Value orientations and their ... - Findhorn College Goldbach.pdf · The ecovillage- Findhorn (Scotland, UK) could be deemed a pioneer in adopting sustainable lifestyles that do not

Value orientations and their relationship to energy-efficient behaviour: A case study from the ecovillage

Findhorn, Scotland

Kristin Goldbach H00138524

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Science in Sustainable Urban Management

Supervisors:

Dr. Peter Matthews

Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

Dipl.-Psych. Dorika Fleissner

Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, Freiburg

Heriot-Watt University

School of the Built Environment

August 09, 2013

More than ever we now realise that working towards a sustainable

society is about much more than environmental sustainability. A

sustainable society doesn’t just consume less, recycle more, use

renewable energy and take the train. It is also more community-

focused, less prejudiced, more equal, and happier – because it

values people and the environment.

(Holmes et al., 2011, n.p.)

Acknowledgements I would like to thank everyone who inspired and supported me to write this dissertation.

First of all, my special thanks go to Dr. Peter Mathews (Heriot-Watt University, School of the

Built Environment) and Dorika Fleissner (Fraunhofer ISE) whose trust, encouragement and

guidance helped me to accomplish this dissertation. I like to express my appreciation to all

project partners of the ORIGIN project and especially to the Findhorn representative Mari

Hollander for her assistance in undertaking the empirical survey. Many thanks go to all

Findhorn residents who participated in the survey.

In addition, I would like to thank my family for their strong support and Sebastian Hemmann,

Johanna Hannerfeldt Hoffert and Sophie Zagato who reviewed my work so carefully.

Declaration I, Kristin Goldbach, confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and is

expressed in my own words. Any uses made within it of the works of other authors in any

form (e.g. ideas, equations, figures, text, tables, programmes) are properly acknowledged at

the point of their use. A full list of the references employed has been included.

Kristin Goldbach

August 09, 2013

Abstract Behavioural considerations are crucial to achieve national and international energy efficiency

targets and associated greenhouse gas reductions. In this regard human values represent an

important role in people’s commitment to energy efficiency. The central tenet of the value-

basis approach is that pro-environmental action is driven by the naturally immutable values a

person holds. Based on value-belief-norm theory, this dissertation provides and examines

empirical evidence for significant relationships between values and self-reported past energy

efficiency behaviour. For the 33 participating residents of the eco-village Findhorn (Scotland,

UK) it was observed that the value clusters self-transcendence and self-enhancement were

positively related to self-reported past energy efficiency behaviour in Findhorn, with self-

enhancement being the most pronounced one. With a significantly different value

pronunciation to the UK sample, Findhorn was found to be an environmentally-committed

community where energy-efficient behaviour is normalised. Through its small-scale

governance, resource-efficient lifestyle and their salient values to environment and personal

competence, Findhorn represents a highly motivated community that offers a great potential

for energy efficiency. Opportunities were observed for implementing potential energy-related

projects when they accord with the residents’ values and social infrastructure. The study

confirms that eco-communities bear a high potential to contribute to research such as the

relationship between lifestyle and energy efficiency or the analysis of climate change

mitigation approaches.

Contents List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ I

List of Illustrations .............................................................................................................. II

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................III

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research objectives ................................................................................................ 2

1.2.1 Objectives of the ORIGIN project ......................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Objectives of this research ................................................................................... 3

1.3 Structure ................................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Terminology ............................................................................................................ 4

2 Role of energy use in households .............................................................................. 5

2.1 Definition energy efficiency and energy conservation .............................................. 5

2.2 Global trends in energy efficiency and emission reductions ..................................... 5

2.3 Policy context for energy efficiency ......................................................................... 6

2.4 Energy efficiency in practice .................................................................................... 7

3 Ecovillage approach for energy and resource efficiency .......................................... 9

3.1 Community contributions to global problems ........................................................... 9

3.2 An introduction to the ecovillage approach .............................................................10

3.3 Findhorn profile: characteristics and lifestyle ..........................................................10

4 Values and pro-environmental behaviour .................................................................14

4.1 Definition of values .................................................................................................14

4.2 Value-belief-norm theory of pro-environmental behaviour ......................................16

4.2.1 Values ................................................................................................................17

4.2.2 Beliefs .................................................................................................................17

4.2.3 Personal norms...................................................................................................17

4.3 The direct relationship between values and pro-environmental behaviour ..............18

5 Case Study ...................................................................................................................21

5.1 Hypotheses ............................................................................................................21

5.2 Method ...................................................................................................................22

5.2.1 Overview of empirical research ...........................................................................22

5.2.2 Design and variables ..........................................................................................22

5.2.2.1. Behaviour ....................................................................................................23

5.2.2.2. Values .........................................................................................................23

5.2.3 The participants of the survey .............................................................................24

5.3 Results ...................................................................................................................27

5.3.1 Self-reported energy efficiency behaviour ...........................................................27

5.3.2 Value orientations in Findhorn ............................................................................27

5.3.3 Relationship between values and energy-efficient behaviour ..............................28

5.3.4 Comparison of values between Findhorn and the UK .........................................29

5.4 Discussion ..............................................................................................................30

5.4.1 Discussion of hypotheses ...................................................................................30

5.4.2 Discussion of individual variables .......................................................................32

5.4.3 Limitations of the research approach ..................................................................33

5.4.4 Wider implications ...............................................................................................35

6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................37

References ..........................................................................................................................39

Appendix .............................................................................................................................46

Appendix I: Motivational value types .................................................................................46

Appendix II: List of 21 value questions included in the ESS ..............................................47

Appendix III: Correlation coefficients .................................................................................48

Appendix IV: SPSS regression outputs .............................................................................49

Appendix V: Socio-demographic profile for the UK participants of the European Social

Survey ..............................................................................................................................50

List of Abbreviations I

List of Abbreviations β Standardised regression coefficient

EC European Commission

EEA European Environment Agency

ESS European Social Survey

CO2 Carbon dioxide

DTI Department of Trade and Industry (UK)

F Test for statistical significance

FIC Fellowship for Intentional Community

GEN Global Ecovillage Network

gha Global hectares

H0 Null hypothesis

Hn Alternative hypothesis

M, µ Mean

N Number of participants

ISE Institut Solare Energiesysteme (Institute for Solar Energy Systems)

ICT Information and communications technology

IEA International Energy Agency

NIMBY “Not in my backyard!”

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PV Photovoltaic

p Significance level

rS Spearman Rho’s correlation coefficient

R² Coefficient of determination

SD Standard Deviation

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Computer software)

UK United Kingdom

VBN Value-Belief-Norm

List of Illustrations II

List of Illustrations Figure 1 Sustainable lifestyle in Findhorn ............................................................................11 Figure 2 Appliance ownership in Findhorn dwellings compared to UK benchmarks .............11 Figure 3 Schwartz’ theoretical model of the motivational value types and value clusters

organised by motivational similarities and dissimilarities .......................................................15 Figure 4 Causal chain of the VBN theory .............................................................................16 Figure 5 Value-belief-norm theory combined with Schwartz’ human value clusters .............18 Figure 6 Education levels of participants..............................................................................25 Figure 7 Income of participants ............................................................................................26 Figure 8 Source of income of participants ............................................................................26 Figure 9 Self-reported energy efficiency behaviour of the participants .................................27 Figure 10 Mean with standard deviations of value orientations for the participants ..............28 Figure 11 Comparison of value clusters between Findhorn and the UK ...............................30 Figure 12 Gender ratio .........................................................................................................50 Figure 13 Level of education for the participants of the ESS ................................................51

List of Tables III

List of Tables Table 1 Characteristics of Findhorn ......................................................................................12

Table 2 Brief inventory of values by Stern et al. (1998) for measuring values in Findhorn ....23

Table 3 Life situation of participants .....................................................................................25

Table 4 Correlation matrix between values with energy-efficient behaviour ..........................29

Table 5 List of 21 value questions for ESS ordered by value clusters ..................................47

Table 6 Correlation matrix between energy-efficient behaviour with value clusters, value

combinations and motivational value types ...........................................................................48

Table 7 Model summary .......................................................................................................49

Table 8 ANOVA ...................................................................................................................49

Table 9 Coefficients .............................................................................................................49

Introduction 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background Energy is fundamental in our daily lives. It is needed for producing food, accessing and

purifying water, heating and lighting homes, transporting materials and people as well as for

fabricating goods and technologies (Bierbaum & Matson, 2013). Increased attention is now

being given by policy makers but also by individuals to issues of energy conservation, energy

efficiency and technology transformation into cleaner, more reliable and affordable energy

use and production (Fisher, et al., 2007; Heiskanen, et al., 2010). Benefits of using energy

more efficiently are plentiful. It can reduce demand for non-renewable energy sources and

greenhouse gas emissions, the latter being predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

derived by fossil fuel combustion. Also, it can decrease local air pollution, lead to reduced

investments in energy infrastructure, lessened fossil fuel dependency and improved

consumer welfare (Lopes, et al., 2012; Taylor, et al., 2010).

A large focus has been given to technological improvements that will lead to energy

efficiency, for example the various smart-grid projects carried out in the European Union

(Giordano, et al., 2013; Huovila, et al., 2007). Behavioural related categories, such as

people’s value orientations, have been rarely assessed, but they play nonetheless an

important role in energy consumption in buildings (Levine, et al., 2007; Lopes, et al., 2012;

Pilkington, et al., 2011; Steg & Vlek, 2009). For instance, the potential for reducing CO2

emissions through the impacts of behavioural change is considered to yield a significant

effect on national emissions when interventions are scaled up nationally (Stern, 2011).

Conversely, isolated changes in the technological equipment will not produce a shift of

energy efficiency in practice. The behaviour of people living in buildings bears a significant

impact on the success of these technologies and household appliances. What is required is a

shift to change society’s behavioural patterns with the intention to use less energy while

enjoying the same quality of life (EC, 2006a; Gyberg & Palm, 2009). Therefore human

behaviour must be placed within wider contexts including internal variables, such as norms

and values, but also external factors such as infrastructures, institutional arrangements and

systems of governance which jointly shape social practices (Moloney, et al., 2010).

The eco-village Findhorn (Scotland, UK) could be deemed a pioneer in adopting sustainable

lifestyles that do not overload ecosystem capacities and enhance quality of life (Mare &

Lindegger, 2011). As a living example, this community embraces a positive vision of the

future based on a lifestyle concept in which humans form an integral part of nature. Through

local food production, ecological buildings, renewable energy systems, reducing, reusing and

recycling waste, social cooperation economies, inclusive decision making, cultural and

Introduction 2

spiritual diversity, and integrated holistic health care and education, they yield noteworthy

energy use reductions (Findhorn Foundation, 2013a; GEN, 2013).

It is assumed that community members in Findhorn, because they share certain

characteristics and life-styles, will show a group specific attitude on topics such as ecology or

energy (Fischer, 2002) which might be reflected in their values. Attention rarely has been

given to the role of values that motivate people in their daily lives when dealing with collective

problems (Holmes, et al., 2011; Karp, 1996). Especially in terms of energy use behaviours,

they often are overlooked or not fully understood (Holmes, et al., 2011; Mirosa, et al., 2011;

Poortinga, et al., 2004). The social structure in the eco-community offers a unique frame for

analysing behaviour and for determining dominant values and how they relate to the

community’s living conditions. This analysis enables not only a focus on the individual

members of the community but also a comparative analysis of value orientations for Findhorn

residents with those of national citizens.

1.2 Research objectives

1.2.1 Objectives of the ORIGIN project This dissertation is part of the EU funded project ORIGIN 1 which aims to better utilise

renewable energy generation in eco-communities by matching energy demand with the

fluctuating supply delivered by renewable generation. It seeks to install an Information and

Communications Technology (ICT) device to improve energy management of the community

and to enhance energy efficiency. User-friendly tools will provide demand and supply

forecasting and propose appropriate times for energy consumption. An example would be to

operate a washing machine in periods of peak supply of renewables, such as sunny or windy

conditions.

Three validation communities are involved: Findhorn in Scotland, Damanhur in Italy and

Tamera in Portugal. One of the project deliverables is a behaviour survey prior to the project

implementation which aims to highlight the attitudinal relationship to energy consumption. By

means of a questionnaire it seeks to identify possibilities and residents’ attitudes towards

using energy in their homes in a time-wise flexible manner. For example, to use energy at

home when there is a high supply of renewables which may imply to either postpone or

expedite an energy consuming action. Undertaken by the research institution Fraunhofer

ISE, this dissertation forms part of the behaviour survey.

1 http://origin-energy.eu/

http://origin-energy.eu/

Introduction 3

1.2.2 Objectives of this research

In particular, this dissertation provides an analysis of values and pro-environmental

behaviour which can be understood as an important aspect of energy efficiency in

households. The aim is to highlight the significance of human value orientations that are

assumed to influence environmental behaviour for the residents of Findhorn. Since this study

is being undertaken before the installation of the ORIGIN system, it will not focus on

feedback mechanisms but rather examines past behaviour. This research uses data from

relevant questions from the resident questionnaire relating to values and energy efficiency

behaviour.

To the knowledge of the author, this study is the first known analysis of values and energy

use behaviour in an ecovillage. The specific research objectives are to: (1) Describe the dominant values of the community members of Findhorn

(2) Analyse the relationship between values and self-reported past energy efficiency

behaviour for the community members of Findhorn

(3) Compare the value orientations for the community members of Findhorn with that of a

national sample2.

1.3 Structure In the following a literature review provides an overview about energy efficiency with a link to

global problems. It will cover how ecovillages approach energy and resource efficiency at a

community scale with a particular insight into the ecovillage Findhorn and its characteristics.

Thereafter, a literature review on values associated with pro-environmental behaviour and

energy efficiency behaviour is presented. It will take a psychological perspective on energy

efficiency linking technological use to value analysis.

Empirical research was conducted for the case study of dominant value orientations in

association with energy-efficient behaviour in Findhorn. Statistical results are presented in a

case study and will be discussed jointly with the literature review and the analysed open-

source data of human values for the UK taken from the European Social Survey (ESS). The

empirical results will serve as the practical part of the paper and finally will lead to a

conclusion of the discussed topic.

2 Data are obtained from the European Social Survey:

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=83&Itemid=80.

Introduction 4

1.4 Terminology Pro-environmental behaviour can include personal buying behaviour, travel behaviour,

recycling and use of resources, and active participation in a pro-environmental organisation.

It refers to behaviours which try not to harm the environment or aim to benefit it (Steg & Vlek,

2009). For the purpose of the dissertation it will be closely related to an energy-efficient

behaviour. Thus, the target behaviour of interest is denoted self-reported past energy

efficiency behaviour. It will be handled as a sub-group of the general term pro-environmental

or environmental-friendly behaviour and may be used interchangeably with the terms energy

efficiency behaviour, energy-efficient behaviour and energy use behaviour throughout this

dissertation. It includes measures such as turning off lights when not needed, installing low-

energy light-bulbs, using energy-efficient household appliances, switching off electrical

appliances with concentration switches or choosing double/triple-glazed windows.

The terms eco-community, eco-village and low-carbon community are used interchangeably

and the principle definition refers to the ecovillage definition given by Dawson (2006) in

chapter 3.2.

Role of energy use in households 5

2 Role of energy use in households

2.1 Definition energy efficiency and energy conservation Both energy efficiency and conservation are energy use reduction techniques (Herring,

2006). Albeit often used interchangeably they have different meanings. Energy conservation

relates to reducing energy through using less of an energy service, i.e. lower heating levels

through turning down thermostat levels or driving less. It is often associated with consumer

behaviour and lifestyle change that demands a reduced consumption.

On the other hand, energy efficiency is the ratio of energy services out to energy input with

the aim to get most productivity from every unit of energy (Herring, 2006). It is about reducing

unnecessary energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and demands for non-

renewable resources to get the desired energy service. Thus, energy is reduced but the

service remains constant. Often this is related to technological improvements and time-shifts

in consumption. Moreover, consumer actions play an important role as people can choose to

install energy efficient measures for heating, cooling and lighting, add insulation, and use

energy efficient appliances (e.g. white goods) (Levine, et al., 2007).

2.2 Global trends in energy efficiency and emission reductions

Energy efficiency levels have improved globally in the last years - yet for many European

countries the progress was rather modest (Egger, et al., 2012). There is still a great potential

for energy efficiency improvements in order to achieve a sustainable energy future

(Boardman, 2004). This has been considered by many European countries affirming energy

efficiency improvements a political priority. The European Union (EU) has identified buildings

as the most promising target and quantifies a significant energy saving potential of 27 % in

the residential sector and 30 % in the services sector (EC, 2006a). This is especially

important since CO2 emissions in the building sector rose from 1971 to 2004 at an annual

rate of 2 % (Levine, et al., 2007). The residential sector accounts for 30-40 % of the global

energy consumption (Howard, 2000; Huovila, et al., 2007) and 36 % of total EU CO2

emissions as a consequence of heating, cooling and lighting requirements.

However, improved energy efficiency does not necessarily lead to reduced consumption.

Indeed consumption can increase, and it is important not to overemphasise the role that

efficiency alone can play in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. The phenomenon known as

the rebound effect states that energy efficiency improvements in dwellings will not lead to a

corresponding decrease in energy consumption (Dietz, et al., 2013; Madlener & Alcott, 2009;

Sorrell, 2007). This occurs because the proportion of energy savings at the household level


is consumed by additional energy use. As studies suggest, people have a finite pool of worry

(single-action bias) which could explain that people do not always notice opportunities or

evaluate options carefully to act in an energy efficient way (Dietz, et al., 2013; Jaffe &

Stavins, 1994). Similarly, the emphasis on energy efficiency can facilitate the development of

larger appliances, cars and houses along with more energy-profligate pieces of equipment by

the industry (Boardman, 2004). Thus it is important to thoroughly understand behaviour when

dealing with energy efficiency, which this dissertation seeks to analyse.

In addition, an increase in energy use is often related to the impact of non-energy factors on

energy consumption. For example, Taylor et al. (2010) investigated that while household

space heating intensities have declined over the past years, the benefits of that

improvements have been mostly offset by people’s preferences towards larger homes and

lower occupancy levels. In addition, energy efficiency improvements have been higher

between 1973 and 1990 and lower since 1990 indicating that the oil price shocks and

resulting energy policies in the 1970s had a larger impact on energy demand and reductions

in CO2 emissions than the energy efficiency and climate policies enacted since the 1990s

(ibid.). Hence, to increase the rate of energy efficiency significantly in the forthcoming years,

strong policies and governmental action in all sectors are required.

2.3 Policy context for energy efficiency By the EU Directive 2006/32/EC and the Energy Efficiency Directive adopted in December

2012, Member States of the EU are obliged to adopt and implement energy efficiency

schemes in the public sector to achieve an indicative energy saving of 9 % by 2016 (in

relation to their average during the 5 years previous to 2006) (EC, 2006b; 2011). Other EU

targets and directives relevant for the building sector are the Directive in the Energy

Performance of Buildings (2002/91/EC) with requirements for the establishment of energy-

efficient building codes and the Directive Establishing a Framework for Setting Ecodesign

Requirements for Energy-Using Products (2005/32/EC) which deals with the improvements

of energy efficiency of all new products outside the transport sector (OECD/IEA, 2009).

Accordingly, national policies regarding energy consumption and savings follow the

requirements set by the EU. As most of the policies relate to more than the building sector

alone, the proceeding section will concentrate on the policies’ targets towards energy use

and efficiency for households only. The domestic sector contributes to more than 40% of

total energy demand in the UK (Catney, et al., 2013). In the UK, energy efficiency is one of

the government’s primary tools in meeting its energy policy objectives. The Climate Change

Act 2008 and the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 commit the UK to an 80 % reduction

of carbon emissions of 1990 levels by year 2050 (Scottish Government, 2009). In order to


meet the ambitious energy reduction targets, energy efficiency is considered to be the most

cost-effective, cleanest and safest way (OECD/IEA, 2007; Scottish Government, 2013).

Principle policy mechanisms include the UK’s Energy White Paper of 2003 (DTI, 2003), the

Energy Efficiency Commitment 2002, the sustainability targets of the Local Agenda 21

(Brandon & Lewis, 1998) and the Code for Sustainable Homes (Department for Communities

and Local Government, 2013). For example, the Energy Efficiency Commitment requires

electricity and gas suppliers to achieve targets for carbon emission reductions that are

generated by the domestic sector. The Code for Sustainable Homes regulates energy

efficiency standards for water use, waste management and use of materials in new

properties.

The Scottish Government additionally highlights the importance of behaviour: “By providing

advice and financial incentives to improve energy efficiency, the Scottish Government is

striving to change behaviour and fulfil its own responsibilities to promote a more energy

efficient way of life to the people of Scotland” (Scottish Government, 2013). In this regard,

community scale can be thought of as an appropriate scale with which to tackle energy

reductions. It incorporates social issues along with economic and technical ones (Rae &

Bradley, 2012). Unfortunately, existing policies seem to show inadequate attention on

community actions failing to embed measures into social structures (Catney, et al., 2013).

2.4 Energy efficiency in practice All of the policies mentioned above set ambitious targets to achieve energy reductions which

relate to technological advancements, governmental incentives and behaviour. Several

instruments exist that help to meet European and national targets. The International Energy

Agency (IEA) presented 25 energy efficiency recommendations to be applied for buildings,

lighting, transport, industries and power utilities. If measures in all sectors are undertaken

globally, one-fifth of energy-related CO2 emissions could be saved by 2030 (IEA, 2011).

Energy actions identified for the building sector include building codes for new buildings,

building certification schemes, energy efficiency improvements in critical parts of the building

(i.e. glazing), passive solar use and policies to improve energy efficiency of existing buildings

with emphasis on building envelopes and renovations (IEA, 2011).

There is also a need to switch to renewable energy (Herring, 2006), a step which many

communities across the EU have already taken. However, the potential of using renewable

energy to achieve CO2 emission savings is severely restricted because renewable supply is

often poorly aligned with energy demand (Rae & Bradley, 2012). This is where the ORIGIN

project will come into play with its intention to manipulate energy demand. This manipulation

process, known as demand side management aims to controlling and improving the match

between energy demand and supply profiles. For the Findhorn community this can be


particularly significant since the community owns its own autonomous energy generation

system. Therefore, demand side management can enhance the community’s independency

from external energy sources. It is also argued that challenging the consumer perception of

need and requirement can result in a more sustainable relationship between users and their

energy use (Strengers, 2012). Supporting time-wise flexible consumption, as done by the

ORIGIN project, could therefore promote the attainment of UK’s climate targets.

Moreover, several actions can be undertaken at the household level to decrease energy

costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Retrofitting buildings to add insulation, solar

photovoltaics (PVs), a more efficient heating system together with changing water

temperatures, installing low-flow showerheads or cutting back standby electricity may

generate long-term savings (Dietz, et al., 2009). These measures include both the adoption

of more efficient equipment and changes in consumption behaviour. However, research by

Kelly (2013) suggests that naturally energy efficient buildings require more significant

financial efforts to be upgraded to an even higher efficiency level, because the available low

cost measures have already been exhausted. He therefore postulates that the most effective

strategy for reducing energy and emissions is to better understand human behaviour. The

interaction between people with buildings could yield a clearer focus on where energy and

emission savings can be made.

This dissertation supports the premise that behaviour is a significant factor for efficiency

gains within dwellings, and to overcome the rebound effect. As eco-villages present a

comprehensive approach to the issues of ecological planning and energy efficiency (further

discussed in the subsequent chapter) they move towards the right direction for energy

efficiency and thus assisting to meet national targets.

Ecovillage approach for energy and resource efficiency 9

3 Ecovillage approach for energy and resource efficiency

3.1 Community contributions to global problems Angel et al. (1998), Moloney et al. (2010) and Ostrom (2009) recognise that while many of

the primary effects of climate change are global, its causes are located within the activities of

individuals, households and communities. In this way, eco-communities can make several

important indirect and direct contributions in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and

presenting novel approaches to tackle this collective action problem. They provide

opportunities for evaluating models of social innovation, for nurturing and sharing technical

skills or ideas, and they may contribute as a marketplace where low carbon actions can be

explored (Mulugetta, et al., 2010). Also, local endeavours can demonstrate structural

impediments that inhibit or complicate implementation of new projects which can be

attributed to wider policies. More precisely, they inform the nature of incentives for specific

activities and the investments in human and technical resources (Angel, et al., 1998;

Mulugetta, et al., 2010).

Their interventions can lead to significant emission reductions once all ecovillage efforts are

summed up globally. Even locally, their benefit to the environment can be significant which

was shown by the low ecological footprint3 of Findhorn which is half (2.56gha per person) of

the UK’s average (5.4gha) (Tinsley & George, 2006). Small and community scale actions

should therefore not be considered as a marginal component but rather as influential

experimental models for a sustainable society and applications for new technologies

(Lockyer, 2010). This can help the society to imagine an inspiring vision of an alternative

future (EEA, 2013; Mulugetta, et al., 2010) even though not every single aspect may be

applicable for mainstream purposes, bearing in mind the particular socio-cultural

circumstances that characterise these intentional communities. It is thereby important to

clarify that while one of the contributions of ecovillages is to mitigate climate change their

approach is much wider in scope. Their holistic approach towards sustainability will be

described below.

3 Ecological footprinting is a tool that quantifies how much energy and raw materials are used and how much waste is generated. This is converted into a measure of land area (global hectares: gha) that is required to produce all resources used and waste produced. For the survey undertaken by Tinsley and George (2006) categories such as food, home and energy, travel, consumables, services, government and capital investments were investigated. The result suggests that the Findhorn Foundation and Community’s activities have a smaller impact upon the environment than the national average consumer.


3.2 An introduction to the ecovillage approach An ecovillage can be defined as “a human-scale, full-featured settlement in which human

activities are harmlessly integrated into the natural world in a way that is supportive of

healthy human development and can be successfully continued into the indefinite future”

(Dawson, 2006, p. 13). It is somewhat difficult to generalise the term completely as each

ecovillage in the world is a unique creation and contains particular socio-cultural, historical,

ecological and geographical features. Generally people came together deliberately with the

aim to create an intentional community centred on shared values, interests or passions

(Lockyer, 2010) and are embedded in a community-specific social structure (Heiskanen, et

al., 2010).

3.3 Findhorn profile: characteristics and lifestyle The Findhorn Foundation is located in Morayshire, in northeast Scotland and was founded by

Eileen Caddy, Peter Caddy and Dorothy Maclean in 1962. It is an experiment in conscious

living, a learning centre and based on a strong spiritual dimension (FIC, 2013). Originally a

caravan park, it presents the oldest eco-village in Europe. According to the Findhorn

Foundation (ibid.) there are approximately 450 residents in the Findhorn community with 120

residential, 30 commercial buildings and 120 caravans and mobile homes. The majority of

the residents can be considered to be accommodated in conventional dwellings housing up

to four people but there are also homes in which more than four people live. Out of all

residents, 130 are so-called co-workers of the foundation and over 300 are non-member

residents and thus belong to the wider community.

The commercial buildings include a shop, the Universal Hall (which contains a café, office

space, a dance studio and a performance hall), a laundry, a printing press, a community hall

that provides lunch and dinner for members of the co-workers and their guests, and an Arts

Centre (Peacock, et al., 2013). Houses vary in age, energy efficiency and design. The more

modern buildings have been mostly designed for optimum passive solar utility and are highly

insulated. They operate on renewable energy sources including a wind farm with four wind

turbines with a total generating capacity of 750kW, a district heating scheme and a large

number of dispersed photovoltaic panels (see figure 1). In addition the village has several

source heat pumps. What is novel about the energy generation is not the technology per se

but its management. It is done at a local, community scale by people who consider the

community as an experimentation and demonstration opportunity for ecologically sustainable

models of energy production (Lockyer, 2010).


Figure 2 Appliance ownership in Findhorn dwellings compared to UK benchmarks (Peacock, et al., 2013, p. 4)

Figure 1 Sustainable lifestyle in Findhorn (Authors own pictures) (Left: one of the four windmills close to Findhorn, top right: whiskey barrel house, bottom right: new

housing development showing solar thermal installations on roofs)


The ORIGIN project identified that the dwellings in Findhorn use 29% less electricity than the

UK average, with equivalent ownership of lights, cold appliances and washing machines

(Peacock, et al., 2013). Nearly no tumble dryers and microwaves exist but the residents in

Findhorn own considerably more computing equipment than the average (ibid., see figure 2).

As the latter sections has given an overview about historical and technical facts, the following

section concentrates on internal (social) structures. Table 1 shows the characteristics and

internal structure of Findhorn. It is based on the findings from Kanaley (2000) that

summarised the main common elements of ten studied eco-communities across Europe

including Findhorn. The table is ordered according to the central aspects of a low-carbon

community (shared interests, practices and structures) suggested by Heiskanen et al. (2010).

In the right column details and examples are provided that are specific for the life in Findhorn

for each of the main elements. Table 1 Characteristics of Findhorn

Shared Interests

Vision To create a more peaceful and sustainable world.

Principles Spirituality, consciousness, sustainability

….. the interconnectivity of all life

With spiritual activities such as Sacred song (Taizé), Sacred Dance, celebration

Recognition of

community

People-centred living:

Cooperation: basis of sharing

Socially cohesive: Equity, mutual support, love

Understanding of nature People need to live in a sustainable relationship with nature (leading a spiritual life

with low environmental impact)

Practices

Application of technology

to minimise adverse

environmental impacts

I.e. Innovative: passive solar use, natural insulation materials, wind energy parks,

solar panels, biological sewage treatment plant

Some food or other

production

Community gardens

Structures

Internal decision making

system

Complex governance structure, including Findhorn Foundation, New Findhorn

Association, Findhorn Foundation College etc.

Internal disputes system Community meetings, open discussions and acceptance of different opinions


To summarise the view of the Findhorn Foundation, ecovillages are: “… communities with

strong and vibrant social structures, united by common ecological, economic, social and

spiritual values” (Findhorn Foundation, 2013b). As values related to sustainability and

cooperation seem to be central to the principal idea of the ecovillage lifestyle (GEN-europe,

2013; Lockyer, 2010), the next chapter will look closer at the relationship between values and

energy efficiency behaviour.

Values and pro-environmental behaviour 14

4 Values and pro-environmental behaviour One of the most neglected factors in pushing for change is the set of values that

motivates people – which represent a strong driving force behind many of our attitudes

and behaviours. Examining these values more closely reveals some deep connections

between seemingly different issues – and a wealth of opportunities to bring about

lasting, systematic change (Holmes, et al., 2011, p. 64)

Energy use behaviours are hugely complex, and shaped by many external and internal

factors. Variables that influence environmentally relevant behaviour include attitudes (and

environmental awareness), emotions, values, norms, motivations, external barriers and

knowledge (Schweizer-Ries, 2009). Theoretical accounts posited that there is an association

between environmentally related values and behaviour that protects the environment (Stern,

et al., 1993). According to Stern and Aronson (1984) the expression of values is most explicit

in the context of local energy action, but is also important for conservation policies and

programmes. Being interested in one internal factor shaping behaviour, this chapter explores

the relationship between values and pro-environmental behaviour.

4.1 Definition of values Values are often defined as beliefs or ideas of desirable goals and end states (Schwartz,

1994). Even though they can seem abstract, they shape people’s attitudes and behaviours in

the course of the life of a person (Holmes, et al., 2011). Interestingly, it seems that a person

is motivated by these guiding principles rather than by facts concerning society and the

environment (ibid.) Generally, values function as interests of some social entity, can motivate

action by giving it direction and emotional intensity, and function as standards for judging and

justifying action (Schwartz, 1994).

In a hierarchical structure, values are organised according to the relative importance they

reveal to a person’s self-concept (Jonsson & Nilsson, 2012). They are said to have

neighbours (i.e. compatible types) and opposites (i.e. competing types) which form a circular

continuum of ten motivational value types: “The closer any two values in either direction

around the circle, the more similar their underlying motivations. The more distant any two

values, the more antagonistic their underlying motivations” (Schwartz, 2006, p. 2). This

implies that when two opposite values are engaged at the same time, individuals tend to

react with conflicting feelings or attitudes (Holmes, et al., 2011).

Figure 3 shows the ten motivational value types together with the four broader value clusters

self-transcendence, self-enhancement, openness to change and conservation collapsed by

Schwartz (Schwartz, 1992). In this structure the value clusters are summarised in two


orthogonal dimensions, one being self-transcendence as opposed to self-enhancement and

the other being openness to change as opposed to conservation (or tradition). The self-

transcendence to self-enhancement dimension reflects the relationship between values

related to a concern for the welfare of others and the environment, and values oriented

toward the pursuit of self-interest (e.g. wealth, success). The second dimension contrasts the

extent to which individuals are motivated to independent actions (openness to change)

versus to preserve the status quo and follow social rules or traditions (conservation)

(Schwartz, 1992). Detailed explanations of each motivational type are given in appendix I.

In general, the value relationships are remarkably consistent all over the world. Many people

across contemporary societies implicitly recognise the ten motivational types, but to differing

extents (Schwartz, 1994). Furthermore, it has been widely recognised that individuals hold a

relatively stable set of values (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002; Holmes, et al., 2011) which are

hard to change or influence. They are acquired both through socialisation to dominant group

values and through the unique learning of individuals (Schwartz, 1994). Although being

Figure 3 Schwartz’ theoretical model of the motivational value types and value clusters organised by

motivational similarities and dissimilarities (Holmes, et al., 2011)


relatively stable, the sequence of dominating values can be altered. There are three basic

causes: (1) differences between generations, (2) changing conditions through an individual’s

lifecycle (such as historical events, physical ageing and proceeding life stages) and (3)

periodical influences (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002). For example, there exists a positive

correlation of age with the motivational types security, tradition and conformity but a negative

correlation of age with stimulation, hedonism and achievement values (Schwartz, 2006;

Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Hence, for a less refined distinction, older people give more priority

to conservation values and less to openness to change values.

4.2 Value-belief-norm theory of pro-environmental behaviour

It is generally acknowledged that values are an important driver of behaviour. For example,

people who strongly hold tradition values are more likely to watch for national holidays and

customs. Besides, theoretical accounts have investigated that values which focus on concern

beyond a person’s immediate social environment (values called self-transcendent) are

stronger among those who show pro-environmental actions (Karp, 1996; Stern & Dietz,

1994). While empirical studies have confirmed that pro-environmental behaviour is related to

a particular set of values (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002) it is important to note that values are

an important determinant but not the only one. Their direct influence on behaviour seems

relatively low. There are several factors that influence behaviour such as behaviour specific

beliefs or personal norms (Steg, et al., 2005). Stern’s (2000) Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory

provides a framework to understand the mechanisms potentially at play with regards to pro-

environmental activities.

On the basis of the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), the VBN theory assumes a

causal chain where individual value orientations directly influence beliefs and hence attitudes

and behaviour (figure 4) (López-Mosquera & Sánchez, 2012). Therefore, environmental-

friendly behaviour manifests itself, moving from relatively stable central elements of

personalities (values) and belief structure to more focused beliefs about human-environment

relations, their consequences (norms) and the individual’s perceived responsibility to take

action (Stern, 2000).

Figure 4 Causal chain of the VBN theory (Stern, 2000)


4.2.1 Values

At the beginning of the chain are placed personal values. In the VBN theory, values salient to

environmentalism are self-transcendence and self-enhancement values4. Self-transcendence

values place the importance on care for other people and are the basis for environmental

concerns, and self-enhancement values or self-interest relate to personal concerns.

Generally, all value orientations toward the environment may be related and it is assumed

that people hold some combination of them (Stern, et al., 1993). These value formations

directly influence the general beliefs that people hold about the earth and human-

environment relations.

4.2.2 Beliefs The second set of factors concerns beliefs. Three variables are at work. The first is denoted

environmental worldview which is less stable than values and is shaped by values and

external factors such as the social structure. It is concerned with the perception of the

relationship of humans with nature, recognises limits of growth and attributes rights to the

natural environment for example. The more deeply rooted these general beliefs, the deeper

is people’s awareness of consequences for valued objects for self, others and for the

ecosystem (e.g. climate change, air pollution etc.). If awareness is present, then individuals

may ascribe responsibility to themselves to mitigate the impacts identified (i.e. perceived

ability to reduce threat) (Devine-Wright & Devine-Wright, 2004).

4.2.3 Personal norms When a person feels a sense of moral obligation to act towards the environment, then

actions of pro-environmental behaviour are likely to occur (Wynveen, et al., 2012). As

internalised standards or expectations that people hold for themselves, personal norms

suggest how one should behave in a given context. They are learned and modified through

social interaction and are tied to a person’s self-image (e.g. guilt or pride). Being an

important general predisposition to act in a pro-environmental manner all other variables may

have indirect effects through norms. Nevertheless, in some cases other variables affect

behaviour directly, deducting norms (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Stern, et al., 1999).

4 In the original VBN theory values salient to pro-environmental behaviour were classified egoistic, altruistic and biospheric (Stern, et al., 1998). Both altruistic and biospheric values can be understood as subscales of the single self-transcendence cluster and egoistic values have the same meaning as the self-enhancement cluster.


4.3 The direct relationship between values and pro-environmental behaviour

This dissertation uses the VBN-theory as a basis for the investigation of dominating personal

value orientations in respect to self-reported energy efficiency behaviour for the eco-

community Findhorn. The developed figure (5) combines the VBN theory of Stern with the

value clusters of Schwartz (Stern, et al., 1998) to understand their impact towards behaviour.

Particularly the value cluster self-transcendence is interesting with regards to pro-

environmental behaviour. Such intrinsic motivations can be understood as placing

importance on resource conservation as an aim itself and are centred on inherently

rewarding pursuits. Empirical studies have concluded that self-transcendence values were

positive predictive to pro-environmental behaviour (Crompton, 2010; Milfont, et al., 2006;

Steg, et al., 2005; Schultz, et al., 2005; Mirosa, et al., 2011). These values all stand for a

sense of community, affiliation to friends and family, caring for the environment and personal

growth. Especially for energy consumption activities, such as turning off lights when leaving

the home and using cold water for clothes washing, self-transcendence was found to be a

significant predictor variable of pro-environmental behaviour (Cleveland, et al., 2005).

Conversely, self-enhancement stands for a person’s pursuit of personal status, wealth,

power and success. Being more centred on external approval or rewards, values in that

cluster can be also referred to as extrinsic motivations. Conceptualised as pro-self values,

Figure 5 Value-belief-norm theory combined with Schwartz’ human value clusters

(adapted from Stern 2000 and Schwartz 1994)


self-enhancement tends to be negatively correlated with environmental-friendly behaviour

due to inconvenience.

Nevertheless, several researchers speculated that pro-environmental action may be initiated

by such egoistic motives when the person believes that environmental damage will adversely

affect the self (Snelgar, 2006; Stern, et al., 1993; Stern, et al., 1995). An example is the

NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) protest, in which people oppose attempts to site chemical or

industrial factories which they perceive to be harmed. However, findings of the empirical

research from Schultz et al. (2005) contradict the notion that there is a possible positive

relationship between self-enhancement and environmental-friendly behaviour under the right

conditions. Unsure why this is the case, they mainly presume that environmental-friendly

behaviours are structured and marketed in a way that they are incompatible with self-interest.

However, research from Mirosa et al. (2011) highlight the overwhelmingly dominant role of

the value achievement (embedded into the self-enhancement value set) in driving and/or

inhibiting energy-efficient behaviour. It showed that when people felt capable and intelligent

in pursuing energy efficiency activities, they acted in a pro-environmental manner. This result

may imply that values appealing to the environment alone, as suggested with self-

transcendence values, will not promote energy-saving and energy-efficient behaviours.

The other two value sets, conservation and openness to change, largely lack validity about

their influence on environmentalism (Stern, et al., 1998). They are originally not incorporated

into the VBN theory. Still, for the purpose of this research they are included. This allows for a

greater in-depth analysis and for the possibility to rank the four value orientations self-

transcendence, self-enhancement, conservation and openness to change. For instance,

Karp (1996) analysed pro-environmental predictors aggregating all four value orientations

into value combinations. He postulated that the self-transcendence/openness to change

combination gives the strongest predictor of pro-environmental behaviour, followed by self-

transcendence/conservation where individuals will engage only in pro-environmental

behaviour when it is normally prescribed to do so. A strong negative predictor revealed self-

enhancement/conservation.

Using the VBN model as the basis for the research design, pro-environmental behaviour will

be regarded from the angle of energy-efficient behaviour which relates to measures such as

efficient heating and cooling, good house insulation, appropriate lighting, use of energy

efficiency appliances – such as white goods, and switching off electrical appliances when

they are not needed. This allows the examination of the direct relationship between the two

variables values and energy efficiency behaviour taking away the factors beliefs and norms

(the relationship indicated with the red arrow in figure 5). There are several reasons for

justifying this approach. Firstly, “each variable in the causal chain is related to the next

variable and may also be directly related to variables further down the chain” (Steg, et al.,


2005, p. 417). This implies that there is a correlation (albeit small) between values and pro-

environmental behaviour which has been investigated by researchers (Karp, 1996; Neuman,

1986; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Schultz, et al., 2005). Linking values directly to pro-

environmental behaviour is therefore simple and meaningful. This investigation additionally

provides a basis to compare the value orientations of the Findhorn sample with other

(national or international) samples. Secondly, values are rarely understood in terms of

energy use behaviours (Holmes, et al., 2011; Mirosa, et al., 2011; Poortinga, et al., 2004)

which make them interesting to study especially for an eco-community that focuses on

energy innovation. As such, this research presents the first known analysis of values and

energy-efficient behaviour in an Ecovillage. Thirdly, an analysis of beliefs and norms would

go beyond the scope of this research. For these reasons this research considers solely the

independent variable values of the VBN theory while recognising that the relationship

between values and environmental-friendly behaviour is much more complex in reality.

Case Study 21

5 Case Study This chapter deals with the examination of values and energy use behaviour in the ecovillage

Findhorn. As the first empirical analysis of this relationship in an ecovillage it will offer

supplementary insights into the general literature and association of values with pro-

environmental behaviour. The method of a case study is an empirical inquiry that

investigates a contemporary phenomenon, e.g. values and behaviour, within its real-life

context (Yin, 2003). The analysis of the relationship between the variables in Findhorn is thus

context-specific and might offer unique insights about the residents’ lifestyle, values and

behaviours. Additionally, it is possible to investigate if the existence of specific values might

be different to the population that does not live in a low-carbon community, i.e. the average

UK citizen.

5.1 Hypotheses At this point, hypotheses are asserted regarding the relationship between value dimensions

and energy efficiency behaviour for the ecovillage Findhorn. Based on the findings from the

literature review regarding the influence of values on pro-environmental behaviour, the main

hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1: Self-transcendence will be positively associated with self-reported energy

efficiency behaviour (H0: β=0, H1: β>0) 5.

Moving on from the direct relationship between values and behaviour in Findhorn, it is of

interest to assess whether values are distinctive in Findhorn compared to the UK. This would

provide more detail of how different or similar the Findhorn sample is in its social and

psychological structure. For the comparison of value orientations of Findhorn with the UK,

the focus lies on the self-transcendence cluster as the most relevant indicator regarding

energy use behaviour.

Hypothesis 2: Findhorn residents will value self-transcendence higher than the UK sample

(H0: µF=µUK, H2: µF>µUK)6.

5 The null hypothesis states that the standardised regression coefficient equals zero and the alternative hypothesis states that the coefficient is greater than zero. 6 The null hypothesis states that the means of the value cluster self-transcendence is equal between Findhorn and the UK sample whereas the alternative hypothesis states that the mean in Findhorn is greater than the mean of the UK.

Case Study 22

5.2 Method

5.2.1 Overview of empirical research

The relationship between dominant values, included in the brief value survey by Stern et al.

(1998), and the performance of self-reported past energy efficiency behaviour is studied by

means of a structured questionnaire with a sample of Findhorn residents. The computer

software SPSS is used for the analysis. The analysis comprises of

(1) Descriptive statistics:

a. Evaluations of frequencies for socio-demographic data

b. Presentation of frequencies for self-reported energy efficiency behaviour

and values in Findhorn

(2) Influential statistics:

a. Correlation analysis for values and self-reported past energy efficiency

behaviour in Findhorn

b. Regression model for self-transcendence cluster and self-reported past

energy efficiency behaviour

c. Multivariate analysis of variance for the variables self-transcendence, self-

enhancement, openness to change and conservation comparing the

Findhorn sample with the UK.

The survey was carried out by the community itself from 11 June 2013 until 09 August 2013.

It was distributed by means of hard paper copies and was self-completed by residents. Due

to time constraints questionnaires were considered from Findhorn if received before 23 July

2013.

5.2.2 Design and variables The research method for the empirical research comprised a semi-structured questionnaire

that mostly included quantitative questions and a few qualitative questions. The

questionnaire has been elaborated by the Fraunhofer ISE based on theoretical accounts

(Peacock, et al., 2013). On the basis that the research method was predefined within the

ORIGIN project this dissertation will not justify the research method used. For the present

research, questions were asked about the priority given to a selection of the many values a

person may hold, about the performance of self-assessed energy-efficient behaviour and

about socio-demographic issues, besides questions not used for this research. For the

comparison of value clusters between Findhorn and the UK, results of the value survey of the

ESS are used as well.

Case Study 23

5.2.2.1. Behaviour

Self-reported past energy-efficient behaviour was measured by the question: “To what extent

do you consider yourself to behave in an energy-efficient way in the building?” The question

was introduced with a brief paragraph about what energy efficiency measures may be

available in a residential dwelling: “Energy efficiency can include measures such as turning

off lights when not needed, installing low-energy light-bulbs, using energy-efficient household

appliances, switching off electrical appliances with concentration switches or choosing

double/triple-glazed windows” (as has been indicated in figure 5). A 7-point scale was used

where 7 equals “extremely energy-efficient”, 4 equals “indifferent” and 1 equals “not really

energy-efficient”. Therefore, this variable is assumed to be interval-scaled7.

5.2.2.2. Values

Values were measured by 12 items of the type: “Please indicate how important each aspect

is to you” using a 5-point interval scale where 5 means “extremely important” and 1 means

“not important at all”. The questions are consistent with the proposed instrument by Stern

and others (Stern, et al., 1998) which measured the major value clusters self-transcendence,

self-enhancement, openness to change and conservation each with 3 questions (table 2).

Table 2 Brief inventory of values by Stern et al. (1998) for measuring values in Findhorn

Questions Motivational value types

Self-transcendence 1 Protecting the environment, preserving nature Universalism 2 A world at peace – free of war and conflict Universalism 3 Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak Universalism Conservation values 4 Honouring parents and elders, showing respect Tradition 5 Family security, safety for loved ones Security 6 Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptation Conformity Self-enhancement values 7 Authority, the right to lead or command Power 8 Influential, having an impact on people and events Achievement 9 Wealth, material possessions, money Power Openness to change values

10 A varied life, filled with challenge, novelty and change Stimulation 11 An exciting life, stimulating experiences Stimulation 12 Curious, interested in everything, exploring Self-direction

7 While recognising that the scale used is not a true interval scale, this study regards the difference between one and seven, or one and five for the 5-point scale measuring the importance of values, respectively, as equal. As such the ordinal scale is treated as an interval scale (Knapp, 1990; Stevens, 1946).

Case Study 24

To compare the Findhorn communities’ value clusters with that of other UK residents, the

open-source data by the academically-driven social survey ESS was used. Carried out in 30

European nations, it charted and explained the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour patterns of

the diverse populations. One core part of the study was the assessment of value orientations

with 21 items that covered all 10 motivational types designed by Schwartz (2007) (a list of

the 21 value questions is provided in appendix II). For the use of the present study, the 21

items were summarised into the corresponding four value clusters according to the value

relationships presented in the circular structure in figure 3. The interval scale was adjusted

from a 6-point-scale to a 5-point-scale permitting comparison. By summarising the

predetermined answer options 3 “somewhat like me” and 4 “a little like me” into one option

the midpoint of the adjusted scale was nominated with 3 equal to “somewhat like me”. In this

manner, the adjusted scale ranges from 1 equal to “not like me at all” to 5 equal to “very

much like me”.

5.2.3 The participants of the survey In total, 33 residents, which were all involved in the ORIGIN project, participated voluntarily in

the survey. Answers from 13 male and 20 female residents were received. The male/female

ratio of 40/60 is nearly equal to that of Findhorn (35/65) (Hollander, 2013) but unequal to the

UK where women and men are nearly in balance8 (Office for National Statistics, 2012). The

average age of the participants is 58 years (SD=11.7) with the minimum age being 31 years

and maximum 77 years. Somewhat similar to Findhorn as a whole, it shows that residents of

the community are mainly elderly. Compared to the UK where 66 % of the population aged

15-64 (Office for National Statistics, 2012), the present sample is not representative for the

UK. However, it could demonstrate the national ageing population structure where the

proportion of people aged 65 and over had more than trebled over the last century (ibid.). For

the survey, one also need to consider that younger residents were less likely to volunteer for

the study as they are more mobile and do not own a house (Hollander, 2013).

As shown in table 3, almost half of the respondents (15) live with their partners while 10 have

a single person household and five live with community members. Some have additional

space for office, workshops or own a Bed & Breakfast (4). One resident lives with a tenant

and one family shares their home with their lodger. Additionally, five participants have one

child each and one participant has two children. The low number of children could reflect on

the older population of Findhorn but does not represent the socio-demographic situation of

the UK. What is nevertheless interesting is that the percentage of the UK population aged

under 15 has halved over the past 100 years (Office for National Statistics, 2012) depicting a

8 The 2011 census counted 31 million men and 32.2 million women in the UK (in Scotland 2.6 million men and 2.7 million women).

Case Study 25

decreasing young generation in the entire country. This is a phenomenon Findhorn may

suffer from as well.

Table 3 Life situation of participants

What characterisation describes your household best?

Frequency Valid Percent

Single person household 10 30.3% Single person household plus resident guests/home office with 2 workers 1 3.0% Live with partner 12 36.4% Live with partner plus B&B guests/ workshop participants 2 6.1% Live with partner and community members plus B&B guests 1 3.0% Live with community members 5 15.2% Live with tenant 1 3.0% Family with lodger 1 3.0% Total 33 100.0%

The majority of participants (78%) obtained an academic degree, five participants attained a

higher education degree and two other participants completed apprenticeships (figure 6).

The UK is known for its educational reputation which could explain the high educational

attainment of the sample. For example, a Eurostat survey showed that the UK has the

highest rate of tertiary educational attainment among the European countries with 40% or

more of 30-to-34 year-old men and women with higher education degrees as well as more

than two million tertiary students in 2010 (Eurostat, 2012).

Figure 6 Education levels of participants

16%

42%

36%

6%

What is your highest educational attainment?

Higher education

Undergraduate degree(Bachelor)

Postgraduate degree (Masters/doctorate)

Apprenticeship

N=31

Case Study 26

Despite this high education level, almost half of the participants earns less than £1,100 per

month and one third between £1,100 and £2,200 as can be seen in figure 7. This low

average income does not correlate with the UK (Carrera & Beaumont, 2010) and seems to

be specific for the eco-community. Nearly half of the participants gained their income through

self-employment, 11 from employment and from pensions (figure 8). One has to bear in mind

that residents could have several sources of income and that there has been no

differentiation of whether working participants work on a full-time or part-time basis.

Figure 7 Income of participants

Figure 8 Source of income of participants

16

7

4

1 1 1

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

below 1,100 up to 1,450 up to 2,200 up to 3,050 up to 4,250 up to15,400

no answer/does not

apply

Amount of net income per month

Frequency

N=33

1

15

11

1

2

11

1

1

1

2

Volunteer work

Income from employment

Income from self-employment

Social aid

Support for elderly/persons not able to work full time

Pensions

Disability allowance

Investment income

Savings

Tax credits

What is your predominant source of income? Frequency (multiple answers possible)

Case Study 27

5.3 Results This chapter reports on the outcomes of the survey in terms of values and energy use

behaviour. It begins by illustrating a descriptive picture about the dependent variable self-

reported energy-efficient behaviour followed by the independent variables values.

Subsequently, results of the correlation analysis, regression model and multivariate analysis

of variance will be demonstrated to allow testing the hypotheses later on.

5.3.1 Self-reported energy efficiency behaviour As can be seen in figure 9, the answers to the question of how energy-efficient the

participants behave are presented in a bar chart. With a mean of M=6.1 (SD=.6) it can be

derived that Findhorn residents consider themselves to be very energy-efficient in their

homes. The distribution is highly negatively skewed where the majority of participants (21)

considered themselves to be almost extremely energy-efficient.

Figure 9 Self-reported energy efficiency behaviour of the participants

5.3.2 Value orientations in Findhorn To examine the value constellation in Findhorn, higher-order value orientation scores were

formed by summarising each of the corresponding three value items into the categories self-

transcendence, self-enhancement, conservation and openness to change values. The mean

rating was calculated for each value cluster to present a descriptive picture of value

orientations for the sample. Figure 10 illustrates that self-transcendence values are most

0 0 0 0

4

21

8

not reallyenergy-efficient

2 3 indifferent 5 6 extremelyenergy-efficient

To what extent do you consider yourself to behave in an energy-efficient way in your

home? Frequency

N=33

Case Study 28

important for Findhorn residents, followed by openness-to-change and conservation, and the

least important are self-enhancement values (the higher the mean score, the more important

the value was considered by the respondent).

Figure 10 Mean with standard deviations (error bars) of value orientations for the participants

5.3.3 Relationship between values and energy-efficient behaviour

This part of the analysis deals with the relationship between values and energy-efficient

behaviour. Correlation coefficients were evaluated between self-reported energy-efficient

behaviour and values considered relevant for this type of behaviour (see chapter 4.3). As no

variables showed a normal distribution, the non-parametric correlation coefficient Spearman

Rho was chosen. For the sake of completeness, a full list of motivational values, value

clusters and value combinations and their correlation coefficients with measured energy-

efficient behaviour is provided in appendix III.

Table 4 shows a significant positive relationship between behaviour and the self-

transcendence value cluster (rs=.34, p<.05), the self-enhancement value cluster (rs=.38,

p<.005), the combination of self-transcendence/openness to change values (rs=.37, p<.005)

and the motivational value achievement (rs=.38, p<.05). There was no significant association

with self-enhancement/conservation (rs=.25 p=n.s.). Consistent with literature are the positive

relationships between energy use behaviour and self-transcendence, the combination self-

transcendence/openness to change and the motivational value achievement. The results

differ from other empirical studies where self-enhancement was negatively correlated

(Nordlund & Garvill, 2002) and self-enhancement/conservation a negative predictor (Karp,

1996) of environmental-friendly behaviour which is not consistent with the studied sample.

4,73

2,56

4,00 4,00

Self-Transcendence Self-Enhancement Openness to Change Conservation

Value orientations Findhorn Mean

Case Study 29

Table 4 Correlation matrix between values with energy-efficient behaviour

Correlation coefficients

Energy-efficient behaviour Value clusters Self-transcendence .344*

Self-enhancement .378* Value combinations Self-transcendence/ Openness to change .366*

Self-enhancement/Conservation .245 Motivational value Achievement .384*

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

While correlations provide information about a positive or negative association, they do not

indicate its direction. Based on the VBN theory where values influence behaviour and not

vice versa, a regression model can demonstrate the direction of the existing relationship. To

narrow down the scope of analysis, the subsequent regression model assessed the

relationship between self-transcendence and energy efficiency recognising that this value

cluster is the main predictor of pro-environmental actions (chapter 4.3). The results of the

linear regression9 indicated that self-transcendence explained 13% of the variance (R²=.13,

F(1,31)=4.500, p<.05). It was found that self-transcendence significantly predicted energy

efficiency behaviour (β=.36, p<.05). The full regression outputs (model summary, ANOVA

and coefficients) from SPSS are shown in appendix IV.

5.3.4 Comparison of values between Findhorn and the UK

This part compares value clusters for Findhorn with those of the UK. Findhorn data derived

from results of the survey (figure 10) were compared with the value survey within the ESS for

the country UK (a description of socio-demographic data of the UK sample is provided in

appendix V). The obtained motivational values were classified into the four value types by

evaluating their means. For the UK, the most dominant type was self-transcendence

(M=3.94, SD=.65), succeeded by conservation (M=3.44, SD=.61), openness to change

(M=3.25, SD=.60) with the last being self-enhancement (M=3.03, SD=.60). This outcome is

almost equal to the value hierarchy of that of the respondents from Findhorn which ranges

from highest to lowest with self-transcendence, conservation and openness to change, to

self-enhancement. Figure 11 illustrates this finding by showing the extent of difference

between Findhorn and UK scores. It is obvious that in all but self-enhancement values the

clusters were more pronounced in Findhorn. The difference between the two self-

9 It is important to note that one condition to perform a linear regression analysis is to have a normal probability distribution of the residuals which is non-existent in this model. Nevertheless, small variations lead to distortions that are tolerable (Bortz, 2005). Besides, the model does not show linearity and homogeneity of variance, which, according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) is not severe. For these reasons it can be justified to perform the linear regression model.

Case Study 30

transcendence clusters is the highest (0.79) and the self-enhancement values the lowest

(0.47)10.

Figure 11 Comparison of value clusters between Findhorn and the UK

Thereafter, a multivariate analysis of variance was performed to examine if there is a

significant difference of the means between Findhorn and the whole country. The results

showed a significant difference between the means of the four value clusters Findhorn

versus the UK (F[4,2302]=49.37, p<.01). Thus, self-transcendence, conservation and

openness to change are more pronounced, and self-enhancement less pronounced in

Findhorn than in the rest of the UK.

5.4 Discussion

5.4.1 Discussion of hypotheses Moving on from the description, the discussion of the results and hypotheses will be critically

analysed in line with theoretical accounts. Two hypotheses were addressed, the first being:

Self-transcendence will be positively associated with self-reported energy efficiency

behaviour.

10 The difference for openness to change clusters is 0.75 and conservation 0.56.

0

1

2

3

4

5Self-Transcendence

Openness to Change

Self-Enhancement

Conservation

Value profiles for Findhorn and the UK Findhorn (n=33) UK (n≈2300)

Case Study 31

The value hierarchy derived for the Findhorn sample gives a good basis to statistically

analyse the relationship between values and the residents’ energy-consumption behaviours.

Looking back to the VBN theory, the more important self-transcendence and the less

important self-enhancement values, the more likely is collective or pro-environmental action

(Stern, et al., 1998). It was found that there was a positive association of self-transcendence

with self-reported energy efficiency behaviour in Findhorn by the correlation and regression

analysis. Hence, hypothesis 1 can be supported (H0 is rejected). The weak but significant

correlation can be explained by the fact that values are usually mediated by norms (VBN

theory) (Nordlund & Garvill, 2002). It shows that the value protecting the environment (self-

transcendence) is clearly linked to energy use behaviours but not the only factor. There are

several internal and contextual factors at play which can impact the way people behave,

such as environmental values, perception and personal assessment of products and

services, habits, attitude and norms, media or costs (Schweizer-Ries, 2009).

The positive significant correlation with self-enhancement and energy use behaviour was not

expected since self-transcendence and self-enhancement values tend to be negatively

related. Located on opposite poles in the circle of values (see figure 3) people are concerned

about themselves and about others to different degrees (Schwartz, 1992). However a

positive linear relationship could also exist as was demonstrated by researchers showing

positive correlations between benevolence and achievement for instance (Lee, et al., 2008).

People may be interested in themselves as well as others. This could justify the positive

correlations of the two value clusters self-enhancement and self-transcendence with energy

use behaviour in the current study.

In this regard the motivational value achievement (being the only significant value in the

three items under the cluster self-enhancement in the present study, see appendix III) could

have contributed to the positive correlation coefficient between concerns over energy

efficiency and self-enhancement. This, in turn, may not be as surprising according to the

study of Mirosa et al. (2011) which revealed an overwhelmingly dominant influence of the

motivational value achievement on energy use behaviour. Thus, achievement could be the

driver behind the positive relationship between the cluster self-enhancement and energy

actions. A theoretical account would be that people who feel capable and intelligent to deal

with energy-related behavioural or technological changes are committed to energy-efficient

behaviour. Moreover, it seems that different values together can underlie the same

behaviour. It implies that a combination of values possibly leads to energy-efficient behaviour

rather than the dominance of self-transcendence alone. This would conform to the empirical

results of Mirosa et al. (2011). It also matches to the derived positive correlation score for the

combinational value type self-transcendence/openness to change with energy efficiency in

Case Study 32

the study. As previously confirmed in the regression analysis this value combination was a

positive predictor for environmental activities (Karp, 1996).

The second hypothesis looks at one value cluster that is different in Findhorn in contrast to

the rest of the UK: Findhorn residents will value self-transcendence higher than the UK

sample. Given the significant difference of the mean values for all four value clusters in

Findhorn and the UK (figure 11), the results of the value hierarchy for Findhorn cannot be

assumed about the wider population of the UK. The mean value scores for each cluster can

be interpreted as cultural values (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002) - In the case of Findhorn

understood as community values. They are specific for the eco-community. The Findhorn

culture gives higher priority to self-transcendence values and less priority to self-

enhancement than the UK citizen. According to the more pronounced self-transcendence

cluster, the second hypothesis can be accepted (with H0 being rejected). As stated by the

literature, self-transcendence is the most influential value cluster of pro-environmental

commitment. With this value being the most dominant one in the Findhorn sample, one

should expect that the participants are favourably inclined towards protecting the

environment and behave in an energy-efficient way. Despite the small sample size, this

relationship could be verified within the case study.

5.4.2 Discussion of individual variables

When looking at the results of the empirical study the observations seem to portray a

community with specific living conditions. This was also evident in the individually measured

variables. For example, in the self-evaluation of residents’ energy-efficient behaviour, the

result was very homogeneous in that the majority believed they acted in a very energy-

efficient way in their homes. The specific lifestyle characteristics in Findhorn might evoke

individual pro-environmental behaviour by manifesting themselves in a group-specific

bearing on topics such as energy use (Dietz, et al., 2013; Fischer, 2002). Also, the

community members’ behaviour can be associated with Peacock and others’ (2013)

judgement that residents use less electricity and own less household appliances than the

average UK citizen. The empirical results can additionally be linked to the findings that state

that they used appliances efficiently. This might explain the electricity savings in comparison

to the average UK household’s energy use. Interestingly, this seems to contradict the

findings of a cross-cultural study that highlighted that elderly members are more resistant to

use energy-efficient equipment compared to younger families (Mills & Schleich, 2012). For

the case of Findhorn, this negative tendency was not apparent which suggests a potentially

great influence of the external living conditions towards attitudes.

Another finding could be noteworthy. Despite the high educational level, the participants

mainly had low incomes. One explanation could be that the age structure and related source

Case Study 33

of income means that many participants gained their monthly income through pensions.

Even though many residents are still employed or carry out self-employment, this might be

part-time and includes assignments for the eco-community. These circumstances usually do

not offer as much income as careers elsewhere (Hollander, 2013). It also shows that

community members could have a different need of monetary resources implying that there

is a strong emphasis on sharing, cooperation, volunteering and social relationships by de-

emphasising conspicuous consumption (Lockyer, 2010). Frequent communal meals

prepared from the allotments’ harvest present one example of these special circumstances.

Findhorn offers a cultural alternative to modern forms of consumerism. Equally, the

community centre with its large kitchen and eating space supports social interaction where a

variety of community events and gatherings are regularly on offer.

A further context-specific characteristic relates to the value hierarchy found in Findhorn. The

clusters openness to change and conservation are equally important to the participants.

Given that the population in the sample is somewhat old, it was expected that residents

would value conservation over openness to change. Younger people usually give higher

priority to individual experiences that do not necessarily comply with social norms (Schwartz,

2006). An explanation for the distinct result could have two reasons. Firstly, older people

usually give more priority to conservation because they naturally seek for more security,

conformity and tradition (ibid.). Secondly, by living in an eco-community that is constantly

evolving physically but also by the inclusion of new community members, residents might be

more motivated to act individually. Therefore, one could conclude that the value cluster

openness to change is more pronounced for the elderly living in Findhorn than for the elderly

elsewhere. Findhorn residents might simultaneously give priority to conservation and

openness to change due to the natural ageing process with the associated demands for life

as well as the explorative environment and lifestyle in the ecovillage.

5.4.3 Limitations of the research approach When analysing the findings the following constraints cannot be neglected as they potentially

influence the outcome. Generally, the results should be considered with caution given that

the number of participants (33) is a small sample size when striving for empirically reliable

assertions. For the scope and time constraints of this dissertation, it was still regarded as

appropriate. Furthermore, all respondents participated voluntarily which might distort the

results. One can assume that community residents particularly interested in aspects of

energy had chosen to contribute, whereas other, less interested members of the community

might have chosen not to participate.

Besides, the dependent variable energy-efficient behaviour was only assessed with one item

(see chapter 5.2.2.1). Energy-efficient behaviours include several actions with different daily

Case Study 34

routines. To keep track of these, energy use behaviours could be better assessed using

several items. This would provide a greater level of detail and improve the significance of the

answers. A greater number of questions might have revealed a greater variance – as

currently none of the participants believed they acted inefficiently, for instance. The missing

variance could also explain expected but from the gained data not evident negative

correlation coefficients with self-enhancement and energy-efficient behaviour. If no person

acts against the public and environmental interest it naturally cannot be proven if one value

cluster supports non-environmental behaviour.

When analysing human values a general measurement error can be expected. This is

because basic values are presumably held at a low level of consciousness (Thøgersen &

Ölander, 2002). They only influence behaviour when they are activated and thus come to

mind easily (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Value aggregates can help to reduce the problem

of measurement error (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002). Therefore, this research chose to focus

on value clusters by summarising single motivational values. Indirect effects that potentially

influence the relationship between values and behaviour, i.e. beliefs or norms, could be

additionally investigated.

The methodology used for querying the values was the shortened inventory by Stern et al.

(1998) which did not consist of 56 value items proposed in Schwartz’ original value survey.

Nevertheless, it was statistically proven that their scales represent significant reliabilities and

correlations with broad indexes of environmental-friendly behaviour (ibid.). Advantages in

using this reduced instrument are that (1) it is short and hence easier to implement, (2) it

offers the possibility to compare results with their findings and (3) it covers the main

dimensions of Schwartz’ model (Stern, et al., 1998; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002). On the

other hand, Thøgersen and Ölander (2002) criticised Stern and others excluded some

motivational types they claim to be important to consider for environmental-friendly

behaviours (such as hedonism and benevolence). While Stern et al. (1998) recognise that

they do not use all ten universal motivations they argue that benevolence for example might

be more relevant for other issues, such as morality or gender. Also in Thøgersen and

Ölander’s research (2002), benevolence and hedonism had a weak negative influence on

environment-friendly behaviour which can support Stern’s argument to neglect them and to

use the proposed short inventory. In addition, Stern et al. (1998) called for using the short

scales for cross-national research. This study of value orientations in Findhorn (UK) has

done exactly that in offering the potential to compare the findings with other communities and

countries worldwide.

Case Study 35

5.4.4 Wider implications

Within this context-specific study, the findings indicate that values are by themselves only

weakly related to behavioural commitments to energy efficiency. It is nevertheless useful to

link values in this context (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002). Certain lifestyles, as they exist in

Findhorn, may activate values to behave in an environmentally-friendly way. What the central

values are for Findhorn has been stated in their own definition of what identifies an ecovillage

(chapter 3.3). It was demonstrated that the community members hold similar values and that

energy-efficient behaviour, as assessed in the study, is exerted to its highest potential. If

energy efficiency behaviour as defined in this research is satisfied, it can be of interest to

look at other energy-related activities that influence energy efficiency.

In this respect, knowing the hierarchy of values is of importance for several reasons. It could

be of influence when necessitating another behavioural activity that aims to increase energy

efficiency and thus reducing CO2 emissions. It is unreasonable to expect that people act in

ways they are inwardly opposed to. For instance, In Findhorn it might be more valuable to

promote a change of their behaviour by appealing to communal and environmental values

rather than the gain of personal reputation or wealth. When there is a disjunction between

values and demanded behaviour, it will be more appropriate to focus on motivational or

contextual obstacles than on values as they are by definition a stable force and insistent to

change (Mirosa, et al., 2011). Equally, if values salient to pro-environmental action are not

presenting a major obstacle, the next step could be to investigate external barriers that

(potentially) inhibit energy-efficient consumption, such as lack of knowledge or lacking

possibilities to do so.

Therefore, by gaining a greater understanding of the prevailing values, the stakeholders of

the ORIGIN project in Findhorn or policy makers generally improve implementation of energy

efficiency measures. Knowing which factors influence behaviour, and to what extent, could

help to campaign or design a project that demands behavioural changes. It can also explain

the reasons behind why people who place a greater importance on certain values are more

likely to develop a personal commitment to a desired action (Neuman, 1986). This means,

that when new opportunities for environmental-friendly behaviour are offered, individuals that

hold environmental values (self-transcendence) will adjust their behaviour to be more

consistent with their values. Similarly, projects or social interplays interact with individual

value priorities (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002).

Nonetheless, the relationship between values and energy use behaviour is much more

complex, as has been shown. Individuals’ commitments to energy-efficient behaviour are not

merely grounded on self-transcendence. Efforts to alter energy use behaviours should relate

to both self-transcendence and self-enhancement values. Campaigns could be more

effective when they actively promote behavioural change by explicitly reinforcing the idea

Case Study 36

that individuals are capable of making energy-efficient changes (Mirosa, et al., 2011). This

would relate to the motivational value type achievement in the cluster self-enhancement. For

the reasons that both opposing value clusters positively relate to energy consumption

behaviour was not expected, the relationship between energy use behaviours and self-

enhancement surely demands more level of investigation by researchers.

Conclusion 37

6 Conclusion By linking values to energy use behaviour this study provides a better understanding of how

individuals of the Findhorn community use energy and in which way values influence their

consumption. It was observed that not only self-transcendence affects energy use

behaviours as had been assumed by literature concerning general types of pro-

environmental behaviours, but also self-enhancement as postulated by a single theoretical

account specifically dealing with values and energy use behaviours. In practical terms for a

campaign or project striving for energy efficiency in Findhorn, it is recommended to

emphasise both the role of environmental protection (self-transcendence) and to motivate

people in assuring they are capable of making energy-efficient changes (self-enhancement).

This is crucial as behaviour plays an important role in achieving energy efficiency in

buildings, reductions of CO2 emissions and reaching policy targets.

Eco-villages such as Findhorn are pivotal in adopting renewable technologies and low-

energy-building design for sustainable lifestyles. The communities’ strong focus on common

ecological, economic, social and spiritual values has been compared to values held by the

average UK citizen. It was statistically shown that the value orientations in Findhorn are

significantly different from the UK average. This demonstrates that the specific

circumstances of life in the ecovillage attract people with similar values. Through Findhorn’s

unique social and physical infrastructure, institutional arrangements and systems of

governance, it could be shown that pro-environmental behaviours are stabilised. The results

demonstrated that all residents consider themselves to behave in a very energy-efficient way

in their homes and hold values salient to environmental concern. The community members

use less energy without abandoning a certain quality of life – an outcome that perfectly

defines energy efficiency.

Although it might be assumed that energy efficiency is at its highest level in Findhorn, there

are several lines for future research. As the presented study has only discussed energy

related activities for mainly small-scale actions such as switching off lights when not

necessitated, research is needed to actually assess other types of energy use behaviours.

An example could be the assessment of how energy-consuming activities are adjusted to the

availability of renewable energy supplies as planned by the ORIGIN project. This could yield

a greater level of detail for the analysis of energy efficiency behaviour. It could further be

worthwhile to investigate how the participants’ values correlate with time-wise flexible

behaviour and compare the results with this survey.

When looking at the rebound effect, it might be informative to investigate whether residents

are energy-profligate on other forms of energy consumption outside their homes. As in reality

it is unlikely that individuals can contribute to environmental protection in all aspects of their

Conclusion 38

lives, one could assess if community members drive a lot or use a car that consumes an

exorbitant amount of fuel for instance. Another interesting field of study would be a

comparison of value hierarchies across ecovillages to better validate how specific living

environments can relate to values. The existent survey has provided initial accounts and can

be used as a comparator.

Generally, this dissertation has provided a unique insight into the Findhorn community’s

relationship between values and behaviour. The findings imply that Findhorn residents could

be easily motivated to participate in projects that aim to protect the environment and might be

willing to change their behaviour if compatible with their values. In addition, the community

presents a valuable exploration platform for (further) projects aiming at CO2 reductions.

Researchers and policy makers concerned with energy efficiency should consider community

contributions to global problems and the potential for research they offer. Especially through

their effective small-scale governance-system, communities can build strong commitments

for reducing emissions and thus mitigating global climate change. It supports the

achievement of the policy initiative Local Agenda 21 which aims to promote sustainability at a

local, communal scale. The emergence of the resource-efficient ecovillage approach, such

as demonstrated in Findhorn, has proved to be a decisive factor in the ability to deliver

examples of sustainable lifestyles. The Findhorn community’s value orientations and

behavioural commitment is fundamentally connected to the specific infrastructure which

seeks to unite humans with nature - an apparently simple link but a powerful one.

Words: 12,514

References 39

References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50(2), pp. 179-211.

Angel, D. P.; Attoh, S.; Kromm, D.; Dehart, J.; Slocum, R. & White, S., 1998. The drivers of

greenhouse gas emissions: What do we learn from local case studies?. Local

Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 3(3), pp. 263-277.

Bierbaum, R. M. & Matson, P. A., 2013. Energy in the context of sustainability. Deadalus,

142(1), pp. 146-161.

Boardman, B., 2004. New directions for household energy efficiency: Evidence from the UK.

Energy Policy, 32(17), pp. 1921-1933.

Bortz, J., 2005. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler mit ... 242 Tabellen. 6 ed.

Berlin, Germany: Springer DE.

Brandon, G. & Lewis, A., 1998. Reducing household energy consumption: A qualitative and

quantitative field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), pp. 75-85.

Carrera, S. & Beaumont, J., 2010. Income and wealth, London, UK: Office for National

Statistics.

Catney, P.; Dobson, A.; Hall, S. M.; Hards, S.; MacGregor, S.; Robinson, Z.; Ormerod, M. &

Ross, S., 2013. Community knowledge networks: An action-orientated approach to

energy research. Local Environment, 18(4), pp. 506-520.

Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M. & Laroche, M., 2005. Shades of green: Linking environmental

locus of control and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Consumer Marketing,

22(4), pp. 198-212.

Crompton, T., 2010. Common cause: The case for working with our cultural values,

Godalming, UK: WWF-UK.

Dawson, J., 2006. Ecovillages: New frontiers for sustainability. 1 ed. Bristol: Schumacher

Society by Chelsea Green Pub. Co..

Department for Communities and Local Government, 2013. Improving the energy efficiency

of buildings and using planning to protect the environment. [Online]

Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/improving-the-energy-efficiency-

of-buildings-and-using-planning-to-protect-the-environment/supporting-pages/code-for-

sustainable-homes [Accessed 30 May 2013].

Devine-Wright, H. & Devine-Wright, P., 2004. From demand side management to demand

side participation: Tracing an environmental psychology of sustainable electricity

system evolution. Journal of Applied Psychology - Special Issue 18th IAPS

Conference, 6(3-4), pp. 167-177.

References 40

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. PNAS,

106(44), pp. 18452-18456.

Dietz, T., Stern, P. & Weber, E., 2013. Reducing carbon-based energy consumption through

changes in household behaviour. Deadalus, 142(1), pp. 78-89.

DTI, 2003. Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy, London: HMSO.

EC, 2006a. Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential, Brussels: Commission

of the European Communities.

EC, 2006b. Energy end-use efficiency and energy services. Brussels: EC of the European

Parliament.

EC, 2011. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Energy

Efficiency, Brussels: EUR-Lex.

EEA, 2013. Achieving energy efficiency through behaviour change: What does it take?,

Copenhagen : European Environment Agency.

Egger, C.; Priewasser, R.; Kloiber, M.; Bezáková, L.; Borg, N.; Bourges, D. & Schilken, P.,

2012. Progress in energy efficiency policies in the EU Member States - the experts

perspective: Findings from the Energy Efficiency Watch Report, Linz, Austria:

Energiesparverband.

Eurostat, 2012. Tertiary education statistics. [Online]

Available at:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tertiary_education_stat

istics# [Accessed 22 July 2013].

FIC, 2013. Findhorn Foundation and Community. [Online]

Available at: http://directory.ic.org/416/Findhorn_Foundation_and_Community

[Accessed 27 May 2013].

Findhorn Foundation, 2013a. Ecovillage Findhorn: New Frontiers for Sustainability. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ecovillagefindhorn.com/index.php [Accessed 21 March 2013].

Findhorn Foundation, 2013b. What is an ecovillage. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ecovillagefindhorn.com/whatis/what.php

[Accessed 27 May 2013].

Fischer, C., 2002. Nachhaltiger Konsum: Zum Stand der Forschung - Discussion paper.

Freiburg: TIPS.

Fisher, B.S.; Nakicenovic, N.; Alfsen, K.; Morlot, J. Corfee; Chesnaye, F. de la; Hourcade, J.-

Ch.; Jiang, K.; Kainuma, M.; Rovere, E. La; Matysek, A.; Rana, A.; Riahi, K.; Richels,

R.; Rose, S.; Vuuren, D. van & Warren, R., 2007. Issues related to mitigation in the

long term context. In: Metz, B.; Davidson, O.R.; Bosch, P.R.; Dave, R. & Meyer, L.A.,

eds. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth

References 41

Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 169-250.

GEN, 2013. What is an ecovillage. [Online]

Available at: http://gen.ecovillage.org/ecovillages/whatisanecovillage.html

[Accessed 20 March 2013].

GEN-europe, 2013. Global ecovillage network Europe. [Online]

Available at: http://gen-europe.org/about-us/index.htm [Accessed 27 May 2013].

Giordano, V.; Meletiou, A.; Covrig, C. F.; Mengolini, A.; Ardelean, M.; Fulli, G.; Jiménez, M.l

S. & Filiou, C., 2013. Smart Grid projects in Europe: Lessons learned and current

developments - 2012 update, Petten, The Netherlands: Joint Research Centre of the

European Commission.

Gyberg, P. & Palm, J., 2009. Influencing household's energy behaviour - how is this done

and on what premises?. Energy Policy, 37(7), pp. 2807-2813.

Heiskanen, E.; Johnson, M.; Robinson, S.; Vadovics, E. & Saastamoinen, M., 2010. Low-

carbon communities as a context for individual behavioural change. Energy Policy,

38(12), pp. 7586-7595.

Herring, H., 2006. Energy efficiency - a critical review. Energy, 31(1), pp. 10-20.

Hollander, M., 2013. Findhorn statistics. Findhorn, ORIGIN research at Findhorn.

Holmes, T., Blackmore, E., Hawkins, R. & Wakeford, T., 2011. The Common Cause

Handbook, Machynlleth: Public Interest Research Centre.

Howard, N., 2000. Sustainable construction—the data, Watford: Building Research

Establishment.

Huovila, P., Ala-Juusela, M., Melchert, L. & Pouffary, S., 2007. Buildings and climate change

- status, challenges and opportunities, Paris: United Nations Environment Programme.

IEA, 2011. 25 Energy efficiency policy recommendations - 2011 update, Paris: IEA.

Jaffe, A. B. & Stavins, R. N., 1994. The energy-efficiency gap: What does it mean. Energy

Policy, 22(10), pp. 804-810.

Jonsson, A. & Nilsson, A., 2012. Exploring the relationship between values and pro-

environmental behaviour: The influence of locus of control, Gothenburg: University of

Gothenburg, Department of Psychology.

Kanaley, D., 2000. Eco-villages - a sustainable lifestyle: European comparisons for

application in Byron Shire and New South wales, Mullumbimby, Australia: Byron Shire

Council.

Karp, D., 1996. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and

Behaviour, 28(1), pp. 111-133.

References 42

Kelly, S., 2013. Energy efficiency and human behaviour. [Online]

Available at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/energy-efficiency-and-human-

behaviour [Accessed 07 June 2013].

Knapp, T. R., 1990. Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: An attempt to resolve the

controversy.[Editorial]. Nursing Research, 39(2), pp. 121-123.

Lee, J. A., Soutar, G. & Louviere, J., 2008. The best–worst scaling approach: An alternative

to Schwartz's values survey. Journal of Personality Assessment , 90(4), pp. 335-347.

Levine, M.; Ürge-Vorsatz, D.; Blok, K.; Geng, L.; Harvey, D.; Lang, S.; Levermore, G.;

Mehlwana, A. Mongameli; Mirasgedis, S.; Novikova, A.; Rilling, J. & Yoshino, H., 2007.

Residential and commercial buildings. In: Metz, B.; Davidson, O.R.; Bosch, P.R.; Dave,

R. & L.A.Meyer, eds. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group

III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 387-446.

Lockyer, J., 2010. Intentional community carbon reduction and climate change action: From

ecovillages to transition towns . In: Peters, M.; Fudge, S. & Jackson, T., eds. Low

carbon communities: Imaginative approaches to combating climate change locally.

Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 197-215.

Lopes, M., Antunes, C. & N.Martins, 2012. Energy behaviours as promoters of energy

efficiency: A 21st century review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6),

pp. 4095-4104.

López-Mosquera, N. & Sánchez, M., 2012. Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value-Belief-

Norm Theory explaining willingness to pay for a suburban park. Journal of

Environmental Management, Volume 113, pp. 251-262.

Madlener, R. & Alcott, B., 2009. Energy rebound and economic growth: A review of the main

issues and research needs. Energy, 34(3), pp. 370-376.

Marechal, K., 2010. Not irrational but habitual: The importance of “behavioural lock-in” in

energy consumption. Ecological Economics, 69(5), pp. 1104-1114.

Mare, E. & Lindegger, M., 2011. Designing Ecological Habitats: Creating a Sense of Place.

Findhorn: Permanent Publications.

Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J. & Cameron, L. D., 2006. A cross-cultural study of environmental

motive concerns and their implications for proenvironmental behavior. Environment and

Behavior, 38(6), pp. 745-767.

Mills, B. & Schleich, J., 2012. Residential energy-efficient technology adoption, energy

conservation, knowledge, and attitudes: Ananalysis of European countries. Energy

Policy, 49(1), pp. 616-628.

References 43

Mirosa, M., Lawson, R. & Gnoth, D., 2011. Linking personal values to energy-efficient

behaviours in the home. Environment and Behaviour, 45(5), pp. 455-475.

Moloney, S., Horne, R. & Fien, J., 2010. Transitioning to low carbon communities—from

behaviour change to systemic change: Lessons from Australia. Energy Policy, 38(12),

pp. 7641-7623.

Mulugetta, Y., Jackson, T. & van der Horst, D., 2010. Carbon reduction at community scale.

Energy Policy, 38(12), pp. 7541-7545.

Neuman, K., 1986. Personal values and commitment to energy conservation. Environment

and Behavior , 18(1), pp. 53-74.

Nordlund, A. M. & Garvill, J., 2002. Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior.

Environment and Behavior, 34(6), pp. 740-756.

OECD/IEA, 2007. Energy policies of IEA countries - The United Kingdom 2006 Review,

Paris: IEA.

OECD/IEA, 2009. Energy policies of IEA countries - Portugal 2009 Review, Paris: IEA.

Office for National Statistics, 2012. 2011 Census: Population Estimates for the United

Kingdom, 27 March 2011 - Statistical Bulletin, London, UK: Office for National

Statistics.

Ostrom, E., 2009. A polycentric approach for coping with climate change - Background report

to the 2010 World Development Report, Washington DC: World Bank.

Peacock, A.; Fleissner, D.; Hollander, M.; Raiteri, R. & Baillie, D., 2013. D1.3 Demand and

Behaviour Survey, Edinburgh, UK: Heriot-Watt University/ORIGIN.

Pilkington, B., Roach, R. & Perkins, J., 2011. Relative benefits of technology and occupant

behaviour in moving towards a more energy efficient, sustainable housing paradigm.

Energy Policy, 39(9), pp. 4962-4970.

Poortinga, W., Steg, L. & Vlek, C., 2004. Values, environmental concern, and environmental

behaviour: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behaviour, 36(1), pp.

70-93.

Rae, C. & Bradley, F., 2012. Energy autonomy in sustainable communities - A review of key

issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(9), pp. 6497-6506.

Schultz, P. W.; Gouveia, V. V.; Cameron, L. D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P. & Franěk, M.,

2005. Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation

behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), pp. 457-475.

Schwartz, S., 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances

and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: M. Zanna, ed. Advances In Experimental Social

Psychology. San Diego, California: Academic Press, Inc., pp. 1-65.

Schwartz, S., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human

values?. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), pp. 19-45.

References 44

Schwartz, S., 2006. Basic human values: An overview, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of

Jerusalem.

Schwartz, S., 2007. A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations - Chapter 7,

Bergen, Norway: European Social Survey.

Schwartz, S. & Bardi, A., 2001. Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities

perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), pp. 268-290.

Schweizer-Ries, P., 2009. Umweltbewusstes Konsumverhalten: "Mobilisierung und

Anreizsysteme". Germany: Forschungsgruppe Umweltpsychologie.

Scottish Government, 2009. Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. [Online]

Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlands-

action/climatechangeact [Accessed 2 July 2013].

Scottish Government, 2013. Energy efficiency policy in Scotland. [Online]

Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-

Industry/Energy/Action/energy-efficiency-policy [Accessed 20 June 2013].

Snelgar, R., 2006. Egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric environmental concerns: Measurement

and structure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(2), pp. 87-99.

Sorrell, S., 2007. The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide

energy savings from improved energy efficiency, London: Uk Energy Research Centre.

Steg, L., Dreijerink, L. & Abrahamse, W., 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of

energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), pp.

415-425.

Steg, L. & Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review

and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), pp. 309-317.

Stern, P., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal

of Social Issues, 56(3), pp. 407-424.

Stern, P., 2011. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American

Psychologist, 66(4), pp. 303-314.

Stern, P. & Aronson, E., 1984. Energy use: The human dimension. 1 ed. New York: W H

Freeman.

Stern, P. C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-norm

theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in

human ecology, 6(2), pp. 81-97.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L. & Guagnano, G. A., 1995. Values, beliefs, and

proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude change. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 25(18), pp. 1611-1636.

Stern, P. & Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social

Issues, 50(3), pp. 65-84.

References 45

Stern, P., Dietz, T. & Guagnano, G., 1998. A brief inventory of values. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 85(6), pp. 984-1001.

Stern, P., Dietz, T. & Kalof, L., 1993. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.

Environment and Behavior, 25(5), pp. 322-348.

Stevens, S. S., 1946. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, New Series,

103(2684), pp. 677-680.

Strengers, Y., 2012. Peak electricity demand and social practice theories: Reframing the role

of change agents in the energy sector. Energy Policy, Volume 44, pp. 226-234.

Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. S., 2007. Using multivariate statistics. 5 ed. Boston: Pearson Allyn

& Bacon.

Taylor, P., d'Ortigue, O., Francoeur, M. & Trudeau, N., 2010. Final energy use in IEA

countries: The role of energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 38(11), pp. 6463-74.

Thøgersen, J. & Ölander, F., 2002. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable

consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), pp. 605-

630.

Tinsley, S. & George, H., 2006. Ecological footprint of the Findhorn Foundation and

community, Forres: Sustainable Development Research Centre.

Verplanken, B. & Holland, R., 2002. Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-

centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82(3), pp. 434-447.

Wynveen, C. J., Kyle, G. T. & Tarrant, M. A., 2012. Study abroad experiences and global

citizenship: Fostering proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 16(4), p. 334–352.

Yin, R., 2003. Case study research - Design and methods. 3 ed. London: Sage.

Appendix 46

Appendix

Appendix I: Motivational value types

Value cluster Motivational value types Description Examples

Self-enhancement

Power Social status and prestige control or dominance over people and resources

wealth

Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards

successful, ambitious

Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself

individual values such as pleasure, enjoying life Openness to

change Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life

daring, varied/exciting life

Self-direction Independent thought and action – choosing, creating, exploring

creativity, freedom

Self-transcendence

Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature

broad-minded, social justice, equality

Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact

helpful, honest, forgiving

Conservation Tradition Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide

humble, devout, accepting my portion in life

Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms

politeness, obedient, honouring parents and elders

Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self

national security, social order, cleanliness, sense of belonging, health, family security

Appendix 47

Appendix II: List of 21 value questions included in the ESS Table 5 List of 21 value questions for ESS (Schwartz, 2007) ordered by value clusters

Questions Motivational value types

Self-transcendence Important to be loyal to friends and devote to people close Benevolence

Important to help people and care for others well-being Benevolence

Important that people are treated equally and have equal opportunities Universalism

Important to understand different people Universalism

Important to care for nature and environment Universalism

Conservation values

Important to be humble and modest, no draw attention Tradition

Important to follow traditions and customs Tradition

Important to live in secure and safe surroundings Security

Important that government is strong and ensures safety Security

Important to do what is told and follow rules Conformity

Important to behave properly Conformity

Self-enhancement values

Important to be rich, have money and expensive things Power

Important to get respect from others Power

Important to show abilities and be admired Achievement

Important to be successful and that people recognise achievements Achievement

Self-enhancement and Openness to Change Important to have a good time Hedonism

Important to seek fun and things that give pleasure Hedonism

Openness to Change

Important to try new and different things in life Stimulation

Important to seek adventures and have an exciting life Stimulation

Important to think new ideas and being creative Self-direction

Important to make own decisions and be free Self-direction

Appendix 48

Appendix III: Correlation coefficients Table 6 Correlation matrix between energy-efficient behaviour with value clusters, value combinations

and motivational value types

Correlation coefficients Energy-efficient behaviour Value clusters Self-transcendence .344*

Self-enhancement .378* Conservation .321* Openness to change .132

Value combinations Self-transcendence/ Openness to change .366* Self-transcendence/ Conservation .362* Self-enhancement/ Openness to change .282 Self-enhancement/ Conservation .245

Motivational value types Universalism: Protecting the environment, preserving nature .356*

Universalism: A world at peace – free of war and conflict .237 Universalism: Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak .249

Tradition: Honouring parents and elders, showing respect .244 Security: Family security, safety for loved ones .286 Conformity: Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptation .359*

Power: Authority, the right to lead or command .085 Achievement: Influential, having an impact on people and events .384*

Power: Wealth, material possessions, money .139 Stimulation: A varied life, filled with challenge, novelty and change .325*

Stimulation: An exciting life, stimulating experiences .014 Self-direction: Curious, interested in everything, exploring .255

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

Appendix 49

Appendix IV: SPSS regression outputs Table 7 Model summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square St. Error of the Estimate 1 .356a .127 .099 .570 a. Predictors : (Constant) Self-transcendence

Table 8 ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 1.460 1 1.460 4.500 .042a

Residuen 10.056 31 .324

Total 11.515 32

a. Predictors : (Constant) Self-transcendence

b. Dependent variable: Self-assessment of energy efficiency behaviour

Table 9 Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig. 1 (Constant) 3.889 1.057 3.679 .001

Self-transcendence .472 .223 .356 2.121 .042

a. Dependent variable: Self-assessment of energy efficiency behaviour

Appendix 50

Appendix V: Socio-demographic profile for the UK participants of the European Social Survey (Data were obtained 18 August 2013.)

A total of 2422 (male= 1057, female= 1365, see figure 12) UK citizens participated with an

average age of 50 years (SD= 18.98).

Figure 12 Gender ratio

For the UK the majority of participants gained a university degree as shown in the figure

below.

44%

56%

Gender Male Female

N= 2422

Appendix 51

Figure 13 Level of education for the participants of the ESS

1%

10% 2%

20%

20%

1%

5% 1%

13%

22%

5%

Highest level of education: Up to Ph.D or equivalent

Ph.D, D.Phil or equivalent

Masters Degree, M.Phil, Post-Graduate Diplomas and Certificates

5 year University/CNAA first Degree (MB, BDS, BV etc)

3-4 year University/CNAA first Degree (BA, BSc., BEd., BEng. etc)

Nursing certificate, Teacher training, HE Diploma, Edexcel/BTEC/BEC/TEC - HigherNational Diploma (HND), OCR/RSA - Highe

Foundation Degree (FdA, FdSc etc)

Edexcel/BTEC/BEC/TEC - Higher National Certificate (HNC) or equivalent

HE Access

Vocational A-level (AVCE), GCE Applied A-level, NVQ/SVQ Level 3 GNVQ/SNVQAdvanced, Edexcel/BTEC/BEC/TEC (General/Ordina

(Modern) Apprenticeship, Advanced (Modern) Apprenticeship, SVQ/NVQ/Key Skills Level1 and 2, City and Guilds Craft/Inter

Other N=1324

Documents

Value orientations and their ... - Findhorn College Goldbach.pdf · The ecovillage- Findhorn (Scotland, UK) could be deemed a pioneer in adopting sustainable lifestyles that do not