar greenhouse gas emission reduction paradox can be defined indicating situation that actual GHG emission reduction level does not correspond to the optimal GHG reduction level. The optimal energy efficiency or GHG reduction levels are hardly achieved in a sector branded by dualities in stock (existing vs. new buildings), in the use of technologies (renewables vs. fossil fuel-based technologies), and in the preferences of the agents (landlords vs. lenders). This is because of the fact that various impediments preventing from energy savings and GHG reduction in these sectors (Ramos et al., 2015 [4]). Hence, in household sectors associated with many dualities described above the energy efficiency improvements and GHG reduction does not reach levels corresponding to the various ’win-win’ resolutions provided in the market, or even do not reach the level of willingness to pay (WTP) by households.
There many studies dealing with WTP for energy efficiency improvement measures, energy renovation or efficient cooling and heating systems at households. The research concluded by scholars in diverse countries revealed the positive WTP for these measures. A study by Banfi et al. [5] analyzed the hypothetical change of insulation systems Swiss households. Alberini et al. [6] also found a positive WTP for Swiss residents, though this was only for those households who were expecting energy prices increase. Similar results were conducted in Germany [7], Hong Kong [8], South Korea [9], and Lithuania [10]. Based on studies conducted, informational failures were defined to be persistent and most pertinent in energy efficiency improvements of residential buildings. The scholars agree that for addressing information and behavioral barriers, the well targeted specific policy instruments are necessary [4].
Several important studies [11,12,13] were conducted to analyze the impact of urban form and geomorphometry impact on residential energy consumption. The studies found that neighborhood street configuration and tree shade have significant effect on residential energy consumption and, consequently, greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, exploration of the spatial complexity of residential energy usage intensity, with a focus on urban form and the geomorphometry attributes of urban ventilation, solar insolation, and vegetation is very important and should be addressed by climate change mitigation policies and measures.
Several scholars [14,15,16,17,18,19] analyzed the main drivers and barriers of energy renovation in Eastern Europe and energy poverty issues. Zoric et al. [20] discovered that age of apartment owner is important barrier. Most of the studies were concentrated on economic barriers of energy renovation and low incomes of households [15,21].
There are also studies on WTP for renewables in households carried out in US [22]; Italy [23]; Great Britany [24]; Lithuania [25,26]; Slovenia [20]; Czech Republic [27]. There are a plethora of studies dealing with methodical taxonomy and taxonomy of barriers to the adoption of renewable energy technologies (regulatory, economic and financial, technological, and informational) and rating them based on the insights of various stakeholders [28]. A study [29] analyzed the effects of social, economic, technological, and regulatory barriers linked to penetration of renewable energy in the markets. Alam et al. [30] analyzed barriers of diffusion of renewable energy sources in households and stated that perceived ease of use, behavioral control, awareness, relative advantage, and cost decrease have meaningful influence on intension to apply small-scale renewable energy technologies. Palm and Tengvard [31] defined the main drivers and hurdles to customers’ adoption of small-scale electricity generation technologies in Sweden. Lu et al. [32] analyzed the similar social, economic, technological, regulatory, and informational barriers of renewable energy penetration in three Baltic States. Gifford et al. [33,34] in their study analyzed the main drivers of global climate change and systematized the behavioral and psychological responses to its impacts.
Though there are studies dealing with energy efficiency barriers in households and energy efficiency paradox and there are studies providing analysis of renewable energy barriers in households there are no studies addressing all these climate change mitigation barriers in households together in systematic way as these barriers are related and overlapping.
The main input of the paper is to overcome this gap and to provide systematic review of the main barriers of climate change mitigation behavior linked to energy consumption in households and to develop policies to overcome these barriers.
The following second section of paper presents literature review on barriers of energy efficiency improvements, the third section analyses literature on barriers of renewable energy usage at households, the fourth section discusses results and findings of conducted analysis, and the fifth section concludes.

2. Barriers of Energy Efficiency Improvement and Assessment of Policies to Overcome Them

Usually, the standard approach for addressing energy efficiency gap in households is based on the conventional analysis of various energy market failures. The policies and measures were developed to overcome energy market failures by introducing economic of flexible market instruments and pollution standards. As energy prices of fossil fuels do not internalize environmental externalities, the excessive GHG emission and other pollutants emission levels or a higher than optimal energy consumption level is reached in the market [35]. Based on this traditional approach, if the social (private and external) energy costs do not correspond to the real marginal cost, there is no initiative to implement energy efficiency measures. Therefore, this market failure is corrected by public policies or state interventions in the market aiming to increase energy prices to their right level by involving all social costs of energy supply.
Additional important economic problem is the lack of access to the capital because of the several uncertainties available in the capital market [36], energy poverty, or regulatory problems [37]. But even with governmental intervention to overcome market failure, the energy efficiency paradox still is not solved.
The growing use of energy standards did not provide expected results. The consequences of building codes were found to be negligible on energy savings in may studies [38,39,40]. The economic instruments such as GHG or energy taxes have also provided a limited effect due to low elasticity of demand for energy services [41,42]. The subsidies due to limited access to capital is useful financial measure however, the of these measures was limited on energy efficiency improvement [43,44].
The traditional approach in dealing with market failure is not effective in term of dealing with barriers of climate change mitigation in households is based on assumptions that customers have perfect information and are able to make rational decisions [45]. However, imperfect information, asymmetric information, and various behavioral failures [46,47,48,49] do not allow to allow to reach desirable energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction levels households [50]. The new approach is linked with information and behavioral barriers and measures to overcome these new types of barriers [2,3,41,51,52].
Cattaneo [53] has identified the following external market barriers for energy in households: capital market failures, information, or asymmetric information problems; financial and technological barriers. Internal barriers were defined as barriers linked to behavioral and psychological barriers.
Due to problems of asymmetric information and split incentives, investment in profitable energy efficiency technologies are not realized as the decision to adopt them is related with the ownership status of households, as tenants do not like to invest in energy renovation or efficient energy appliances at their homes, though Papineau [54] showed that energy efficient but unlabeled buildings can deliver significant price premiums when they are sold.
Schleich et al. [55] pointed out that financial and technological risks are the main barriers. Additionally, energy efficiency investments are associated with some risks due to the uncertainty related to achieved in reality actual and expected energy savings. All barriers can be grouped in the following clusters [56]:
  • Economic and financial barriers linked to high costs of energy efficiency measures due to not internalized external costs of fossil fuel-based energy and external benefits linked energy efficiency improvements or other financial barriers linked to the problem of access to and availability of capital funds;
  • Institutional and regulatory barriers linked to not well-established regulatory requirements and regulations for insulation of buildings, especially regulation of old residential buildings stock;
  • Technology barriers linked to lack of knowledge of available renovation technologies, options and other energy efficiency improvement issues and their costs and benefits;
  • Informational barriers linked to market failures linked to information asymmetry and split incentives between landlords and tenants;
  • Organizational barriers linked to the lack of set process on how to entitle individuals or institutions with the responsibility and authority to identify, plan, and implement renovation of multi-flat buildings. Logistical barriers include a lack of skilled energy renovation service providers in the market. In addition, there are significant switching costs linked to any change.
There are other typologies of barriers and market failures hindering penetration of sustainable energy options [57].
In Table 1 the main barriers of energy efficiency improvements are presented.
Table 1. Barriers and market failures linked to energy efficiency improvement in households.
One can notice from information provided in Table 1 that the largest barrier to energy efficiency improvements and GHG emission reductions in residential buildings is the high initial costs of energy renovation in buildings households have very limited time to recover the cost of their investments in renovation [58,59,60,61]. Another important issue is that success of policies in this area depend on more than one stakeholder. Behavioral and psychological issues are not being properly addressed by policies and measures targeting renovation multi-apartment buildings [62,63].
Therefore, most of the world’s countries have many policies in place to mitigate climate change at households, however these polices have not resulted in optimal desired GHG emission reduction levels. Many studies have been conducted dealing with energy efficiency gaps, especially in residential buildings [16,17,64,65,66,67,68,69]. Energy renovation of multi-apartment buildings is the main measure to achieve significant energy savings in residential buildings. Many countries have implemented financial measures to support energy renovation such as capital subsidies, grants, and subsidized loans to urge households to invest in energy efficiency measures and equipment, however these support measures are not enough to realize the full energy saving potential in residential buildings. The review of policies and measures to promote large scale energy renovation indicated that these measures have brought only little success in in Germany, the UK, Denmark, US, Japan, and other countries [59,60,63,65,66,68,69].
Existing instruments are not properly combined with other measures and do not address the barriers of decision making by households for energy renovation. The main policies and measures to encourage energy renovation of multi-apartment buildings are grouped in the following way: regulatory and control instruments, financial incentives, flexible market instruments, energy and CO2 taxes and support, information, and voluntary action.
Regulatory and control measures are mainly linked with labeling and certifications. Energy Labeling system was implemented in EU, but this label is not being utilized by energy consumers in various countries having these systems [65]. The Energy Performance Certificate, (EPC), indicating the energy efficiency class of the buildings, was introduced to stimulate homeowners to do energy improvements in their homes, however the effectiveness of the scheme is limited so far. The similar can be attributed to energy audit schemes. It can be explained by the fact that households generally experience that the information provided by the EPC and energy audit have a general and trivial character. The results indicated that low outcome of this scheme in Denmark is not linked to a lack of understanding of the information provided by the label [17]. Building a monitoring system [66] also to deal with informational barriers and provides a good understanding of what works and what does not in building operation, but the impact of a monitoring system on an occupant’s decision to renovate apartments is limited due to other barriers of energy renovation.
Financial support to overcome high capital costs is provided in many countries. A range of funding grants have been implemented in the UK aiming to improve energy efficiency of the domestic stock in the UK. Green Deal, New Fuel Poverty Scheme were targeting different groups of inhabitants. Due to frequent changes eligibility criteria the schemes had low uptake [58]. In France, energy renovation was set as the top priority in energy and climate change mitigation policies. One significant enabling policy is the zero interest “eco” loans. The introduction of loans was linked to the limited improvements achieved in residential buildings through the income tax credits implemented in 2005. Under this scheme the numbers of loans have even been falling [68].
The Energy Company Obligation (ESCO) is a scheme which requires the energy utilities to install GHG reduction measures in households. Utilities can face penalties if they do not comply with ESCO obligations. The utilities pass all costs of implementation of GHG reduction measures to their customers through household’s energy bills. This system was implemented in the UK more than 20 years ago however the results were not very good [17]. ESCO and tradable white certificates have been implemented also in Denmark, France, Italy, the UK, and Poland. In France, Italy, and the UK, ESCO is dominating in residential and public sectors but in Denmark ESCO is dominating in industrial and commercial sectors.
Energy or CO2 taxes introduced to fossil fuels have a positive impact on energy efficiency improvement in households as provides for the price increase of energy produced by using fossil fuels.
There are various supports, information, and voluntary measures. France has also introduced various voluntary training programs for trades of buildings, and several programs for micro generation and low-carbon conversion technologies [17].
Assessment of policies and measures to promote renovation of multi-flat buildings in term of energy and costs savings are generalized in Table 2.
Table 2. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of policies and measures in dealing with main barriers of energy efficiency improvements in households.
As one can see from Table 2, various policies and measures were implemented to encourage energy efficiency in households but their effectiveness is rather low especially they do not address organizational and behavioural barriers. Most of the instruments in order to be successful should be implemented in combination of other instruments. Especially it is important for support, information, and voluntary actions. Regulatory and informative policies would also provide for more effective results if they are well structured and enforced in combination with other measures, especially targeting behavior changes.

3. Barriers of Renewable Energy Sources and Assessment Policies to Overcome Them

According to many scholars, the main barriers of penetration of renewables in energy markets and successful competition with traditional fuels are economic as renewable energy technologies have higher investment costs and consequently total private costs due to negative externalities not being integrated in the price of energy produced from fossil fuels. In addition, there are large subsidies for fossil fuels which have even lower final energy prices, providing a renewable energy source at a competitive disadvantage in the end.
There are traditional policies and measures aiming to overcome these economic barriers by offering extra subsidies for renewables in the form of tax allowances, grants, and subsidies for RES projects or introduction of special pricing schemes and lowering transaction costs. In this area, the policies tend to focus on increasing subsidies for renewables instead of reducing available environmentally harmful subsidies for traditional energy carriers and nuclear energy. One can notice that initial capital costs for renewable energy technologies are higher than for fossil fuels due to market failures as high external costs of fossil fuels are not reflected in the price of energy produced from these fuels. In addition, the comparison between various energy carriers should be performed based on total “lifecycle” costs including initial capital costs, future fuel costs, future operation and maintenance costs, decommissioning costs, and equipment lifetime costs. However, assessment of energy generation technologies based on lifecycle costs is problematic due to many uncertainties linked to discount rates etc. Therefore, the main economic and financial barriers for penetration of the renewables are high initial capital costs; difficulties of fuel price risk assessment; unfavourable power pricing rules; high transaction costs and non-internalized environmental externalities [70,71].
There are also important legal and regulatory barriers hampering penetration of renewable energy technologies in households: lack of access to credit; perceived technology performance uncertainty and risk; lack of technical or commercial skills and information.
The main economic, institutional, and regulatory, market, technological, information and behavioural barriers of renewables are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Barriers of renewables penetration in households.
As one can see from information provided in Table 3 there are various barriers for penetration of renewables in households including behavioural one however there are no well targeted policies to overcome these barriers [72,73].
In Table 4 the effectiveness of policies and measures to address barriers of renewables energy penetration in households are provided.
Table 4. The effectiveness of policies and measures to address barriers of renewables.
As one can notice from information provided in Table 4, behavioral and psychological barriers of renewable energy sources are not properly addressed by policies and measures implemented around the world and targeting various barriers for penetration of renewables in households [73,74,75,76,77].

4. Discussion of Results

A popular explanation about the main reasons of energy efficiency and GHG emission paradoxes provided in scientific literature [64,65,66,67,68,69,74] is the fact that all these policies and measures do not adequately address the behavioral and psychological as well organizational barriers in household’s decision making. Authors agree that traditional GHG mitigation policies in households have mostly focused on fiscal and financial incentives i.e. subsidies and tax allowances [6]. Several scholars recommend in addition to financial incentives to implement information dissemination and environmental awareness rising policies, providing more understanding about RES technologies and benefits of energy renovations of multi-flat buildings as well as to ensure middle actors activities in the market by increased assignment of energy efficiency renovation specialists [5].
There is huge heterogeneity in individual’s values, preferences, and risk, time which is reflected in their decisions on investments in climate change mitigation measures (RES microgeneration technologies, energy renovation and other energy efficiency improvements) therefore, such type of heterogeneity should be addressed by developing policies targeting specific actors in this sector and linked markets [59,74]. It is important to stress that RES micro generation technologies and energy renovation decisions are a risky decision and many behavioral barriers, including organizational ones, exists. The result of energy renovation of multi-flat buildings depends on apartment owners’ possibilities to reach a common decision on renovation though sometimes they have conflicting preferences due to the different income, age, education, environmental awareness, etc.
Policies to promote climate change mitigation at households should aim to reduce the perceived risk of these measures. One of the best ways to mitigate perceived risk is to provide apartment owners with guaranteed future earnings due to energy and associated costs savings. Governments can support energy renovations and installation of RES micro generation technologies in residential buildings by sharing the costs and risk but also the benefits from future savings.
For example, the ESCO model can be applied for contracting on energy renovation in order to rise investments which are profitable but too risky to be undertaken by apartment owners unwilling to take risks. Similarly, policies can provide “early benefits” for apartment owners who decide to renovate in order to make less future oriented households more willing to renovate as social norms also have a big impact on apartment owner’s decisions on energy renovation [75,76].
In addition, scholars confirmed that the reluctance in energy renovation investments should not only be understood as an individual energy efficiency or GHG mitigation gap but also as a replication of a household’s risk, time, and environmental and social preferences [77].
The review of climate change mitigation barriers in households and assessment of policies and measures tackling these barriers performed in this paper confirmed that very important behavioral and psychological barriers of climate change mitigation actions in households are not addressed by climate change mitigation policies and measures targeting households [78,79,80]. Though during the last years, there is huge potential in application of the insights of behavioral economics in shaping climate change mitigation measures in households not so much has been done in this field and the energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction gap is not closed. Therefore, as it is clear from the findings of behavioral economics that households’ decisions tend to deviate from the perfect rationality as stated in neoclassical economics, the public policies need to take this into account [81,82,83].
In a study by Shogren and Taylor [49] the term of ’behavioral failures’ was used for all those situations in which the individual does not behave according to rational choice theory. There are many behavioral failures and also many typologies [33,34,84,85], therefore the main behavioral barriers overlapping also with other market failures and barriers of climate change mitigation measures in households given in Table 5.
Table 5. Climate change mitigation barriers and market failures in households.
Explanation: Symbol X indicates the overlapping market failures and behavioral and psychological barriers.
As one can see from information provided in Table 5, uncertainty and information failures are overlapping with behavioral barriers by strengthening them. Gifford’s [33,34] exhaustive account of proposed behavioral barriers organizes them into seven categories: limited cognition, ideologies, comparison with other people, sunk costs, discordance, perceived risks, and limited behavior.
Though in studies by [51,81,86,87,88] an empirical evidence of behavioral failures was provided in many fields, its extension to climate change mitigation field is very limited. Especially in dealing with renewables [89] and energy efficiency [90] barriers in households. Recent studies [91,92,93,94,95] on climate mitigation behaviors identified the other non-economic drivers of climate change mitigation behavior are much more important but not properly addressed in shaping policies. Awareness, personal, and social norms were found to be equally important as monetary factors [91]. The study by Hung and Bayrak [92] found that interdependency of husbands and wives’ motivations for behavioral change to climate change mitigation also plays an important role in climate change mitigation behavior of the household. Perceived knowledge and financial self-efficacy as well as other behavioral factors were found as having significant influence on households’ climate change mitigation behavior in Mexican households [93,94]. The study by Nauges and Wheeler [95] revealed that climate change concerns of households positively influence specific mitigation actions, but mitigation behavior may negatively affect households’ climate change concerns as well.
Considerable analysis is still required to reconcile many issues, such as how these behavioral failures affect deployment of RES technologies and energy efficiency in households, how behavioral and other market failures and barriers relate, how these all failures may be corrected through policies and measures addressing learning or repetition issues.
In Table 6 the relationship between unsuccessful climate change mitigation measures to overcome market failures and behavioral and psychological barriers is generalized.
Table 6. The relationship between unsuccessful climate change mitigation measures to overcome market failures and behavioral and psychological barriers.
One can notice from information presented in Table 6 that behavioral and psychological barriers are overlapping and they are affecting all climate change mitigation policies, making them less successful in overcoming various market barriers. Therefore, by developing new climate change mitigation instruments, the behavioral and psychological barriers should be taken into account in order to enhance the success and effectiveness of climate change mitigation policies in households.
Conducted analysis and assessment suggests that a new approach is necessary for development of climate change mitigation policies. First of all, the main opportunity and challenge is incorporation of relevant non-economic issues in the decision making of households especially those linked to behavioral change. Behavioral barriers of behavioral changes were overlooked and not being adequately addressed by current policies and measures targeting climate change mitigation at households. The main thread is linked to complexities in addressing the psychological barriers in climate change mitigation actions. The choice experiments and other studies on assessment of Willingness to Pay for climate change mitigation are necessary to evaluate households’ preferences towards climate change mitigation policies. Another opportunity is based on idea that current climate change mitigation policies which are properly shaped can provide for changes in public preferences towards climate change mitigation policies and a positive impact on climate change mitigation behaviors.

5. Conclusions and Future Research Orientations

Due to important barriers related to climate change mitigation actions in households, the energy efficiency and GHG emission reduction paradoxes are obvious, indicating the divergence between optimal or desired and real obtained energy efficiency improvement and GHG emission reduction levels. As the household sector is associated with many dualities, the energy efficiency improvements and GHG reduction do not reach levels corresponding to the various ’win-win’ resolutions provided in the market, or even do not reach the level of willingness to pay (WTP) by households.
These barriers and market failures preventing climate change mitigation actions in households are: economic and financial linked to the limited access to capital and high costs of mitigation measures, lack of knowledge; split initiatives and the difficulties of households in reaching a cooperative decision on building renovation due to difference in incomes, profession, and size of apartments, etc.
The review of climate change mitigation barriers in households and assessment of policies and measures tackling these barriers performed in this paper confirmed that very important behavioral and psychological barriers of climate change mitigation actions in households are not addressed by climate change mitigation policies and measures targeting households.
Successful implementation of policies and measures to promote climate change mitigation in households wanting to achieve the full potential of GHG emission reductions requires revision of climate change mitigation policies by addressing behavioural and psychological barriers linked to climate change mitigation actions.
Climate change mitigation actions in households are affected by household’s perceptions of the usefulness or benefits of these items when compared to their status quo situation. The implementation of various, even simple, climate change actions are often perceived to be associated with discomfort and problems. Households are not interested to make changes in their daily routine, they prefer a status quo situation.
Additionally, there are other important behavioural constrains associated with time, attention, and ability to process full information about possible climate change mitigation action leading to households’ decisions that are not rational. Additionally, then making decision on climate change mitigation households take the advice of their friends instead of consulting experts and take economically irrational decisions.
Most of the instruments in order to be successful should be implemented in combination of other instruments. Especially it is important for support, information, and voluntary actions. Regulatory and informative policies would also provide for more effective results if they are well structured and enforced in combination with other measures. The policy packages being introduced together became more popular in recent years however they do not provide evidence so far on their effectiveness in dealing with climate change mitigation paradox at households.
The main theoretical findings from conducted analysis is linked to identification of the main reasons of weak performance of climate change mitigation policies targeting the households sector. The overlooked behavioural and psychological barriers in shaping these policy instruments are the main reasons of their weak performance.
Conducted analysis and assessment suggests that additional research is necessary to addresses policies and measures design by incorporating relevant non-economic issues in the decision making of households, especially those linked to behavioral changes which are not being adequately addressed by current policies and measures targeting climate change mitigation at households.
Therefore, considerable analysis is necessary to reconcile many issues about behavioral failures and their influence on deployment of RES technologies and energy efficiency improvements in households. It is very important to define how behavioral and other market failures and barriers are related and how all these overlapping failures may be corrected through well shaped and innovative climate change mitigation policies and measures.
The conducted study has limitations and future research is necessary to grasp the correlation between market failures and barriers, specific climate change mitigation policies, and psychological barriers of climate change mitigation actions in households. The polices and measures can be also ranked by providing scores and introducing expert panels to assess the policies and measures based on important criteria including opportunities to overcome behavioral and psychological barriers.

Author Contributions

D.S., T.B. and I.A. contributed equally to the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant (No. S-MIP-17-131) from the Research Council of Lithuania.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. EC. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. In A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe; COM: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jaffe, A.; Stavins, R. The energy-efficiency gap. What does it mean? Energy Policy 1994, 22, 804–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jaffe, A.; Newell, R.; Stavins, R. Economics of energy efficiency. Encycl. Energy 2004, 2, 79–90. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ramos, A.; Gago, A.; Labandeira, X.; Linares, P. The role of information for energy efficiency in the residential sector. Energy Econ. 2015, 52, 517–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Banfi, S.; Farsi, M.; Filippini, M.; Jakob, M. Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Econ. 2008, 30, 503–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alberini, A.; Banfi, S.; Ramseier, C. Energy efficiency investments in the home: Swiss homeowners and expectations about future energy prices. Energy J. 2013, 34, 49–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Achtnicht, M. Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from a choice experiment among house owners in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 2191–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chau, C.; Tse, M.; Chung, K. A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 2553–2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kwak, S.; Yoo, S.; Kwak, S. Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: A choice experiment study. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 673–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Štreimikienė, D.; Baležentis, A.; Ališauskaitė-Šeškienė, I.; Stankūnienė, G.; Simanavičienė, Ž. A Review of Willingness to Pay Studies for Climate Change Mitigation in the Energy Sector. Energies 2019, 12, 1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, C. Essays on Climate Change Mitigation, Building Energy Efficiency, and Urban Form. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2018. Available online: https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/rn301251f?locale=en (accessed on 1 April 2020).
  12. Li, C.; Song, Y.; Kaza, N.; Burghardt, R. Explaining Spatial Variations in Residential Energy Usage Intensity in Chicago: The Role of Urban Form and Geomorphometry. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, C.; Song, Y.; Kaza, N. Urban form and household electricity consumption: A multilevel study. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dabija, A.-M. Rehabilitation of Mass Dwellings in Romania. A Critical Approach. Sci. Bull. Electr. Eng. Fac. 2010, 10, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
  15. Herrero, S.T.; Urge-Vorsatz, D. Trapped in the heat: A post-communist type of fuel poverty. Energy Policy 2012, 49, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boute, A. Modernizing the Russian district heating sector: Financing energy efficiency and renewable energy investments under the New Federal Heat Law. Pace Environ. Law Rev. 2012, 29, 746–810. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bouzarovski, S. Energy poverty in the European Union: Landscapes of vulnerability. WIREs Energy Environ. 2014, 3, 276–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Labanca, N.; Suerkemper, F.; Bertoldi, P.; Irrek, W.; Duplessis, B. Energy efficiency services for residential buildings: Market situation and existing potentials in the European Union. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 284–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Weinsziehr, T.; Grossmann, K.; Groger, M.; Bruckner, T. Building retrofit in shrinking and agening cities: A case-based investigation. Build. Res. Inf. 2017, 45, 278–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zorić, J.; Hrovatin, N. Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boardman, B. Fixing Fuel Poverty: Challenges and Solutions; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  22. Roe, B.; Teisl, M.F.; Levy, A.; Russell, M. US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 2001, 29, 917–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bigerna, S.; Polinori, P. Italian households’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Scarpa, R.; Willis, K. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households’ for micro-generation technologies. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Štreimikienė, D.; Baležentis, A. Assessment of willingness to pay for renewables in Lithuanian households. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2014, 17, 515–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Su, W.; Liu, M.; Zeng, S.; Štreimikienė, D.; Baležentis, T.; Ališauskaitė-Šeškienė, I. Valuating renewable microgeneration technologies in Lithuanian households: A study on willingness to pay. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 191, 318–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alberini, A.; Bigano, A.; Ščasný, M.; Zvěřinová, I. Preferences for Energy Efficiency vs. Renewables: What Is the Willingness to Pay to Reduce CO2 Emissions? Ecol. Econ. 2018, 144, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Reddy, S.; Painuly, J.P. Diffusion of renewable energy technologies—barriers and stakeholders’ perspectives. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 1431–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Seetharaman Moorthy, K.; Patwa, N.; Saravanan; Gupta, Y. Breaking barriers in deployment of renewable energy. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alam, S.S.; Hazrul, N.; Hashim, N.; Rashid, M.; Omar, N.A.; Ahsan, N.; Ismail, N.M. Small-scale households renewable energy usage intention: Theoretical development and empirical settings. Renew. Energy 2014, 68, P255–P263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Palm, J.; Tengvard, M. Motives for and barriers to household adoption of small-scale production of electricity: Examples from Sweden, Sustainability: Science. Pract. Policy 2011, 7, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lu, J.; Ren, L.; Yao, S.; Rong, D.; Skare, M.; Streimikis, J. Renewable energy barriers and coping strategies: Evidence from the Baltic States. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 352–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gifford, R. The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gifford, R.; Kormos, C.; Mclntyre, A. Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 801–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Savitz, R.; Gavriletea, M.D. Climate Change and Insurance. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2019, 18, 21–43. [Google Scholar]
  36. Beillan, V.; Battaglini, E.; Goater, A.; Huber, A.; Mayer, I.; Trotignon, R. Barriers and drivers to energy efficient renovation in the residential sector Empirical findings from five European countries. In European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; Summer Study: Hyeres, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  37. Byrnes, L.; Brown, C.; Foster, J.; Wagner, L.D. Australian renewable energy policy: Barriers and challenges. Renew. Energy 2013, 60, 711–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Levinson, A. How much energy do building energy codes really save? Evidence from California. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. NBER 2014, 106, 2867–2894. [Google Scholar]
  39. Aroonruengsawat, A.; Auffhammer, M.; Sanstad, A. The impacts of state level building codes on residential electricity consumption. Energy J. 2012, 33, 31–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jacobsen, G.D.; Kotchen, M.J. Are building codes effective at saving energy? Evidence from residential billing data in Florida. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2013, 95, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gillingham, K.; Newell, R.; Palmer, K. Energy efficiency and policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2009, 1, 597–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ryan, L.; Moarif, S.; Levina, E.; Baron, R. Energy Efficiency Policy and Carbon Pricing. Information Paper; International Energy Agency: Parsi, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mourato, S.; Saynor, B.; Hart, D. Greening London’s black cabs: A study of driver’s preferences for fuel cell taxis. Energy Policy 2004, 32, 685–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nair, G.; Gustavsson, L.; Mahapatra, K. Owners perception on the adoption of building envelope energy efficiency measures in Swedish detached houses. Appl. Energy 2010, 57, 2411–2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stem, P.; Aronson, E.; Darley, J.; Kempton, W.; Hill, D.; Hirst, E. Answering behavioral questions about energy efficiency in buildings. Energy 1987, 12, 339–353. [Google Scholar]
  46. Allcott, H.; Greenstone, M. Is there an energy efficiency gap? J. Econ. Perspect. 2012, 26, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 2011, 95, 1082–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Allcott, H.; Mullainathan, S. Behavior and energy policy. Science 2010, 327, 1204–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shogren, F.; Taylor, L. On behavioral-environmental economics. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2008, 2, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tietenberg, T. Reflections on energy efficiency policy: Pipe dream or pipeline to the future? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2009, 3, 304–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gillingham, K.; Palmer, K. Bridging the energy efficiency gap. policy insights from economic theory and empirical evidence. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2013, 8, 18–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stavins, R.; Schatzki, T.; Borck, J. An Economic Perspective on Building Labeling Policies; Analysis Group, Economic Financial and Strategy Consultants: Vigo, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cattaneo, C. Internal and external barriers to energy efficiency: Which role for policy interventions? Energy Effic. 2019, 12, 1293–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Papineau, M. Energy codes and the landlord-tenant problem. In Carleton Economic Papers, CEP 15–03; Carleton University: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  55. Schleich, J.; Gassmann, X.; Faure, C.; Meissner, T. Making the implicit explicit: A look inside the implicit discount rate. Energy Policy 2016, 97, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Štreimikienė, D.; Baležentis, T. Innovative Policy Schemes to Promote Renovation of Multi-Flat Residential Buildings and Address the Problems of Energy Poverty of Aging Societies in Former Socialist Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Arabatzis, G.; Kyriakopoulos, G.; Tsialis, P. Typology of regional units based on RES plants: The case of Greece. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 1424–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Patterson, J.L. Evaluation of a Regional Retrofit Programme to Upgrade Existing Housing Stock to Reduce Carbon Emissions, Fuel Poverty and Support the Local Supply Chain. Sustainability 2016, 8, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Organ, S.; Proverbs, D.; Squires, G. Motivations for energy efficiency refurbishment in owner-occupied housing. Struct. Surv. 2013, 31, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ozarisoy, B.; Altan, H. Adoption of Energy Design Strategies for Retrofitting Mass Housing Estates in Northern Cyprus. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Horne, R.; Dalton, T. Transition to low carbon? An analysis of socio-technical change in housing renovation. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 3445–3458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Claudy, M.; O’Driscoll, A. Beyond Economics—A behavioural approach to energy efficiency in domestic buildings. Euro-Asian J. Sustain. Energy Dev. Policy 2008, 1, 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  63. Friege, J.; Chappin, E. Modelling decisions on energy-efficient renovations: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Asadi, E.; Gameiro da Silva, M.; Henggeler Antunes, C.; Dias, L. Multi-objective optimization for building retrofit strategies: A model and an application. Energy Build. 2012, 44, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Christensen, T.H.; Gram-Hanssen, K.; Adjei, A.; de Best-Waldhober, M. Energy renovation practices in Danish homes: The influence of energy labels on home renovation practices. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Sociological Association (esa2011): Social Relations in Turbulent Times, Geneve, Switzerland, 7–10 September 2011. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sirombo, E.; Filippi, M.; Catalano, A. Building monitoring system in a large social housing intervention in Northern Italy. Energy Procedia 2017, 140, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Killip, G. Products, practices and processes: Exploring the innovation potential for low-carbon housing refurbishment among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK construction industry. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 522–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Risch, A.C. Evaluation of the impact of environmental public policy measures on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the French residential sector. Energy Policy 2012, 46, 170–184. [Google Scholar]
  69. Crilly, M.; Lemon, M.; Wright, A.J.; Cook, M.B.; Shaw, D. Retrofitting homes for energy efficiency: An integrated approach to innovation in the low-carbon overhaul of UK social housing. Energy Environ. 2012, 23, 1027–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Raza, W.; Saula, H.; Islam, S.U.; Ayub, M.; Saleem, M.; Raza, N. Renewable energy resources: Current status and barriers in their adaptation for Pakistan. J. Bioprocess. Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sardianou, E.; Genoudi, P. Which factors affect the willingness of consumers to adopt renewable energies? Renew. Energy 2013, 57, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sovacool, B.K. Rejecting renewables: The socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 4500–4513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Poortinga, W.; Steg Vlek, C. Values, Environmental Concern, and Environmental Behavior: A Study into Household Energy Use. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Golove, W.H.; Eto, J.H. Market Barriers to Energy Efficiency: A Critical Reappraisal of the Rationale for Public Policies to Promote Energy Efficiency; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  75. Liu, L.; Kang, C.; Yin, Z.; Liu, Z. The Effects of Fiscal and Taxation Policies on the Innovation Efficiency of Manufacturing Enterprises: A Comparative Study from the Perspective of Economic Regions. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2019, 18, 206–229. [Google Scholar]
  76. Burger, V. The assessment of the regulatory and support framework for domestic buildings in Germany from the perspective of long-term climate protection targets. Energy Policy 2013, 59, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Frederiks, E.R.; Stenner, K.; Hobman, E.V. Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 1385–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dias, R.; Mattos, C.; Balesieri, J. Energy education: Breaking up the rational energy use barriers. Energy Policy 2004, 32, 1339–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Frey, B.; Jegen, R. Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence. J. Econ. Surv. 2001, 15, 589–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Frey, B. Excise taxes: Economics, politics, and psychology. In Theory and Practice of Excise Taxation: Smoking, Drinking, Gambling, Polluting, and Driving; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  81. DellaVigna, S. Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. J. Econ. Lit. 2009, 47, 315–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Stadelmann, M. Mind the gap? Critically reviewing the energy efficiency gap with empirical evidence. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 27, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mullainathan, S.; Thaler, R. Behavioral Economics; MIT Department of Economics: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Loomes, G.; Sugden, R. Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ. J. 1982, 92, 805–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pollitt, M.G.; Shaorshadze, I. The Role of Behavioural Economics in Energy and Climate Policy; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  87. Pothitou, M.; Hanna, R.F.; Chalvatzis, K.J. Environmental knowledge, pro-environmental behaviour and energy savings in households: An empirical study. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 1217–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rathi, S.S.; Chunekar, A. Not to buy or can be ‘nudged’ to buy? Exploring behavioral interventions for energy policy in India. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 7, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Papież, M.; Śmiech, S.; Frodyma, K. Determinants of renewable energy development in the EU countries. A 20-Year Perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 918–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Wiersma, G. Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 2003, 24, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Niamir, L.; Ivanova, O.; Filatova, T.; Voinov, A.; Bressers, H. Demand-side solutions for climate mitigation: Bottom-up drivers of household energy behavior change in the Netherlands and Spain. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 62, 101356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hung, L.-S.; Bayrak, M.M. Wives influence climate change mitigation behaviours in married-couple households: Insights from Taiwan. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 124034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Gonzalez-Hernandez, D.L.; Meijles, E.W.; Vanclay, F. Factors that influence climate change mitigation and adaptation action: A household study in the Nuevo Leon Region, Mexico. Climate 2018, 7, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Serrano-Medrano, M.; Garcia-Bustamante, C.; Berrueta, V.M.; Martmez-Bravo, R.; Ruiz-Garcia, V.M.; Ghilardi, A.; Masera, O. Promoting LPG, clean wood burning cook stoves or both? Climate change mitigation implications of integrated household energy transition scenarios in rural Mexico. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 115004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lekve Bjelle, E.; Steen-Olsen, K.; Wood, R. Climate change mitigation potential of Norwegian households and the rebound effect. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Ultracapacitor Based Electric Power System Sliding Mode Control: Electric Vehicle Application
Previous
Assessment of Electricity Decarbonization Scenarios for New Zealand and Great Britain using a Plant Dispatch and Electrical Energy Storage Modelling Framework
Next