 

 

 

LIBRA HY E
Michigan State

University

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ACCEPTABILITY OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT LIGHTING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS BY HOMEOWNERS

presented by

HEE JUNG HONG

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in INTERIOR DESIGN &
FACILITIY MANAGEMENT

 

 

W%M

 

Major Professor’s Signature
5- I; " 07

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DaIeDua.indd

 

ACCEPTABILITY OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT LIGHTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BEHAVIORS BY HOMEOWNERS

By

Hee Jung Hong

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Interior Design & Facilities Management

2009

ABSTRACT

ACCEPTABILITY OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT LIGHTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BEHAVIORS BY HOME OWNERS

By
Hee Jung Hong

Consumers' acceptance of the energy-efﬁcient technology has been slow to grow
despite efforts of promoting the use of energy-efﬁcient lighting in homes in the past 20
years. With the perspective of encouraging energy efﬁcient lighting choices, this research
was initiated to ascertain home owners’ underlying perceptions for energy-efﬁcient
lighting with particular emphasis on environmental lighting behaviors for their homes.

The mail survey was administered to homeowners in the Meridian Township area
in Michigan using systematic random sampling method. Utilizing t-test, analysis of
variance (ANOVA), and regression analysis, home owners’ lighting perceptions and four
types of environmental lighting behaviors: energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior,
habitual behavior, citizenship behavior and replacement behavior, and relationships
between lighting perceptions and lighting behaviors were examined.

The results indicate that there was a signiﬁcant relationship between
homeowners’ environmental lighting behaviors and lighting perceptions. The subjects
who had more positive perceptions towards energy-efﬁcient lighting were more likely to
demonstrate the environmental lighting behaviors. The study further revealed clear
gender differences in terms of lighting perceptions. In sum, the ﬁndings of the present
study suggests that policy makers and lighting researchers should implement new
methods of promoting energy-efﬁcient lighting more effectively and prevent generating

further lighting misconceptions.

 

Copyright by
Hee jung Hong
2009

This dissertation is dedicated to
my family for their unconditional love and support
and to God for Making All this possible.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to give my highest thanks to God for blessing me with this
opportunity to pursue my academic dream and allowing me to be inﬂuenced by group of
individuals in past four years at Michigan State University.

I would like to thank members of my dissertation committee for their constant
encouragement and support. I am extremely grateful for Dr. Nam Kyu Park and Dr.
Eunsil Lee for their valuable advice, intellectual guidance and emotional support in
completion of my master’s thesis through out the years. Their passion and enthusiasm
towards research and depth of knowledge enabled me to think creatively and directed me
to a right path. I am also grateful for Dr. April Allen and Dr. Patricia Huddleston for
sharing their knowledge and providing valuable insights to my thesis.

I would like to extend my gratitude to my professor in my program who had been
a great teacher and advisor to me. I express my thanks to Bobby Kilty for offering the
opportunity to teach and sharing her teaching philosophy. Her dedication to the interior
design program and passion for art and design allowed me to appreciate what teaching is
about.

At last, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my husband, Robert M.
Song, for his constant love and support, and to my precious and loving daughter, Haven
Dahee Song, for being a source of inspiration all these years. I am also greatly thankful to
my parents and parents-in-law for their unconditional love and support with endless
prayers. My special thanks also go to my brother and sister-in-law who also encouraged

and supported me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. viii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Stuay .............................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER II. LIT ERA TURE RE VIE W

Lighting Perceptions towards Energy-eﬁicient Lighting ............................................. 5
Fluorescent Lighting Technology: Old vs. New .................................................... 5
General Energy-eﬂicient Lighting Perceptions ..................................................... 6
Energy-efficient Lighting Perceptions vs. Lighting Preferences ........................... 6
Lighting Preferences vs. Lighting Behaviors ........................................................ 7

Residential Lighting Environment ................................................................................ 8
Environmental Concern in Residential Lighting Environments ............................ 8
Lighting Sources and Fixtures for Home Environments ....................................... 8
Household Energy Behaviors ................................................................................ 9
Energy-efﬁcient Lighting Barriers in the Residential Lighting Environments... 10
Promoting Energy-efﬁciency for Homeowners ................................................... 1 1
Importance of Promoting Lighting Knowledge ................................................... 12

Environmental Behaviors .......................................................................................... 12

Theoretical Background ............................................................................................ 12
Value-Belief-Norm Theory (VBN) ....................................................................... 13

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHDOLOG Y

Rationale for Research Method. ................................................................................. 15
Sampling .............................................................................................................. 15
Data Collection Procedure .................................................................................. 16

Survey Instrument and Measurement ......................................................................... 17
Instrument Design ................................................................................................ 17
Measurement and Scale ....................................................................................... 18

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 21

vi

CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS

Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................................. 22
Reliability of Measures ............................................................................................... 22
RQI. What Perceptions do Homeowners have about Lighting in general? ......... 25
RQZ. What Perceptions do Homeowners have about Energy-eﬂicient Lighting?. 28
RQ3. What are Homeowners ’ Environmental Lighting Behaviors? ..................... 33
RQ4.How do Homeowners' Lighting Perceptions inﬂuence their Environmental
Lighting Behaviors? .............................................................................................. 38
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 44
Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................ 44
RQI. What Perceptions do Homeowners have about Lighting in general? .......... 45
RQZ. What Perceptions do Homeowners have about Energy-eﬂicient Lighting? 46
RQ3. What are Homeowners ’ Environmental Lighting Behaviors? ..................... 47
RQ4. How do Homeowners' Lighting Perceptions influence their Environmental
Lighting Behaviors? .............................................................................................. 49
Implications and Limitations ...................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX A: Cover Letter ............................................................................................ 56
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 57
APPENDIX C: Reminder Post Card ................................................................................. 62
APPENDIX D: Results of Reliability Analysis with more details ................................... 63
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 65

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Percentage distribution of demographic characteristics ..................................... 23
Table 2. Results of reliability Analysis ............................................................................. 24
Table 3. ANOVA and t-test summaries for importance of lighting ................................. 25
Table 4. AN OVA and t-test summaries for preference of incandescent lighting ............. 26
Table 5. AN OVA and t-test summaries of ﬂuorescent lighting beliefs on health ............ 27
Table 6. ANOVA and t-test summaries of general perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting9
Table 7. ANOVA and t-test summaries of visual comfort of CF L ................................... 30
Table 8. ANOVA and t-test summaries for aesthetics of CFL ......................................... 31
Table 9. ANOVA and t-test summaries for impression of CFL ....................................... 31
Table 10. ANOVA and t-test summaries for cost of CFL ................................................ 32
Table 11. AN OVA and t-test summaries for technological attributes of CF L ................. 33

Table 12. ANOVA and t-test summaries for energy efficient lighting usage behavior 34

Table 13. ANOVA and t-test summaries for habitual behavior ....................................... 35
Table 14. AN OVA and t-test summaries for citizenship behavior ................................... 36
Table 15. Results of the logistic regression analysis on replacement behavior ................ 37
Table 16. Results of the logistic regression analysis on subjects’ willing to replace ....... 38

Table 17. Results of the regression analysis for energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior

........................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 18. Results of the regression analysis for habitual behaviors ................................. 40
Table 19. Results of the regression anaoysis for citizenship behaviors ............................ 42
Table 20. Results of the logistic regression analysis on subjects’ willingness to

replace ................................................................................................ 43

viii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Sustainable design is deﬁned as “design that focuses on products and processes
that protect the environment while conserving energy for future generations” (Winchip,
2005). With population increase and depletion of natural resources, the concept of
sustainable design is rising as a new set of Opportunities for the design industry (Adler,
2006). With this sustainability movement, integrating daylight and energy-efﬁcient
artiﬁcial lighting into buildings has been utilized as one of the most important strategies
to increase energy-efﬁciency in the design industry.

According to the US. Department of Energy (2009), artiﬁcial lighting consumes
30-35% of the energy used in commercial buildings, and an average household dedicates
almost 15% of its total energy to lighting consumption. Although use of new lighting
technologies can reduce energy used for lighting homes by 50-75%, lighting consumption
for homes increased from 9% of total consumption in 2001 to 15% in 2009 (US.
Department of Energy, 2009). Household energy use is a major cause of air pollution and
global warming. According to the US. Department of Energy (2009), 16 % of US.
greenhouse gas emissions are generated from energy used in houses.

In the aspects of sustainable lighting movements, researchers and public
advocates have encouraged the use of ﬂuorescent lighting. Fluorescent lighting requires
less electricity to operate than conventional lighting, therefore requiring less fossil fuel to
be burned by power plants in order to produce that electricity. Since fossil fuels are
nonrenewable and burning them emits harmful atmospheric pollutants, the use of

ﬂuorescent lighting has been cited not only as a means of saving energy, but also of

preserving the environment. The US. Department of Energy (2009) states that if every
US. household replaced just one light bulb or ﬁxture with an ENERGY STAR qualiﬁed
bulb, it would save more than $600 million each year in energy costs and prevent
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars.

Many governmental agencies and utility companies have promoted the use of
energy-efficient lighting for homes in the past 20 years. However, despite their efforts,
consumers’ acceptance of energy-efﬁcient technology has been slow to grow in the
residential lighting market. In the United States, the dominant light source in residential
households is still the incandescent lamp. Eighty-seven percent or 453 million lamps out
of a total of 523 million used one or more hours per day are incandescent (International
Energy Agency, 2006). Therefore, encouraging energy-efﬁcient lighting usage for
residential applications is a critical component of today’s utility management.

The Purpose of study

Given the current trend of sustainability and increasing concern of conserving
energy, it is important to understand why home dwellers are not willing to accept newly
developed energy-efﬁcient lighting technology which to reduces costs and practices the
environmental values that seem to prevail in today’s society. However, few empirical
studies have been conducted regarding homeowners’ perceptions about energy-efﬁcient
lighting products or environmental lighting behaviors (Banwell & F igueiro, 2005;
Banwell, Brons, F reyssinier-Nova, Pizzo & Figueiro, 2004; Brons, 2004; Conway &
Leslie, 1992; Conway, & Mehra, 1998; Veitch & Gifford, 1996; Veitch, Hine, & Gifford,
1993). Therefore, the purpose of the study is to identify homeowners’ perceptions of

energy-efﬁcient lighting and how the lighting perceptions are related to their

environmental lighting behaviors in their homes. Understanding underlying beliefs about
lighting in general and energy-efﬁcient lighting in particular, the behavioral intentions of
homeowners, and examining the relationship of these factors is important in improving
the means we choose to encourage energy conservation through lighting choices at homes.
The speciﬁc research questions to accomplish the purpose of the study are:

1. What perceptions do homeowners have about lighting in general?

2. What perceptions do homeowners have about energy-efﬁcient lighting?

3. What are homeowners’ environmental lighting behaviors?

4. How do homeowners’ lighting perceptions inﬂuence their environmental lighting

behaviors for home?
Signiﬁcance of the study

In order to understand the reasons that home lighting decision makers resist using
energy-efﬁcient lighting, this study proposes to assess the basis for such resistance.

The lighting industry can beneﬁt and adopt its behavior accordingly by
investigating homeowners’ lighting perceptions and behaviors. Besides, if there are
differences in the unspoken beliefs and attitudes among homeowners and professionals
(i.e. architects, home builders or residential interior designers), then it is imperative that
the professionals understand the opinions of homeowners’ lighting perceptions in order to
successfully communicate with their clients or customers.

To encourage energy-efﬁcient lighting choices, the study also attempts to provide
design professionals, policy makers, and lighting researchers with the most current
information about homeowners’ lighting practices. The ﬁndings will be invaluable for

design professionals in developing strategies for assisting clients effectively, for policy

makers in developing new energy-policy to encourage the use of energy-efﬁcient lighting
and for lighting researchers in focusing on a quality lighting environment. This study is
also expected to promote end users’ awareness of energy-efﬁcient lighting and

sustainable design for home environments.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter consists of four sections. The ﬁrst section reviews end-users’
perceptions towards energy-efﬁcient lighting. In the second section, residential lighting
environments are discussed particularly focused on two areas: 1) light source and 2)
energy consideration for home environments and the use of energy-efﬁcient lighting at
home. Next, environmental behaviors are reviewed in the third section. Lastly,
theoretical background was reviewed in the fourth section.

End-users’ perceptions towards energy-efﬁcient lighting
Fluorescent lighting technology: old vs. new

With surging energy consumption and increasing concern of the rise of carbon
dioxide emissions, it is imperative that consumers use lighting systems that conserve
energy. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) considers
discharge lamps such as ﬂuorescent, metal halide and high-pressure sodium to be the
most efficient white light sources (Rea, 2000).

Fluorescent lighting technology has improved over the last decade. Many
unfavorable impressions (i.e. slow start-up time, ﬂicker, hum, poor color rendering, and
etc.) about ﬂuorescent lighting are based on old technologies. New technologies are
available that make ﬂuorescent lighting not only energy-efﬁcient, but attractive as well
(Brons, 2004). As for the latest ﬂuorescent lighting technology, compact ﬂuorescent
lamps (CFLs) are a good substitute for incandescent lamps because they consume up to
70 percent less electricity and last six times longer. A variety of shapes and color

temperatures of the ﬂuorescent lamps are also available to serve different lighting needs.

Therefore, many professionals and lighting researchers suggest that homeowners can
enhance the appearance of homes by utilizing current energy-efﬁcient lighting systems
(Banwell et al., 2004; Brons, 2004 & Karlen & Benya, 2004).

General energy-efficient lighting perceptions

In the United States, the general population considers energy-efﬁcient lighting as
ugly (Banwell et al., 2004). According to Banwell et a1. (2004), some of the complaints
that American homeowners associated the ﬂuorescent lighting are based on
characteristics of the older systems: “ﬂicker, hum, poor color rendering, high correlated
color temperatures (CCTs), and large, awkward sizes.” As mentioned earlier, these
complaints are no longer issues. The new technology compact ﬂuorescent lamps (CFLs)
last up to 12 times longer than incandescent lamps and color rendition qualities indicating
“how colors appear when illuminated by a light source” (IESNA) are closer to those of
incandescent lamps (Gordon, 2003; Winchip, 2008).

Consumers’ acceptance of energy-efﬁcient technology has been slow to grow in
the residential lighting market. In the United States, the dominant light source in
residential households is still the incandescent lamp, which remains “inexpensive, easy to
use, versatile, and reliable” (Smithsonian Institution, 2008).

Energy-eﬂicient lighting perceptions vs. lighting preferences

Within this context, Beckstead and Boyce (1992) conducted research to determine
the inﬂuence of subjects’ beliefs and attitudes about ﬂuorescent lighting on their
behaviors related to the use of the energy-efﬁcient compact ﬂuorescent lamps (CFLs).
Results indicated that the use of compact ﬂuorescent lighting was dependent on beliefs

about the effects of ﬂuorescent lighting on people, not on beliefs about the cost, energy

efﬁciency, or operation of the products. Two additional studies identiﬁed knowledge of
lighting beliefs and preferences (Veitch, Hine, & Gifford, 1993; Veitch & Gifford, 1996)
and conﬁrmed that a signiﬁcant proportion of the population believe that ﬂuorescent
lighting is detrimental to one’s health. The studies also concluded that people who
endorse beliefs about health effects of lighting also endorse beliefs about natural light and
lighting that simulates daylight over other types as being superior.

Lighting preferences vs. lighting behaviors

Lighting preferences inﬂuence an individual's decisions on lighting and
consequently affect individual’s lighting behaviors. The work of Biner and Butler (1987)
indicated that people exhibit consistent preferences for luminance levels in a given setting
and when participants believed lighting conditions to be important to a situation, they
wanted to control the lighting. This suggests that homeowners may desire to have
particular types of lighting in certain areas or rooms in their homes based on their lighting
preferences.

One additional study examined homeowners’ lighting preferences in regard to
aspects of the color of light (Banwell & F igueiro, 2005) and described that American
homeowners are more accustomed to the warm colors of incandescent and halogen
lamps. The ﬁndings of the study also imply that the lighting and light color preferences
might be related to people’s historical and cultural home lighting traditions. Within this
context, Wilhite, Nakagami, Marsuda, Yamaga and Haneda (1996) conducted a cross-
cultural analysis of household energy use behavior in Japan and Norway and identiﬁed

that some speciﬁc energy use behaviors are related to homeowners’ social and cultural

contexts. For example, it is considered “socially appropriate” for Norwegians to allocate

ample use of space and light to create a cozy home regardless of environmental concerns.
Residential Lighting Environment

Environmental concern in residential lighting environments

Conserving energy has emerged as a major concern for many of today’s
residential lighting environments around the world. The International Association of
Energy-efﬁcient Lighting (IAEEL) conducted a study of thirty eight countries. The
IAEEL report states that “globally, electric lighting accounts for more than 2000 TWh
electricity and 2900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions per year”
(2000). Households in each country partly contribute to these emissions through day-to-
day gas and electricity use.

Energy is used for a wide variety of activities in households. Speciﬁcally home
energy is related to activities such as home heating, lighting, and the use of household
appliances (Poortinga, Steg & Vlek, 2004). As indicated earlier, 16 % of US.
greenhouse gas emissions are generated from energy used in houses (U .S. Department
of Energy, 2009). For this reason, homeowners are considered an important target group
for energy conservation (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek & Rothengatter, 2007).

Light sources and fixtures for home environments

The most common electric light sources used for home environments are
incandescent, tungsten-halogen, linear ﬂuorescent and compact ﬂuorescent lamps. In
the mid 19805, compact ﬂuorescent lamps (CF Ls) were introduced for home
applications, combining the energy efﬁciency of ﬂuorescent lamps with the

convenience and popularity of incandescent lamps. Some of the ﬂuorescent lamps that

are used in residential lighting include T-2, T-5, T-8 and T-12 lamps. T-8 and T-12 are
particularly identiﬁed with energy-efﬁciency, good color rendering properties, and a
variety of lengths and color temperatures (Rea, 2000).
Household Energy behaviors

Household energy saving behavior, such as turning off lights in unoccupied rooms
is considered an example of habitual action. The ‘habitual’ action is deﬁned as “focused
around everyday reductions in energy use that require either no or minimal structural
adjustment” (Barr, Gilg & Ford, 2005). Barr et al. (2005) further emphasized that these
conserving behaviors are related to decisions that humans make everyday, based on their
previous experience. Similarly an on-going study by the Smithsonian Institution indicates
one’s upbringing and personal experiences of energy shortages, such as the Energy Crisis
of the 19703 and 2001 shortages, are believed to be some of the factors that inﬂuence
lighting conserving behaviors (2008). Below are excerpts posted from the Smithsonian
online survey:

"1 was just a kid then, but the oil embargo helped to shape my outlook to be a

generally energy-conscious consumer. It is just habit to conserve when and where
I can." (Dann, a homeowner).

"Absolutely none whatsoever. Of course I was around ten then and Mom was
always shouting to turn off the lights whether there was a crisis or not."
(Tammie, a homeowner)

Energy-eﬁ‘icient lighting barriers in the residential lighting environments
During the past 20 years, governmental agencies and utility companies have

promoted the use of energy-efﬁcient lighting in homes. Despite these attempts,

consumers are largely unaware of energy-efﬁcient lighting’s beneﬁts (Conway & Mehra,

1998). According to Electric Power Research Institute, the utility rebate and discounted
programs contributed to “an universal belief that the compact ﬂuorescent products are
overpriced (1992). Back in 1992, Electric Power Research Institute prepared a special
report on perceptions of compact ﬂuorescent lamps (CF L) in the residential market by
interviewing residential customers. The main purpose of this report was to understand
residential customer’s attitudes toward current compact ﬂuorescent lighting products and
address their concerns in the residential lighting environments. According to the report,
price was a major barrier of the compact ﬂuorescent lighting products. Some other
perceived drawbacks resulted from the report are: 1) they do not ﬁt in many standard
ﬁttings; 2) they cannot be used with dimmer switches; 3) they do not produce enough
light for major applications (especially reading); and 4) they cannot be used outdoors.

Several other studies also have investigated key barriers to the use of energy-
efﬁcient lighting system (Conway & Leslie, 1992; Conway & Mehra, 1998; Banwell &
Figueiro 2005; Jennings, Moezzi, Brown, Mills, Sardinsky, & Heckendron et al., 1997;
Winchip, 2008). Some common barriers pointed out by researchers are as follows: 1)
limited knowledge regarding beneﬁts of energy-efﬁcient lighting by builders and
homeowners, 2) lack of awareness for the aesthetic and technological advances that have
been made in recent years, 3) limited selection of good quality luminaries, 4) limited
availability of replacement parts.
Promoting energy-efficiency for homeowners

To encourage more widespread use of energy-efﬁcient lighting, a variety of media
and educational tools are currently used as a means to encourage consumers to implement

energy-efﬁcient lighting. Banwell et a1. (2004) from the Lighting Research Center (LRC)

10

and US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) surveyed visitors by using a designer
showcase home. The visitors were asked to rate the energy efficient ﬂuorescent lighting
in the model home and in a nearby comparable home having only traditional
incandescent lighting. The results showed that both random visitors and paid subjects
rated the energy-efﬁcient lighting as “equivalent to or better” than the incandescent
lighting in regards to “color appearance, brightness, light distribution, appearance of
people, ﬂicker, visual comfort, visibility, and overall appearance of the home”. Nearly
90% of the respondents said that they would like to have the energy-efﬁcient ﬂuorescent
lighting in their homes. As the study suggests, the general public perceived the energy-
efﬁcient lighting more positively when they were able to visualize the effects of the
energy-efﬁcient lighting.

As consumers have indicated on on-going Smithsonian Institution study about the
energy-efﬁcient lighting (2008), a variety of media (TV programs, Web, advertisements),
and educational tools (research articles, consumer reviews, product information,
brochures, and a college course) were some of many ways people learn about energy-
efﬁcient lighting. Also “distribution of real energy-efﬁcient light bulbs for try-outs,
personal recommendations, promotions on energy efﬁciency by government and utility
companies” were mentioned additionally as possible means to reach out to consumers.
Importance in promoting lighting knowledge

Several studies have implied a need for acquiring end-users’ information about
lighting (V eitch, Hines & Gifford, 1993; Beckstead & Boyce, 1992). Veitch et al. (1993)
have indicated that an understanding of end-users is necessary in order to create a quality

environment. Furthermore, they emphasized a need for more organized information about

11

newly developed energy-efﬁcient lighting technology since the lighting system and
technology is rather complex for the general public to ﬁrlly understand and
misconception about the lighting can be created if consumers are not exposed to
“unbiased and detailed information about lighting” (Veitch, Hine & Gifford, 1993).

Consumers’ responses in the Smithsonian Research about energy-efﬁcient
lighting (2008) also coincide with the above ﬁndings. Many consumers indicated that
they are still not aware of new lighting technologies or energy-efﬁcient lighting in
general. And some have mentioned that more education is necessary for homeowners or
consumers to adopt efﬁcient lighting systems and change their notions about lighting in
their daily lives.

Environmental behaviors

Several studies have investigated household environmental behaviors in
relation to demographic characteristics. Barr, Gilg & Ford, (2005) researched household
energy-saving behavior and examined the characteristics of the ‘energy saver’. Among
the identiﬁed groupings: environmentalists vs. non-environmentalists, the most
committed to sustainable energy user groups were characterized as “older, tended to
own their home, lived in a terrace property, voted Green/Liberal Democrat and were
members of community groups.”

The most committed environmentalists owned smaller household sizes and most
were most likely to own their homes. In regard to homeownership, it was identiﬁed as
one of the signiﬁcant factors which motivate individuals to feel a sense of belonging.
Black, Sterm, & Elworth (1985) and Painter, Semenik, & Belk (1983) described that

people who own a property may feel more responsibility or feel obligated to care for

12

their property. Furthermore, ownership may motivate homeowners to think more
consciously about saving energy.

The most committed environmentalists were signiﬁcantly more likely to be a
member of a community organization. According to the study of Barr et al. (2005), non-
environmentalists were signiﬁcantly more likely to be “younger, male, on low incomes,
who had received less formal education, and were less involved in the community.” The
purchase of energy saving devices and energy saving light bulbs were low on both non-
environmentalists and the most committed environmentalists. Barr et al. (2005)
indicated that this was somewhat concerning from a policy perspective given the need
to encourage sustainable consumption.

Theoretical background

A body of research has been developed to explain why individuals engage in
environmentally signiﬁcant behaviors (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Stem,
Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999 & Stern, 2000). Recent works of Stern and
colleagues (Stern, 2000; Stem, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995 & Stern et al., 1999) developed
and tested the value-belief-norm (V BN) theory which is known as the most

comprehensive theory to date in the ﬁeld of environmentalism.

Value-belief-norm theory (VBN)

The VBN theory links three theoretical concepts: value theory, norm-activation
model (NAM) theory, and the New Environmental Paradigm (N EP) through a causal
chain of variables leading to proenvironmental behavior (Stern, 2000). The theory

suggests that personal values and beliefs are the basis for proenvironmental behaviors.

13

According to Stern, the general personal beliefs directly affect the personal norms
which in turn directly inﬂuence proenvironmental behaviors.

In terms of proenvironmental behaviors, Stern (2000) organized and classiﬁed
several distinct types of environmentally signiﬁcant behavior: environmental activism,
non-activist behaviors in the public sphere, private-sphere behaviors, and behaviors in
organizations.

First of all, homeowners’ energy-efﬁcient lighting behaviors can be categorized
as private-sphere behaviors. This behavior is measured by buying behaviors (i.e.
purchasing energy-efﬁcient light bulbs) and habitual behaviors (i.e. turning off lights
when leaving a room). Private-sphere behaviors are identiﬁed as having direct
environmental consequences (Stern, 2000). However, as Ozanne and Vlosky (1997)
concluded in their study, respondents’ actual behavior can be different as opposed to their
willingness to pursue environmental values.

Secondly, the non-activist behavior in the public sphere is presented as a
citizenship behavior and can be evaluated by asking if homeowners are willing to pay
higher prices to buy energy efﬁcient lighting to conserve energy and support public
policy in terms of promoting and supporting energy-efﬁcient lighting. Stern (2000)
emphasizes that such non-activist behaviors affect environmental behaviors indirectly but

may have stronger impact on changing pebple’s behaviors at once.

14

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents research methodology in detail. First, descriptions of the
research design (i.e. rationale for research method, population and sample, and data
collection procedures) employed for this study are presented. Next, instrument and
measurement utilized in the survey are described. At last, methods of data analysis for the
survey are explained.

Research design
Rationale for research method

The main goal of this study was to identify homeowners’ perceptions about
energy-efﬁcient lighting and how their perceptions were related to their environmental
behaviors regarding use of lighting for the home. In order to accomplish the main goal for
the study, four research questions were developed.

In answering these research questions, survey research method was chosen to be
appropriate over other types of research methods such as qualitative research. While a
qualitative method offers more in-depth detailed information focusing on a smaller
number of subjects, this study attempted to obtain broader and more generalized ﬁndings
of US. homeowners’ underlying perceptions and behaviors in relation to energy-efﬁcient
lighting for their homes (Judd, Smith, & Kidder, 1991). Therefore, the survey research
design was chosen for this study.

Sampling
Since the main purpose of the study was to investigate homeowners’ perceptions

and behaviors in relation to energy-efﬁcient lighting, the population of the survey was

15

U.S. homeowners and the survey respondents were essentially deﬁned as homeowners
who reside in the Meridian Charter Township, Ingham County, Michigan.
Homeownership is considered as one of the factors that may motivate homeowners with
more energy-saving practices since owning a home may exert more responsibility (Black
et al., 1985; Painter et al., 1983). For this reason, renters were excluded in this survey.

Lists of homeowners’ addresses were obtained from the Meridian Charter
Township ofﬁce in Michigan and the Township’s ofﬁcial Internet site. Using systematic
random sampling, every other address was selected from the list of total address records.
Approximately 2,000 homeowners’ names and addresses were drawn for collecting data
for the present study.
Data collection procedure

Survey questionnaires were developed from a thorough literature review. Before
the survey was administered, a pilot test of the survey instrument was conducted to
clarity the format, arrangement of questions, and any confusing statements.
Approximately 35 participants were recruited through convenience sampling. An open-
ended question asked participants to address any suggestions or difﬁculties in
understanding the survey questions. Based on the participants’ suggestions, survey
questionnaires were modiﬁed. The resulting questionnaires were reviewed by two
lighting researchers. The data collected for the pilot test was not included for the main
analysis of the study. The reliability for each measurement construct was also examined.
Upon the receipt of approval of Michigan State University Institutional Review Board
(IRB), data for this research were collected by utilizing mail surveys sent to homeowners

during the summer of 2008. The survey questionnaires were distributed to all selected

16

 

households by mail with a reply-paid, self addressed return envelope. A cover letter
(Appendix A) explaining the purpose of the study, conﬁdentiality of the participants, and
merits of the study was included as well as demographic survey (i.e. gender, age,
educational level, income level, house size and etc). The participants’ conﬁdentiality was
guaranteed as consent was established when the questionnaire was completed and
returned to the researcher. For selected households who had not returned the survey
within two weeks, a reminder post card was sent out to encourage their participation in
the study. The survey questionnaire is presented in Appendix B.

Of the 2,000 questionnaires mailed, a total of 326 cases were returned. The
overall response rate was about 16.3% which was above typical response rate (5 or 10
percent) (Alreck & Settle, 2003). Out of 326 cases, 11 cases were not used due to
incomplete responses. As a result, 315 cases were retained for analysis.

Survey instrument and Measurement

Instrument Design

The survey instrument was developed on the basis of previous studies about
lighting perceptions and behaviors (Beckstead & Boyce, 1992; Veitch & Gifford, 1996)
and review of the Lighting Handbook published by the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North American (Rea, 2000), and modiﬁed for the purpose of the present study. This
research instrument was pretested to check for any biased, misleading, or confusing
questions and to verify the quality and comprehensiveness of information received.

The ﬁrst page of the survey instrument explained the research purposes and
provided information about the informed consent procedure. The survey questionnaire

used for the present study consisted of four sections and background information. The

17

ﬁrst section of the survey asked participants to answer the questions concerning general
lighting perceptions. The second section consisted of questions asking about lighting
behaviors. The third section asked participants’ opinions about compact ﬂuorescent lamp
(CF L). The fourth section of the survey consisted of questions about beliefs on lighting
and the environment. In the last section, demographic questions and background
questions were included.

Measurement and scale

Lighting perception. Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions on lighting
using 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). It consisted of
20 statements featuring the following measures: importance of lighting (5 items),
preference for incandescent lighting (3 items), and beliefs regarding ﬂuorescent lighting’s
impact on health (3 items). Most of questions about lighting preference and importance
were adopted from the studies of Beckstead and Boyce (1992) and Veitch and Gifford
(1996) respectively. Additional questions were developed from the Lighting Handbook
published by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American (Rea, 2000).

For importance of lighting, respondents were asked to evaluate overall lighting
perception related to their well-being, types of lighting, mood, and work performance. In
terms of preference for incandescent lighting, the respondents were asked to evaluate
their beliefs about incandescent lighting (i.e. ‘incandescent lights are attractive’, ‘I like
incandescent lights’, ‘incandescent lights produce a warmer and more ﬂattering color to
people’s appearances). Questions regarding beliefs about ﬂuorescent lighting on health
asked to rate respondents’ opinions about negative effects of ﬂuorescent lighting on

health (i.e. eye strain and headache).

18

Lighting behavior. The questions about respondents’ lighting behavior consisted
of three items: energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behaviors, habitual behaviors, and
citizenship behaviors. The lighting behavior questions were selected and modiﬁed from
the study of Beckstead and Boyce (1992). Participants were asked to indicate the extent
to which they agree or disagree with each of the statements on a seven-point Likert-type
scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).

Energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behaviors inquired about subjects’ effort and
commitment to buy energy-efﬁcient lighting over other types and how much energy-
eﬁ‘icient lighting is utilized in their homes. The habitual behavior was deﬁned as
“activities focused around everyday reductions in energy use that require either no or
minimal structural adjustment” (Barr, Gilg, & Ford, 2005). Participants were asked to
rate the extent to which they agree with the statements such as “As I leave the room, I
make sure that I turn off the light switch.” Citizenship behavior was evaluated by
homeowners’ willingness to pay higher prices to buy energy efﬁcient lighting to conserve
energy and their support of public policy in terms of promoting and supporting the
energy-efﬁcient lighting (Stern, 2000)

Perceptions of energy-eﬂicient lighting. The participants’ general perceptions of
energy-efﬁcient lighting were measured by their beliefs and attitudes about energy-saving
practices at home and environmental awareness of lighting issues. Participants were
asked to evaluate the extent to which they agree with the statements such as “Using
energy-efﬁcient lighting at home is an important way to conserve energy” and
“Government and utility companies should raise our awareness of the environmental

issue on lighting.”

19

Homeowners’ perceptions about compact ﬂuorescent lamp (CFL) were
addressed with ﬁve variables: visual comfort, aesthetics, impression, cost, and
technological attributes. First, homeowners’ perceptions about visual comfort of CFLs
were measured with 4 items: glaring/not glaring, tense/relaxing, irritating/soothing,
uncomfortable/ comfortable. Second, aesthetics of CFLs were measured with 3 items:
unpleasant] pleasant, unattractive/ attractive, ugly/ beautiful. A seven-point bi-polar scale
was used to evaluate the perceptions of visual comfort and aesthetics of CFLs: “l” for the
most negative to “7” for the most positive.

The last three measurements of impression, cost, and technological attributes of
CFLs used a seven-point Likert-type scale: “1” for strongly disagree to “7” for strongly
agree. In order to measure the general perception of CF Ls, impression of CFLs was
measured with two items: “Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs make the home look bad” and
“Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs make people look awful”. Homeowners’ perceptions about
the cost of CFLs was measured with one item using the statement “Compact ﬂuorescent
bulbs are costly to buy.” The perceptions about technological attributes of CFL were
measured with four items asking about slow start-up time, ﬂicker and incompatibility
with common light ﬁxtures.

Demographic background. The demographic information in the last section of
the questionnaire inquired about information of the participants. The demographic survey
portion contained questions about general characteristics of the respondents (i.e.
respondent’s age, respondent’s gender, house size, if they consider themselves as a
member of an environmental group and question about viewpoint ‘how liberal or how

conservative’), as well as socio-economic status (i.e. education and household income).

20

Respondents were asked to report their house size from six categories with less
than 1,000 sq.ft. being the smallest to more than 3,000 sq. ft. being the largest. Education
was based on ﬁve categories: 1) less than high school; 2) high school/ GED; 3) some
college; 4) Bachelor’s degree; 5) graduate or professional degree. Household income was
categorized, with the lowest being less than $25,000 to the highest being $100,000 or
more. In addition to documenting characteristics of the respondents, two qualitative
questions were added to probe further analysis of homeowners’ perceptions about
energy-efﬁcient lighting and opinions about enviromnental movement.

Data Analysis

All data collected from the surveys were tabulated, coded, and statistically
analyzed in a manner designed to identify a list of evaluative criteria. For socio-
demographic data, frequencies, percentages, and measures of central tendency were
calculated for the characteristics of the participants. This information enabled the
researcher to make general observations concerning the sample selected for the study.

Survey data were analyzed in three steps. First, preliminary statistics such as
descriptive statistics and reliability test were obtained using the Statistical Package of the
Social Sciences (SPSS 17.0). Descriptive statistics were obtained to determine the
distributional characteristics of each variable, including the mean and standard deviation.
Reliability test was employed to examine internal consistency of scales. Next correlations
among variables were examined. Afterwards, t-test, ANOVA and regression analysis

were conducted to examine relationship between variables.

21

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS

The remainder of this chapter discusses the results and ﬁndings based on the
research questions outlined in Chapter One. First, the results of descriptive statistics and
reliability tests are provided. Then ﬁndings of t-test, analysis of variance (AN OVA), and
regression are employed to examine homeowners’ perceptions and behaviors in relation
to energy-efﬁcient lighting.

Descriptive Statistics
As a ﬁrst step of preliminary analyses, descriptive statistics were examined for
demographic variables employed in the study. Table 1 presents the frequency and
percentage distributions for demographic characteristics of the sample: gender, age,
educational level, household income, house size, member of environmental group and
viewpoints (i.e. if subjects consider themselves as conservative vs. liberal).

Females slightly outnumbered (56.5%) male respondents (41%). About one third
of respondents (32.7%) were in the 55- to 64-year-old age class. An additional one third
(29.2 %) were 45- to 54-year-old range while slightly over 20% of respondents were in
their 25- to 44-year-old range. ‘

In terms of the educational level, over half (53%) of respondents had a graduate
or professional degree (53%). Additionally college graduates were 30% of the sample
(N=315) and another 12.7% of respondents had high school and some college education.

With regard to household income, the majority of respondents were in two
income categories: about half of the respondents (52.1%) in ‘$100,000 or more’ category

and about one third (35.1%) of respondents in ‘$50,000 to $99,999’ category.

22

Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Demographic Characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Characteristics Frequency %

Gender Male 129 42.0
Female 178 57.9

Total 307 100

Age 25 — 44 years 66 21.0
55 — 64 years 92 29.2

65 years and over 103 32.7

54 17.1

Total 3 15 100

Educational High school/GED/ some college 40 12.8
Bachelor’s degree 106 33.9

Graduate or professional degree 167 53.3

Total 313 100

Household income $49,999 or less 37 12.8
$50,000- $99,999 101 35.1

$100,000 or more 150 52.1

Total 288 100

House size 2,000 sq.ft. or less 122 39.3
2,001 — 3,000 sq.ft. 128 41.3

3,000 sq.ft. or more 60 19.4

Total 310 98.4

Environmental Group Yes 56 18.1
No 254 81.9

Total 3 10 100

Viewpoint Liberal 145 47. 1
Conservative 1 63 52.9

Total 308 100

 

Majority of respondents lived in a house which is 3000 sq. ft or less: slightly over
40% of respondents in 2001 - 3000 sq. ft. and slightly less than 40% of respondents in
2000 sq. ft. or less. About 20% of respondents lived in a house that is 3000 sq. ft. or more.
The vast majority of respondents (81.9 %) were not a member of an environmental group

while only about 18% of respondents were the members of environmental group. Lastly,

23

more than half (52.9 %) of respondents reported themselves as conservative while 47.1 %
of respondents reported themselves as liberal.
Reliability of Measures
Prior to further analyses, a factor analysis and reliability analysis using
Cronbach’s alpha was performed on the variables to test the internal consistency of scale
measuring variables. Results of the reliability measures are listed in Table 2. For detailed
reliability information along with number of items are presented in Appendix D.

Table 2. Results of Reliability Analysis

 

Research Questions Variables N of Cronbach’s
items Alpha

 

RQI. Homeowners’ general lighting perception

 

 

Importance of lighting 5 0.84
Preference for incandescent lighting 3 0.77
Fluorescent lighting beliefs on health 3 0.80
RQ2. Homeowners ’ energy-eﬂicient lighting perceptions
General perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting 4 0.70
Visual Comfort of CFLs 4 0.71
Aesthetics of CFLs 3 0.77
Impression of CF Ls 2 0.70
Technological attributes of CFLs 4 0.65
RQ3. Homeowners’ environmental lighting behaviors
Energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior 2 0.83
Habitual behavior 2 0.87
Citizenship behavior 2 0.71

 

The reliability of these variables ranged from 0.65 to 0.87 according to
Cronbach’s alpha. Since each of these alpha levels is above the acceptable threshold

(0.60) for reliability (Nunnally, 1970), these variables are used for further analysis.

24

RQl. What perceptions do homeowners have about lighting in general?
Homeowners’ general lighting perceptions were measured by following three

items: importance of lighting, preferences for incandescent lighting, and ﬂuorescent
lighting beliefs on health. The results of one way ANOVA (analysis of variance) and t-
test for these variables are presented below.
Importance of lighting

To investigate the importance of lighting, to the subjects, were asked to rate
importance of lighting on their well-being, mood, and work performance, and importance
of lighting types (i.e. ﬂuorescent vs. incandescent) used in a room. The AN OVA and t-
test results in Table 3 indicate that lighting importance was signiﬁcantly different
according to three variables: gender (p < .01), age (p < .05), and association with an
environmental group (p < .01) while there was no statistically signiﬁcant difference in
education level, income level and viewpoint.

Table 3. ANO VA and t-test summaries for importance of lighting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 10.302 3.434 3259*
Educational level 2 1.253 0.627 0.579
Income level 2 1.492 0.746 0.697
House size 2 2.480 1.240 1.152
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 5.17 305 -5.381**
Female 5.79
Environmental Group Member 5.72 304 3.506"
Non-member 530
Viewpoint Conservative 5.44 306 -1.713
Liberal 5.64

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

25

Female subjects rated signiﬁcantly higher on lighting importance than male
subjects. In regard to age and association with an environmental group, older subjects and
subjects who were current members of an environmental group were more likely to
perceive lighting and types of lighting used in a space to be essential to their well-being,
mood, and work performance.

Preference for incandescent lighting

As for the lighting preference, the subjects were asked to rate their feelings about
incandescent lighting in terms of aesthetic and color rendition qualities. Results of
ANOVA and the t-test (Table 4) indicate that the subjects’ preferences for incandescent
lighting were signiﬁcantly different for gender (p < .01) and income level (p < .05) while
there was no statistically signiﬁcant difference on other variables of age, educational
level, house size, association with an environmental group and viewpoint.

Table 4. ANO VA and t-test summaries for preference for incandescent lighting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 8.115 2.705 2.466
Educational level 2 2.513 1.257 1.125
Income level 2 9.425 4.713 4.351 *
House size 2 2.156 1.078 0.957
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 434 305 -4.108**
Female 4.83
Environmental Group Member 4.69 304 l .014
Non-member 457
Viewpoint Conservative 4.72 306 1 .706
Liberal 4.52

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

26

Female subjects showed more positive assessment on the appearance and the
color rendition of the incandescent lighting than male subjects. In regard to the income
level, the ﬁndings showed that the subjects whose income was in the lowest categories
($49,999 or less) and highest ($100,000 or more) categories perceived the incandescent
lighting to be more positive than those in the middle income category ($50,000-99,999).
Fluorescent lighting beliefs about health

Questions regarding health items inquired about subjects’ beliefs of the negative
effects of ﬂuorescent lighting on health, eyestrain, and headache. Results of ANOVA and
the t-test (Table 5) indicate that the subjects’ beliefs on the negative effects of ﬂuorescent
lighting on health were signiﬁcantly different for two variables: gender (p < .01) and
association with an environmental group (p < .05).

Table 5. ANO VA and t-test summaries of ﬂuorescent lighting beliefs on health

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 13.639 4.546 2.137
Educational level 2 7.974 3 .987 1.855
Income level 2 1.937 0.969 0.451
House size 2 6.819 3.409 1.598
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 5.17 034 4.443”
' Female 5.79
Environmental Group Member 4.52 303 -2.356*
Non-member 4.91
Viewpoint Conservative 454 305 -2.272
Liberal 4.92

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

27

Female subjects rated signiﬁcantly higher on the negative effects of ﬂuorescent
lighting on health than male subjects did, indicating their beliefs that ﬂuorescent lighting
may be detrimental to one’s health. Non-members of an environmental group also scored
signiﬁcantly higher on the negative effects of ﬂuorescent lighting on health than
members did, indicating that they believed ﬂuorescent lights are bad for health and
working under ﬂuorescent lighting causes headache and eyestrain.

RQ2. What perceptions do homeowners have about energy-efﬁcient lighting?

Homeowners’ perceptions about energy-efﬁcient lighting were evaluated in
regard to two aspects: (1) general perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting and (2)
perceptions about speciﬁc attributes of compact ﬂuorescent lighting including visual
comfort, aesthetics, impression, cost, and technology.

General perceptions of energy-eﬂicient lighting

First, general perceptions of energy-efﬁcient lighting were measured based on
their beliefs and attitude about energy-saving practices at home and environmental
awareness of the lighting issues. The results of ANOVA and the t-test (Table 6) indicate
that the general perceptions of energy-efﬁcient lighting were signiﬁcantly different on
three variables: house size (p < .05), association with an environmental group (p < .01),
and viewpoint (p < .01) while there was no statistically signiﬁcant difference on other
variables of age, gender, educational level, and income level.

In terms of environmental association, the subjects who were currently members
of an environmental group showed more positive attitudes about using energy-efﬁcient
lighting to conserve energy and protect the environment than non-members did. Subjects

who considered themselves liberal and owned a larger house (more than 3,000 sq.ft.)

28

 

rated signiﬁcantly higher on implementing energy-efﬁcient lighting into their homes and
supporting the roles of government and utility companies to raise awareness of the
environmental issues on lighting.

Table 6. ANOVA and t-test summaries of general perception of energy-eﬂicient lighting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- ANOVA Results
Variables of SS MS F
Age 3 2.224 0.741 0.642
Educational level 2 6.725 3.363 2.973
Income level 2 1.463 0.732 0.660
House size 2 8.858 4.429 3.872*
‘ T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 4.97 302 -1 .076
Female 5.10
Environmental Group Member 530 301 4.370**
Non-member 4.77
Viewpoint Conservative 4.74 304 -5.630**
Liberal 5.40

 

*p<.05; **p<.01
Perceptions of Compact Florescent Lighting (CFL)

Homeowners’ perceptions about compact ﬂuorescent lighting (CFL) were
measured based on the following items: (1) visual comfort, (2) aesthetics, (3) impression,
(4) cost, and (5) technology.

Visual comfort of CF L Homeowners’ perceptions about visual comfort (i.e.
glaring/not glaring, tense/relaxing, irritating/soothing, uncomfortable/ comfortable) of
CFLs were measured. The AN OVA and t-test results in Table 7 indicate that the
homeowner’s perception about visual comfort of CFLs was signiﬁcantly different

according to gender (p < .01) and age (p < .05).

29

The results indicated that male rated more positively on the visual comfort of

CF Ls than females did. Older subjects showed more positive perception about the visual

comfort of CFLs than younger subjects did.

Table 7. ANO VA and t-test summaries of Visual comfort of CF L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN OVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 7.461 2.487 2990*
Educational level 2 2.126 1 .063 1 .251
Income level 2 0.046 0.023 0.027
House size 2 0.273 0.137 0.159
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 421 301 3.289"
Female 3.86
Environmental Group Member 3.94 300 -1 .516
Non-member 4.10
Viewpoint Conservative 3.92 3 02 -1 .832
Liberal 4.11

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

Aesthetics of CFL Homeowners’ perceptions about aesthetics (i.e. unpleasant]

pleasant, unattractive/ attractive, ugly/ beautiful) in relation to CFLs were measured using

a bipolar scale. As for the aesthetical aspects of CFLs (Table 8), gender (p < .01) was the

only variable that showed a statistically signiﬁcant difference. The results indicated that

male subjects rated signiﬁcantly higher on the aesthetics of CFLs than female subjects

did.

30

Table 8. ANO VA and t-test summaries for Aesthetics of CFL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 4.361 1.454 1.140
Educational level 2 3.420 1 .710 1 .335
Income level 2 2.206 1.103 0.842
House size 2 3.306 1.653 1.278
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 3.96 301 2.888M
Female 359
Environmental Group Member 3.74 300 -0.304
Non-member 3.78
Viewpoint Conservative 3.68 302 -1 .224
Liberal 3.83
*p<.05; **p<.01

Impression of CFL Subjects’ current impressions of the CFLs were measured
by asking if compact ﬂuorescent bulbs make the home and people look bad. Table 9

shows that the impression of CF Ls had a signiﬁcant difference on two variables: gender

(p < .01) and viewpoint (p < .01). Males and liberal subjects showed more positive

general impressions of CFLs than females and conservatives did.

Table 9. ANO VA and t-test summaries for Impression of CFL

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 13.222 4.441 2.265
Educational level 2 6.982 3 .491 1 .782
Income level 2 6.916 3 .458 1.713
House size 2 4.974 2.487 1.251

 

31

Table 9. Continued
T-test Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 4.80 303 3.574“
Female 422
Environmental Group Member 452 3 01 1 .076
Non-member 435
Viewpoint Conservative 4.24 304 -2.727**
Liberal 4.68

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

C 0st of CFL When the subjects were asked to evaluate their perception about
the cost of CF Ls, gender (p < .05) was the only variable that showed a statistically
signiﬁcant difference (Table 10). The results indicated that more female subjects than
males perceived compact ﬂuorescent bulbs as more costly to buy.

Table 10. ANO VA and t-test summaries for Cost of CFL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN OVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 11.484 3.828 1.857
Educational level 2 3.689 1.844 0.888
Income level 2 1.914 0.957 0.454
House size 2 4.896 2.448 1.168
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 274 3 03 -2. 1 90*
Female 3.10
Environmental Group Member 296 301 0.115
Non-member 294
Viewpoint Conservative 295 304 -0.092
Liberal 297

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

32

Technological attributes of CFL The technological attributes of CFLs
included slow start-up time, ﬂicker, and incompatibility with common light ﬁxtures.
Table 11 shows homeowners’ perceptions regarding the technological attributes of the
compact ﬂuorescent bulbs were signiﬁcantly different on two variables: gender (p < .01)
and viewpoint (p < .01). The results indicated that males and liberal subjects more
positively perceived the technological attributes of CFLs than female and conservative

subjects did.

 

Table I 1. ANOVA and t-test summaries for Technological attributes of CFL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN OVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 0.629 0.210 0.159
Educational level 2 5. 165 2.582 2.008
Income level 2 2.072 1.036 0.788
House size 2 3.037 1.519 1.150
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 434 303 2.922“
Female 3.96
Environmental Group Member 4.17 301 1 .004
Non-member 4.04
Viewpoint Conservative 3.93 304 -3.147**
Liberal 433

 

*p<.05; **p<.01
RQ3. What are homeowners’ environmental lighting behaviors?

To identify subjects’ environmental lighting behaviors for their homes, four
variables were investigated: 1) energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior, 2) habitual

behavior, 3) citizenship behavior, 4) replacement behavior and willingness to replace.

33

Energy-efficient lighting usage behavior The homeowners’ lighting behaviors

about energy-efﬁcient lighting were measured based on their effort and commitment to

purchase energy-efﬁcient lighting such as CFLs and how much the energy-efﬁcient

lighting was utilized in their homes.

Table 12 indicates results of AN OVA and t-test for the behavior about energy-

efﬁcient lighting for the subjects’ homes. The energy efﬁcient lighting usage behavior

was signiﬁcantly different on three variables: income (p < .05), association with

environmental group (p < .01), and viewpoint (p < .01).

Table 12. ANO VA and t-test summaries for Energy efficient lighting usage behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 14.318 4.773 2.297
Educational level 2 2.786 1.393 0.660
Income level 2 13.781 6.890 3348*
House size 2 4.346 2.173 1.027
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 4.81 304 -1 . 108
Female 4.99
Environmental Group Member 5.17 303 3.361 **
Non-member 4.62
Viewpoint Conservative 452 305 -5.262**
Liberal 536

 

*p<.05; **p<.01

For the income level, those in the lowest income categories ($49,999 or less) rated

signiﬁcantly higher on buying and using energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes than

those in the higher income categories. In terms of environmental groups and viewpoint,

the members of an environmental group and liberal subjects also rated signiﬁcantly

34

higher on purchasing and implementing energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes than
non-members and conservatives did.

Habitual behavior The habitual behavior assessed subjects’ habitual energy-
saving behaviors in their homes. The energy-saving behaviors included for this measure
were “household activities (i.e. turning off lights when leaving a room) that focused
around everyday reductions in energy use that require no or minimal structural
adjustment” (Barr etal., 2005). Table 13 presents the habitual behavior was signiﬁcantly
different on three variables: gender (p < .05), income level (p < .05), and viewpoint (p
< .05).

Table I3. ANO VA and t-test summaries for Habitual behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 0.831 0.277 0.148
Educational level 2 1.678 0.839 0.449
Income level 2 12.357 6.178 3389*
House size 2 1 1.027 2.981 2.981
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 5.42 302 -2.509*
Female 5.82
Environmental Group Member 5.80 3 01 2. 1 00*
Non-member 5.47
Viewpoint Conservative 5.54 3 03 - 1 .43 1
Liberal 5.77

 

*p<.05; **p<.01
Subjects whose income fell in the mid range ($50,000 to $99,999) rated
signiﬁcantly higher on their habitual energy-saving behaviors than other subjects whose

income were under $49,999 and more than $100,000. In terms of gender and viewpoint,

35

female and liberal subjects presented signiﬁcantly higher energy saving behaviors in their
homes than male and conservative subjects did.

Citizenship behavior Citizenship behavior assessment was based upon two
behavior criteria: 1) subjects’ willingness to pay higher prices for buying environmentally
friendly products to protect the environment and 2) subjects’ attitude toward government
policies banning incandescent light bulbs.

Results of the ANOVA and t-test in Table 14 indicate that citizenship behavior
was signiﬁcantly different on four variables: educational level (p <.01), house size (p
<.05), association with an environmental group (p <01) and viewpoint (p <.01).

Table 14. ANO VA and t-test summaries for Citizenship behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN OVA Results
Variables df SS MS F
Age 3 12.274 4.091 1.457
Educational level 2 42.212 21 .106 7.760* *
Income level 2 5.101 2.551 0.909
House size 2 20.700 3 .695 3.695*
T-test Results
Variables Mean df t
Gender Male 431 303 0894
Female 4.48
Environmental Group Member 5.00 302 7.166**
Non-member 3.72
Viewpoint Conservative 3.75 304 -7.921 * *
Liberal 5.14

 

*p<.05; **p<.01
In terms of the educational level and house size, the subjects who had more
education (i.e. graduate and professional degree) and smaller sized houses (less than

2,000 Sq. ft) rated their citizenship behaviors signiﬁcantly higher than the subjects who

36

had lesser education and larger sized houses. As for the association with an
environmental group and political viewpoint, members of an environmental group and
liberal subjects rated signiﬁcantly higher on their implementation of energy-efﬁcient
lighting and support for govermnent polices than non-members of an environmental
groups and conservative subjects did.

Replacement behavior and willingness to replace. In order to measure home
owner’s behavior of implementing energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes, it was asked
(1) if subjects have replaced entire lighting to more efficient lighting and if not, (2) if
they are willing to replace existing ﬁxtures with more efﬁcient lighting for their home.
The logistic regression analysis in Table 15 shows the results of the ﬁrst question asking
if they have replaced the entire lighting for more efﬁcient lighting. It was found that none
of the variables were signiﬁcantly associated with subjects’ replacement behavior of the
energy efﬁcient lighting.

Table 15. Results of the logistic regression analysis on replacement behavior

 

Have replaced entire lighting ﬁxtures to use more efﬁcient

 

 

 

Variable bulbs
Beta SE Wald df p-value
Age - 0.024 0.134 0.033 1 0.856
Gender - 0.047 0.275 0.030 1 0.864
Income - 0.059 0.196 0.092 1 0.762
Educate 0.177 0.198 0.794 1 0.373
House size - 0.220 0.186 1.411 1 0.235
Environmental group - 0.185 0.272 0.464 1 0.496
Viewpoint 0.429 0.271 2.503 1 0.1 14

 

For those who have not replaced their entire lighting with more energy efﬁcient lighting,

their willingness to replace was measured by asking if they are willing to replace existing

37

ﬁxtures with more efﬁcient lighting for their home. Results of the logistic regression
analysis in Table 16 indicate that two variables: association with environmental group (,8
= -0.725, p <01) and viewpoint (B =0.595, p <.05) were signiﬁcantly related to the
homeowners’ willingness to replace their existing lighting. The subjects who were
current members of an environmental group with more liberal viewpoints expressed their
willingness to replace their entire lighting with more efﬁcient bulbs more strongly than
non-members of an environmental groups and conservative subjects.

Table I 6. Results of the logistic regression analysis on subjects’ willing to replace

 

Will replace existing ﬁxtures with

 

 

Variable more efﬁcient bulbs
Beta S.E Wald df p-value
Age - 0.085 0.135 0.396 1 0.529
Gender 0.154 0.276 0.313 1 0.576
Income - 0.085 0.202 0.178 1 0.673
Educate 0.027 0.188 0.021 1 0.886
House size - 0.123 0.183 0.453 1 0.501
Environmental group - 0.725** 0.278 6.797 1 0.009
Viewpoint 0.595* 0.423 4.531 1 0.033

 

* p<.05; **p<.01
RQ4. How do homeowners’ lighting perceptions inﬂuence their environmental
lighting behaviors?

In order to examine how homeowner’s perceptions about lighting are associated
with their environmental lighting behaviors for their homes, a series of regression
analyses were conducted based on four variables of environmental behaviors and six
variables of lighting perceptions. Four environmental behaviors as dependent variables
included 1) energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior, 2) habitual behavior, 3) citizenship

behavior, and 4) willingness to replace existing lighting with more efﬁcient lighting.

38

 

Independent variables included seven variables: three variables of general lighting
perceptions: (1) importance of lighting, (2) preference for incandescent, and (3)
ﬂuorescent lighting beliefs on health, and four variables of energy-efficient lighting
perceptions: (1) general perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting, (2) impression of CFLs,
(3) cost of CFLs, and (4) technological attributes of CFLs.

Energy-eﬂicient lighting usage behaviors

The energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behaviors indicated subjects’ effort and
commitment to buy and utilize energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes. The results of
the regression analysis in Table 17 show that energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behaviors
were signiﬁcantly related to six variables: importance of lighting, preferences to
incandescent, general perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting, impression of CFLs, cost of
CFLs, and technological attributes of CF Ls.

Subjects’ energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behaviors showed a positive relationship
(,6 =0.136, p <.05) with the importance of lighting. The more the subjects believed that
their lighted environment and types of lighting were important for their well-being, mood,
and work performance, the more likely the subjects were to follow energy-saving
behaviors by purchasing environmentally friendly products and using more efﬁcient light
bulbs for their homes.

As for the preference for incandescent lighting, the results showed a negative
relationship between subject’s preference for incandescent lighting and energy-efﬁcient
lighting usage behavior (3 =-0.136, p <.05). The more the subjects preferred the attributes

_ of incandescent lighting (e. g., attractive appearances and ﬂattering color to their

39

appearance), the less the subjects purchased and utilized the energy-efﬁcient lighting for
their homes.

All four perceptions of energy-efﬁcient lighting were signiﬁcantly associated with
energy-efﬁcient usage behavior: (1) general perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting (,8
=0.477, p <01) and (2) impression of CF Ls (,6 =0.383, p <01), (3) cost of CF Ls (,8
=0.149, p <01), (4) technological attributes of CFLs (,6 = 0.281, p <.01). All four
variables showed the positive relationship with the energy-efﬁcient lighting usage
behaviors.

Results suggest that the more positive perceptions the subjects showed about
energy-efﬁcient lighting in general (i.e., impression of CFLs, cost and technological
attributes of CF Ls), the more the subjects tended to purchase and utilize energy-efﬁcient
lighting for their homes.

Table I 7. Results of the regression analysis for energy-eﬂicient lighting usage behaviors

 

 

 

E Hi . l' l . l l .
Variable Beta P
General lighting perception
Fluorescent lighting beliefs on health 0.004 0.942
Importance of lighting 0.136* 0.016
Preference for incandescent lighting -0.136* 0.016
Energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions
General perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting 0.477* * 0.000
Impression of CFLs 0.383** 0.000
Cost of CFLs 0.149** 0.008
Technological attributes of CF Ls 0.281 ** 0.000
* p<.05; **p<.01

Habitual behaviors
The habitual behaviors indicated subjects’ energy-saving activities in everyday

life at home. Results of the regression analysis in Table 18 show that homeowners’

40

general perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting (B = 0.234, p <.01), impression of CF Ls (,8
= 0.161, p <01) and technological attributes of CF Ls (,6 = 0.216, p <.01) except for the
cost of CFLs were signiﬁcantly related to their habitual energy-saving activities for their
lighting use at home. The results suggest that the more positive perception homeowners
had towards the energy-efﬁcient lighting, the more likely the subjects were to pursue and
practice energy-saving activities for their homes.

Table I 8. Results of the regression analysis for habitual behaviors

 

 

H l . l l l .
Variable Beta 19
General lighting perception
Fluorescent lighting belief on health 0.026 0.652
Importance of lighting 0.091 0.110
Preference for incandescent lighting -0.084 0.138
Energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions
General perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting 0.234** 0.000
Impression of CF Ls 0.161 ** 0.004
Cost of CF Ls 0.064 0.252
Technological attributes of CFLs 0.216** 0.000

 

* p<.05; **p<.01

Citizenship behaviors

The citizenship behaviors indicated subjects’ willingness to protect the
environment by conserving energy and support of government policies banning
incandescent light bulbs. Results of the regression analysis in Table 19 showed
citizenship behaviors were signiﬁcantly associated with ﬁve variables: preference for
incandescent, general perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting, impression of CF Ls, cost of
CFLs, and technological attributes of CFLs.

Among the three variables of lighting perceptions in general, preference for

incandescent (,6 = -0.188, p <.01) was the only variable that was signiﬁcantly and

41

negatively related to the citizenship behaviors. The results revealed that the subjects who
perceived incandescent lighting more positively were less likely to practice energy-saving
and support the government policy of banning incandescent light bulbs.

All variables of the energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions were signiﬁcantly and
positively related to the subjects’ citizenship behaviors: general perception of energy-
efﬁcient lighting (B =0.609, p <.01), impression of CF Ls (B =0.332, p <.01), cost of CF Ls
(B =0.148, p <01), and technological attributes of CFLs (B = 0.281, p<.01). The results
suggest that the subjects who more positively perceived about energy-efﬁcient lighting in
general, impression of CFLs, cost and technological attributes of CFLs, would be more
likely to protect environment by conserving energy and supporting government policies
banning incandescent light bulbs.

Table 19. Results of the regression analysis for citizenship behaviors

 

 

C. . l . l l .
Variable Beta P
General lighting perceptions
Fluorescent lighting belief on health 0.085 0.136
Importance of lighting 0.101 0.075
Preference for incandescent -0.188** 0.001
Energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions
General perceptions of energy-efﬁcient lighting 0.609** 0.000
Impression of CFLs 0.332” 0.000
Cost of CFLs 0.148** 0.009
Technological attributes of CF LS 0281" 0.000

 

* p<.05; **p<.01
Willingness to replace
Table 20 shows results of the logistic regression analysis for subjects’ willingness
to replace existing ﬁxtures with more efﬁcient bulbs for their homes. The results showed

that the subjects’ willingness to replace their current ﬁxtures with more energy-efﬁcient

42

lighting were signiﬁcantly associated with the energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions. All
the variables of the energy-efﬁcient perceptions: energy-efﬁcient lighting in general (B
=0.651, p<.01), impression of CFLs (B =0.501, p < .01), cost of CF Ls (B = 0.223, p <.05),
and technological attributes of CFLs (B = 0.473, p <.01) showed signiﬁcant positive
relationships. As ﬁndings suggest, the subjects who perceived more positively about the
energy-efﬁcient lighting in general, impression of CFLs, cost of CFLs and technological
attributes of CFLs, tended to demonstrate more willingness to replace their existing
ﬁxtures with more efﬁcient bulbs.

Table 20. Results of the regression analysis on subjects’ willingness to replace

 

Will replace existing ﬁxtures with more efﬁcient

 

 

 

Variable bulb
Beta SE Wald df p-value

General lighting perceptions
Florescent lighting belief on health 0.080 0.094 0.728 1 0.393
Importance of lighting - 0.035 0.129 0.075 1 0.785
Preference for incandescent lighting - 0.196 0.129 2.314 1 0.128
Energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions
Energy-efﬁcient lighting in general 0.651 ** 0.150 18.763 1 0.000
Impression of CFLs 0.501** 0.112 19.877 1 0.000
Cost of CFLs 0223* 0.109 4.178 1 0.041
Technological attributes of CFLs 0.473 * * 0.13 8 l 1 .760 1

 

* p<.05; **p<.01

43

0.001

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION

Chapter Five has two sections. In the ﬁrst section, an overview of main
ﬁndings from the survey is discussed along with research questions outlined in
Chapter 2. In the second section, implications and limitations of the present study are
discussed.

Overview of main ﬁndings

Encouraging energy-efficient residential lighting usage is a critical component
of today’s utility management. In general, it is anticipated that energy-efﬁcient lighting
can play a major role in conserving energy as well as saving natural resources. With the
perspective of encouraging energy efﬁcient lighting choices, this research was initiated
to ascertain homeowners’ underlying perceptions of energy-efﬁcient lighting with
particular emphasis on environmental lighting behaviors for their homes. The reasons
that home lighting decision makers resist using energy-efﬁcient lighting are not well
understood. This study was proposed to assess the basis for such resistance.

The homeowners’ perceptions about lighting were measured in two
components: lighting in general and energy-efﬁcient lighting. The lighting perceptions
were further analyzed with four different behavior types to identify their behavioral
intentions. The four types of behaviors included were energy efﬁcient lighting usage
behavior, habitual behavior, citizenship behavior, and willingness to replace existing
ﬁxtures with more efﬁcient bulbs.

Based on t-test, AN OVA and regression analyses, major ﬁndings about the

homeowners’ lighting perceptions as well as their environmental lighting behaviors are

44

 

summarized, along with the research questions below:
RQI. What perceptions do people have about lighting in general?

Homeowners’ perceptions about lighting in general were measured by
examining three items: importance of lighting, preference for incandescent lighting,
and beliefs about the effects of ﬂuorescent lighting on health.

As for the importance of lighting, female, older subjects and members of the
enviromnental group perceived strongly that lighting was important for their well-being,
mood, and performance more than male, younger subjects, and nonmembers of an
environmental group respectively. In terms of the preference for incandescent lighting,
again female subjects more strongly preferred the appearance and warm color of
incandescent lighting than male subjects. The subjects whose income was the lowest
categories ($49,999 or less) and highest categories ($100,000 or more) more strongly
favored the incandescent lighting than those whose income was in the middle range. In
dealing with ﬂuorescent lighting beliefs on health, female subjects and nonmembers of
an environmental group more strongly believed ﬂuorescent lighting provide harmful
effects one’s health than male subjects and members of an environmental group.

The ﬁndings revealed that females strongly believed incandescent lighting to be
superior over ﬂuorescent lighting in terms of physical characteristics as well as their
effects on mood, well-being, and performance. Females also showed their underlying
beliefs that ﬂuorescent lighting had negative effects on people’s health.

As previous study indicated (Barr et al., 2005), people who were actively

involved in community movements would be more likely to pursue environmental

45

 

values. It was not surprising that non-members of an environmental group showed
higher signiﬁcance on negative beliefs about effects of ﬂuorescent lighting on health.

In terms of the income level and lighting preference for incandescent lighting,
the subjects whose income was the highest also perceived the incandescent lighting to
be more aesthetically and visually pleasing. ‘

RQ2. What perceptions do homeowners have about energy-efﬁcient lighting?

Homeowners’ energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions were evaluated in two ways.
First, homeowners’ general perceptions of energy-efﬁcient lighting were questioned
with their energy-saving practice and environmental awareness on lighting issues.
Secondly general perceptions about compact ﬂuorescent lamp (CFL): visual comfort,
aesthetics, impression, cost and technological attributes were asked to evaluate the
homeowners’ energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions.

Results of the homeowners’ general perception of energy-efficient lighting
showed signiﬁcant differences in environmental group membership, house size and
viewpoint. As expected from previous study, members of an environmental group had a
higher preference for using energy-efﬁcient lighting for conserving energy to protect
the environment than the subjects who were non-members (Barr et al., 2005).

More subjects who considered themselves liberal and owned larger houses
(more than 3,000 aq.ft.) rated signiﬁcantly higher on implementing energy-efﬁcient
lighting for their homes and supported the roles of government and utility companies to
raise awareness of the environmental issues on lighting. In order to cut energy use and
increase energy efﬁciency, undoubtedly subjects who owned larger house were more

willing and likely to implement energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes.

46

In terms of pe0ple’s viewpoint and its relationship to environmental behaviors,
more liberal people were generally considered to be the most committed to sustainable
energy use (Barr et al., 2005). And it was the same case for the present study where
more liberal subjects showed more interest in saving energy by implementing the
energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes.

In regards to visual comfort of CFLs, older subjects (55-64 years and 65 years
and over) perceived attributes of visual comfort of CFLs more positively than younger
subjects due to their age and deteriorated vision.

Male subjects perceived attributes of the CF Ls more positively than female
subjects not only for visual comfort but also for aesthetics. This ﬁnding was
unexpected since the males were identiﬁed as non-environmentalists in the previous
study by Barr et a1. (2005). The current ﬁndings imply that males might be more aware
of current energy-efﬁcient lighting technological updates such as better color rendition
qualities and availability of more shapes and colors. On the other hand, female subjects
were more cost-conscious, perceiving the cost of the compact ﬂuorescent bulbs to be
higher than the male subjects.

RQ3. What are homeowners ’ environmental lighting behaviors?

The environmental lighting behaviors for the home were identiﬁed by ﬁve
different variables: energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior, habitual behavior,
citizenship behavior, replacement behavior, and willingness to replace.

First, the homeowners’ energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior inquired about
the subjects’ effort and commitment to purchase energy-efﬁcient lighting such as CFLs

and how much the energy-efﬁcient lighting was utilized in their homes. The results

47

indicated that the lowest income categories ($49,999 or less) rated signiﬁcantly higher
on energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior for their homes than other higher income
categories. This ﬁnding was different from previous studies which have indicated end-
users with more income would be more willing to practice energy-efﬁcient lighting
behavior since energy-efﬁcient lighting behaviors often require long-term commitment
on ﬁnance as well as duration of time (Dilman et a1. 1983). This ﬁnding implies that
only the subjects who have positive perceptions toward the energy-efﬁcient lighting
and who pursue environmental values would be willing to practice energy-efﬁcient
lighting behaviors regardless of the income level.

In terms of the habitual behavior, subjects whose income fell in the mid range
($50,000 to $99,999) and female and liberal subjects rated signiﬁcantly higher on their
habitual energy-saving behaviors than subjects whose income were under $49,999 and
more than $100,000, and male and conservative subjects.

Other signiﬁcant results included were ﬁndings of the citizenship behavior. The
citizenship behavior was based upon two behavior criteria: 1) subjects’ willingness to
pay higher prices for buying environmentally ﬁiendly products to protect the
environment and, 2) subjects’ attitude towards government policies banning
incandescent light bulbs. The results indicated that the subjects who had more
education (i.e. graduate and professional degrees) and smaller sized houses (less than
2,000 sq. ft) demonstrated more citizenship behaviors than subjects who had lesser
education and larger sized houses. The results conﬁrmed the previous ﬁnding that
subjects with higher education and smaller homes tended to be energy-savers (Barr et a1.

2005)

48

As for the association with an environmental group and viewpoint, it also
conﬁrmed the previous ﬁnding where the subjects who were associated with an
environmental group and liberal subjects showed higher signiﬁcance on
implementation of the energy-efﬁcient lighting and support for government polices
than non-members of an environmental group and conservative subjects (Barr et al.,
2005).

Lastly, in terms of the subjects’ willingness to replace existing lighting, those
who were current members of an environmental group with liberal viewpoint showed
stronger intentions to replace their entire lighting ﬁxtures with energy- efﬁcient bulbs
than the non-members and more conservative subjects. Subjects who were current
members of an environmental group and more liberal were also more likely to pursue
environmental values.

RQ4. How do homeowners ’ lighting perceptions inﬂuence their environmental
lighting behaviors for home?

The results showed that energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behaviors such as
purchasing environmentally friendly products and utilizing more efﬁcient light bulbs
for their homes were signiﬁcantly related to the importance of lighting, preference for
incandescent lighting, and perceptions of energy-efﬁcient lighting including CFLs.

The more conscious the subjects were of their lighted environment and the
types of lighting they used in a room, the more likely the subjects were to follow
energy-saving behaviors by purchasing and utilizing more efﬁcient light bulbs for their
homes. However, the more the subjects preferred the attributes of incandescent lighting,

the less the subjects purchased and utilized energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes. As

49

anticipated, energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behaviors were found to be positively
related to energy-efﬁcient lighting perceptions: general perception of energy-efﬁcient
lighting, cost of CFLs, impression of CF Ls, and technological attributes of CFLs.

In terms of habitual behavior, the results demonstrated that the more positive
perceptions homeowners had towards the energy-efﬁcient lighting, the more likely the
subjects were to pursue and practice habitual energy-saving activities for their homes.

The citizenship behaviors were found to be negatively related to their
preference for incandescent lighting. The subjects who perceived the incandescent
lighting more positively were less likely to practice energy-saving and support the
government policy of banning incandescent light bulbs. Conversely, the subjects who
perceived the energy-efﬁcient lighting more positively, would be more likely to
demonstrate energy-saving activities, approve government policies in order to protect
the environment and conserve more energy, and would be more willing to demonstrate
environmental behaviors by replacing their existing ﬁxtures with more efﬁcient bulbs.

As VBN theory suggested (Stern, 2000), having positive perceptions toward the
use of energy-efﬁcient lighting (i.e. positive values and beliefs) would initiate and lead
subjects’ into more energy-saving behaviors and supporting government policy (i.e.
proenvironmental behaviors).

The present study demonstrated that homeowners’ environmental lighting
behaviors were signiﬁcantly associated with their underlying lighting perceptions toward
incandescent lighting as well as energy-efﬁcient lighting. The ﬁndings clearly showed
that subjects, who perceived the energy-efﬁcient lighting to be more positive and less

preferred incandescent lighting, would 1) be more likely to buy and utilize energy-

50

efﬁcient lighting for their homes, 2) demonstrate habitual energy-saving behaviors in
their daily life, 3) approve government environmental policies, and 4) replace their
existing ﬁxtures with more efﬁcient bulbs.

The study also revealed some signiﬁcant differences in homeowners’ lighting
perceptions and behaviors in relation to demographic characteristics. First, gender
difference was evidently shown. Females considered lighting to be an important factor on
their mood, well-being, and work performance more signiﬁcantly than males. They also
felt the incandescent lighting to be more aesthetically attractive, while they believed that
the ﬂuorescent lighting produced harmful effects on their health. On the other hand, it
was interesting to note that females practiced more habitual energy-saving activities at
home than male subjects although they perceived energy-efﬁcient lighting more
negatively than males. The ﬁndings showed males tended to be more positive about
attributes of the energy-efﬁcient lighting (i.e. visual comfort, aesthetics, and impression).
They didn’t perceive the technological problems of CFLs (i.e. slow start-up time, ﬂicker,
and incompatibility with common ﬁxtures) to be as serious as the female subjects.

Secondly, as Barr et a1. (2005) indicated that members of an environmental group
and liberal subjects participated more actively in following environmental values and
implementing energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes. The ﬁndings demonstrated the
membership of an environmental group and viewpoint were signiﬁcantly associated with
homeowners’ lighting perceptions and behaviors. Being a member of any environmental
groups and having a liberal viewpoint was signiﬁcantly related to higher willingness to
protect the environment by conserving energy and to support government policies

banning incandescent light bulbs. Those who had a liberal viewpoint also displayed more

51

habitual energy-conserving activities in their home such as switching off lights in
unoccupied rooms.

Thirdly, the homeowners’ age showed signiﬁcant differences in their importance
of lighting. It was not surprising that older subjects considered the lighting at home to be
more signiﬁcant on their well-being and an essential element to their visual comfort than
the younger subjects due to their deteriorated vision and physical condition. They may
also spend more time at home than younger age groups.

Fourth, the household income showed signiﬁcant differences in their preference
for incandescent lighting, energy-efﬁcient usage behaviors, and habitual behaviors. The
mid range income group showed signiﬁcantly higher habitual energy-saving activities in
their homes while the highest and the lowest income groups showed a higher preference
for the attributes of incandescent lighting than the mid range income group. On the other
hand, the lowest income group purchased and utilized more energy-efﬁcient lighting
ﬁxtures for their homes.

Fifth, in terms of house size, not surprisingly, subjects who owned larger houses
showed more positive perceptions for the utilization of more energy-efﬁcient lighting for
their homes in order to cut energy and increase energy-efﬁciency.

Sixth, regarding education level, the ﬁndings showed education level was
signiﬁcantly related to citizenship behavior. The higher the homeowners’ education level,
the more they were willing to pay for energy-efﬁcient lighting products and support
government policies banning incandescent lighting in homes.

Implications and limitations

Several implications are presented for both lighting researchers and

52

professionals. As demonstrated in the present study, professionals (i.e. architects and
interior designers) may consider gender differences when working with their clients.
Marketing strategies of promoting the use of energy-efﬁcient lighting can be designed
to highlight areas that each gender might be interested in learning about since gender
differences affect subjects’ energy-efﬁcient lighting perception and their behaviors
accordingly. For example, the ﬁndings demonstrated that males showed more positive
perceptions toward attributes of the CFLs than females. The professionals may
reinforce positive aspects of the energy-efﬁcient lighting to their clients (i.e. female
clients) and offer updated technological insights.

Furthermore it is important for government and lighting researchers to
implement new methods (i.e. using a model house to showcase newly developed
energy-efﬁcient lighting ﬁxtures) to publicize new lighting technologies and prevent
generating further misconceptions about lighting since lighting misconceptions
ultimately affect lighting behaviors (V eitch et al., 1993). Additionally, to ensure that
professionals create a quality lighting environment that is both functional and energy-
efﬁcient for their clients, education for the trade professionals is essential.

Although this study utilized a systematic random sampling method, the sample
of this study consisted of homeowners in the Meridian township area in Michigan
where the subjects’ income was known as the highest among the surrounding areas and
the educational level was highly skewed. Therefore, the ﬁndings of the study should be
cautiously apply to homeowners living in different locations. It is recommended to
replicate the study with samples from other areas that represent normal distributions of

demographic factors, particularly educational and income level for more reliable

53

ﬁndings.

For future study, it is strongly recommended to further investigate on differences
in lighting perceptions among homeowners and professionals (i.e. architects, home
builders or residential interior designers). As Ozanne and Vlosky (1997) concluded in
their study, people who were current members of environmental groups might but just
do so in respect to their motivation or willingness to practice environmental values may
not actually demonstrate environmental behaviors when faced with making certain
lighting decisions (i.e. purchasing energy-efﬁcient lighting for their homes to conserve
energy). For this reason, it is necessary to investigate further if current members of the
community movements or environmental groups follow environmental values both
theoretically and practically in relation to their lighting perceptions.

As demonstrated in the current study, homeowners’ preference for incandescent
lighting was not just on the cost issue since the subjects whose income was the highest
also placed higher signiﬁcance and perceived the incandescent lighting to be more
aesthetically and visually pleasing. Further investigation on associations in lighting
preferences and lighting perceptions and developing clearer proﬁles of consumers’

lighting needs, attitudes, and behaviors is also necessary.

54

APPENDICES

55

APPENDIX A: Cover Letter

What are your thoughts on lighting at home?

Dear Respondent,

I am a Master student in the School of Planning, Design, & Construction at Michigan State
University. As part of my thesis, I am conducting a survey to understand your beliefs, attitudes,
and behaviors on lighting. Along with this letter, I have attached a survey which I am hoping you
will ﬁll out and return it to me. The survey should take you about 20 minutes to complete.

There are no risks to you or to your privacy if you decide to join this study by ﬁlling out the
survey. Your identity will be kept conﬁdential to the extent provided by law and your
participation is voluntary. [You should not put your name on the questionnaire] Regardless of
whether you choose to participate, I would be very happy to share my results with you if you are
interested. To receive the results, please email (hongheej@msu.edu) me.

If you have any questions about the survey, or about being in this study, you may contact me at
517-432-3249. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State University has approved
this study. If you have any concerns about your rights as a participant in this study, you may
contact Dr. Nam-Kyu Park, faculty supervisor via email (parkn@msu.edu) or by phone (517-353-
3054)

I would truly appreciate if you could complete the questionnaire and send it back to me with the
self-addressed prepaid envelope that I provided. Thank you very much for your participation.

Hee Jung (Kelly) Hong

Master Candidate M I C H IG A N STAT E

School of Flaming, Design, and Construction
Michigan State University U N I V E R S I T Y

 

56

APPENDIX B: Questionnaire

Instruction: You will see that there are all sorts of questions regarding use of lighting for
the home. You may think many items are similar. Actually, no two items are exactly alike so
be sure to circle only one number for each statement. The higher the number, the more you
tend to agree with the statement. Please remember, there are no right or wrong answers. I
just want your honest opinion.

 

Section 1: This section “It ucsliims asks about \11111' beliefs on lighting.
Please circle only one number for each item based on “1 = strongly disagree” through “7 =
strongly gree”

 

.‘sltrongly strongly

 

.The quality of lightwhereverl amisimportantto 2
- myfwell being

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. It makes no difference to me what kind of lighting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
is in a roqrnﬁ; ..._ __ .. -.._--- W... - W
3. Lighting IS important to my mood. W - -1._..-.2. 3‘4 -25; . Q. 7 .,
4 Flu9t9§°em:_. 9899 are b99339? “9919‘ __ _ 123 4.5 6_7
_ 5 Incandescenglights are attractive. -.-_-l 2‘33" ‘ 5,.- .6...__ .1.-
6. Iget eyestrain from working under ﬂuorescent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Lighting is important to my work performanceT fl 2_3 _4 5 67_
8 If I want to create an intimate setting, I dim the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_ lights _._. - --._-._. ., . -. ..._.._.-..._.
9 1-.'ﬂ<2:ncande§°92t.hghts..- ..._ - 12.. 3 4.... 5 6 .. -7
.. 2.;0 5095191186 "gill-LS, 809thire.-_ _ .1_ .__,2- 34 5- 5 -7.
___“ Reading under dim light doesn't damageyour v1310n l 234 _5 6 _7
12 As long as 1 can see to work, Idon’ tcare about the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_ _,_ lighting 1" a rgom ___ WW __ _..
13 S99ny _99YS maké m9 “913131. - _1 ___2 34-56 J.
14. Bright lights rarely make me feel ex01ted and full 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
._. of antrcrpation ._ __ __ _g __ ..
15 Incandescent lights produce a warmer, more
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ﬂattering color to people’ 5 appearances _ ---_--- __
.. l6; Fluorescent light gives me a headache. . 1.- 2 7 3456 7
17. Bright lights are stimulating; they make me feel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
W energetic --..-- . _.
l8 Idon’ t like ﬂuorescent lights __ -.1 _ 2.3-- j..-.§.-- 6 7
19 L99]: of sunlight in winter does not bother me. 1 --2___3 4 __5; :6“. 27--

 

 

__20.m Given that human beings have evolved to live
under the sun, we should use artiﬁcial sources of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
light as little as possible.

 

Section 2: This section ul'i iicstions asks about you 1' lighting lichmiiirs.

57

Please circle only one number for each item based on “1 = strongly disagree” through “7 =
strongly agree”

 

strongly strongly
, disagree neutral agree
1. I make every effort to save electricity in my home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

2. [make a strong effort to recycle everythingl possibly 1‘ 2 3 4 5 6 7
can. '
3. When I buy lighting products, I look for the energy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_ efficient ones. _ .-._
4. Most of the areas in my house use energy-efficient“—

 

 

 

 

12 4567

 

 

 

__ lighting. 3 W3 __ ___ﬁ_ A __--,
5. I only turn on lights in the rooms where I am in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. As] leave the room, I make sure that I turn off the light I 2 3 4 5 6 7

sw1tch. - . _ . ___ - .
7. I use dimmers and/or sensors for light controls to save
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
energy in my_ house: ___“ _-, _. . ___ __ -

 

8. I always separate and dispose of ﬂuorescent bulbs at the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- Eco- -sp_tcontainer.

9 I would be willing to pay higher prices for
environmental friendly lighting products to protect the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

environment.
10 I would support government policies banning energy-
. wasting incandescent l 2 3 4 5 6 7

li ° ht bulbs for homes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3: This section asks for your opinion about compact fluorescent lighting.
A. Please circle only one number for each set of opposite adjectives.
Compact ﬂuorescent lighting is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

very neutral very
__ ._ bad for health ..1 2 3 4 5 6_ 7 good for health
-- -- Elaxing _ 1 m2__ ”3 4 5 _ 6 .. 7 tense
_‘ .--- -..-_ dull W1_ 2____ , 3 _454 ; 6_.. 7 bright
-__ W399:90|_9re.5.1.. ..2. 3 _4 ___.5- _6_ 7-59919010er
unpleasant --1 2_ 3. _ -‘i 5_6 7 pleasant -
_--.. noisy 1..---- 2 ___--.3. __4 _5 6 7 __3qu1eL _4 _
__ easy to dim 1 _3 2 ’_ 3 ‘34 5 6 _7 difﬁcult to dim---
islet-[new]- 23 -4 ..-_.5, _ 6 7 soothing
.--__ attractive _1____ ___2__ _ 3____4 _5 6 7 unattractive ______
uncomfortable I . @4244 3..- _4w 5 6 7 comfortable
.-._-99999991... 1 -.-_2 -.._-.3. -.4 , .5.-. - 9.-.. 7 ..._,ugly
glaring l _ 2 3W ____4___ __5_____ -9..- 7 not glaring _
ecologically l 2 3 4 5 6 7 not ecologically
friendly _ _ _ _ _--_- ---_... . ... .- friendly

acceptable '1~ 2 “3 4 5 __ 7 _.-.. unacceptable W 7
low quality I 2 3 4 5 6 7 high quality

. as

 

 

58

B. Please choose one only number for each item that best represents your opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

strongly strongly
disagree neutral agree
1. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs make the home look bad. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs are costly to buy. 1 2 3 4 5 6‘ T
3. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs require few minutes to U 1 6w; 4 A, 7 6 7 7
__ reach full hght output. _ W _W__
4. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs ﬂicker noticeably. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
__ 5. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs make people look awful I 1 2 3 4 5 6 ”'7
5'Corhpact ﬂuorescent bulbs Adon’ tﬁrnionnouickly ;-__-_.1_ h 2 I 3 If 4 5 6 7

enough. __ *h_
7. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs are incompatible with
common light fixtures.

 

 

Section 4: This section asks about \ our beliefs on lighting and the environment.
Please circle only one number for each item based on “1 = strongly disagree” through “7 =
strongly agree”

 

 

strongly strongly
disagree Neutral agree
1. My light bulb choices can have an impact on the 1 2 ”3 4 5 6 7

_ _environment. _ 22 _H o _ _
2 _Using energy-efﬁcient lighting at home 18 an important 1 2 J3 4 5 6 7
. way t9.§99ﬂ‘l§__en§l'g¥;_, , A
3 Government and utility company should raise o'urm l 2 3 4 5 6 7
awareness of the environmental ISSUC 011 _lightlng 22-2.32“, . . .- - . .
4 Most people I know use energy-efficient light bulbs 1 2 3‘ 4 5 6 7
__ wherever it is possible.__ _W _____ ,. .
5 I feel that I should use energy-efﬁcient light bulbs for 1 2 3 ___5 5 6 7

the sake of the Wenvironment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 I am jointly responsible for high energy consumption
levels caused by using the incandescent bulbs instead of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
energy-efﬁcient bulbs at home.

 

7 I feel morally obliged to use energy- -efficient light 1 2 3 4 .5__ 6 7 I _
hwgﬂbglbqsgregardless of whatgthers do. w _ _ 4g _ ___
8 I am, along with the government and industry, 1 2 m3”- 4 5 6 7

- responsible_ for using energy-efficient bulbs. __ ,, __ _ W,“
9 Energy-efﬁcient bulbs are only good where the quality" 1 _2: 3 W4 5 6“ 7
of light is not an issue. ____ ___ _ __
10 I can help solve my town/city’ s electncity shortage by 12 3 4 5 6“ 7
using energy-efﬁcient bulbs at home.

 

 

11 Most people I know don’ t care whether_ I use energy- 1 2 3: 4 5 6 7
efﬁcient bulbs. , _ __ 7 1
12 My family and friends expect me tom“ use energy-efﬂuent ] 2 3 4 :5 6

 

 

 

 

_ Julbs wherever it is po_ssible.__ __ W __ __ _:__
13 I don’ t feel any personal responsibility for using
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_______en_e1gy-effic1ent bulbs. __W ___ _ ___ _ __
14.1 feel guilty when I don’ t use energy-efﬁcient light 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
bulbs at home. __ _____ “we
1.5- 5'63"“ energy 009392199Pylislzﬁegwiéiealittls- 1 :2 _3 _4_ 5 » 6 ._ V7_ __

 

59

16 Avo1dmg the use of meandescent bulbs at home will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

help reduce global warming.

 

 

17 Using energy-efﬁcient bulbs don’ tmakeadramatic l 2 3 4 5 6 7

difference In my utility bills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 1t 13 just too difﬁcult for me to use energy-efﬁcient A i “1' 2 _ 3 i 4 5 6 7
WLig1L1tSL 1_an1_lL1Lome.L LL _
19 I worry about conserving energy when it helps to loWer 1 2 3 4 5 6
_ r_n_y utility bills. _ . L LL__ L_L______L_
LL2LgLLHs1ngLenergy-efﬁc1entl1ghts at home 18 not up to me 1 _ 2 L 3 _4L , 5 6 L
_ L21 Humans are severelyabusmg the environment. L L 1 .2 '3" M4”; 6 __
22 Global wanning is a serious problem for soc1ety W i 1 2_3 4 ..5 6—
23 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the 1 2 3' V V 4' ,_ 5 6 7
_ L impacts of meLcLeLrnLindustrial nations. LLLL . __LLL L _ _. L
24. The earth 1s like a spaceship with very limited room and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
__ . _ ___resourceLsLWLLLL LL _ WL ___ L W L
25. Toxic substance 1n air, water and the soil 1s a serious
___ eroLbLlLemL.WL _12 L3 __ 4_ _ 5 _ 6 L L7
26 The so-called “ecologica1— crisis’ ’facing humankind has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
been greaﬂy LexggLeLLLratedLLLL __ _ __-_-,.___-_ __ , L, _ _
27 The exhaustion of energy sources is a serious problem. LL 2 __ 34 5 6- 7

 

 

I 28. If things continue on their present course, we will soon 0

experience
a major ecological catastrophe.

 

Background Information
These data will be kept in the strictest conﬁdence and used for statistical purposes only.

1. Your gender: a) Male b) Female

2. Your age:
a) 18-24 years b)25 3-4 years
c) 35-44 years (1)45 -54 years
e) 55-64 years 065 5-74 years

g) 75 years and over

3. Your racial/ethnic identity:
a) Caucasian b) African American
c) Hispanic (1) Asian/Paciﬁc Islander
e) Other (please specify):

 

4. Your hlghest education level completed:
a) Less than hi h school
b) High school 1§GED
c) Some college d) Bachelor’s degree
e) Graduate or professional degree

5. Your religious preference:

 

 

6. Into which of the following categories

does your annual household meome fall?
a) under $25, 000 b) $25, 000-$34, 999
c) $35, GOO-$49, 999 d) $50, GOO-$74, 999
e) $75,000-$99,999 1) $100,000 or more

 

60

7. What best describes your living
situation?
3) Own home b) Rent home

8. What is the size of our house?
a) less than 1,000 cgﬁ
b) 1,001 - 1,500 Sq.
c) 1,501 - 2,000 Sq.ﬁ
d) 2,001 - 2,500 Sq.ft
e) 2,501 - 3,000 Sq.ft
f) more than 3,000 Sq.ﬁ

9. Are you a member of an environmental
group?
a) Yes b) No

10. Donated money to an environmental
group within last 5 years?
a) Yes b) No

11. Wrote a letter supporting an
environmental issue?
a) Yes b) No

12. Signed a petition in support of
protecting the environment?
a) Yes b) No

13. Generally speaking, would you consider
yourself to be?

Conservative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Liberal
14. Have you received any information
about ener -efﬁcient lighting through?
(Check all t at apply)

— TV programs —Radio —_ Internet
_ Newspapers _ Brochures by utility
company

_ Consumer reviews

___... Research reports

Q1. Is there any information that you
would like to share regarding using
energy-efficient lighting at home?

 

Manufacturer product information

15. Have you replaced entire lfifghting
ﬁxtures in order to use more e 1cient
bulbs? a) Yes b) No

If not, would you consider doing so?
a) Yes b) No

16. From options, select the name that is
associated with the images. Record your
choice on the line next to each image.

Options: 1) Compact Fluorescent 2) Incandescent

3) Fluorescent

 

 

 

Q2. In your experience, has the
environmental movement helped create
demand for efficient lighting? Can you cite
any speciﬁc examples?

 

___ _ __.___..a,

L 2___

Thank you for your participation!

61

Please return the completed survey in the self-addressed prepaid .
envelope provided no later than August 2, 2008. j

APPENDIX C: REMINDER POST CARD

MICHIGAN STATE
U N IV E R SIT Y

School of Planning, Design, and Construction

Michigan State University

Hee Jung (Kelly) Hong

Interior Design Programs

203B Human Ecology

East Lansing MI 48824-9902

“'1

111g

are your

1211

h

 

62

 

OI]

 

APPENDIX D: Results of Reliability Analysis with more details

Table 2. Results of Reliability Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Questions Variables N of Cronbach’s
items Alpha
RQI. Homeowners’ general lighting perception
Importance of lighting 5 0.84
l. The quality of light wherever I am is important to
my well-being.
2. It makes no difference to me what kind of
lighting is in a room.
3. Lighting is important to my mood.
Lighting is important to my work performance.
As long as I cansee to work, I don’t care about
the lighting in a room.
Preference for incandescent lighting 3 0.77
l. Incandescent lights are attractive.
2. I like incandescent lights.
3. Incandescent lights produce a warmer, more
ﬂattering color to people’s appearances.
Fluorescent lighting beliefs on health 3 0.80
1. Fluorescent lights are bad for your health.
2. I get eyestrain from working under ﬂuorescent
lights.
3. Fluorescent light gives me a headache.
RQ2. Homeowners ’ energy-eﬂicient lighting perceptions
General perception of energy-efﬁcient lighting 4 0.70
1. Using energy-efﬁcient lighting at home is an
important way to conserve energy.
2. Government and utility company should raise
our awareness of the environmental issue on
lighting.
3. Electric energy consumed by lighting is just
little.
4. Using energy-efﬁcient bulbs don’t make a
dramatic difference in my utility bills.
Visual Comfort of CF Ls 4 0.71
l. Glaring/ not glaring
2. Tense/ relaxing
3. Irritating/ soothing
4 Uncomfortable/ comfortable

 

63

 

 

Aesthetics of CFLs 3 0.77

 

l. Unpleasant] pleasant
2. Unattractive/ attractive
3. Ugly/ beautiful

 

 

 

Impression of CFLs 2 0.70
1. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs make the home
look bad.
2. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs make people look
awful.
Technological attributes of CFLs 4 0.65

 

1. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs require few minutes
to reach full light output.
Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs ﬂicker noticeably.

3. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs don’t turn on
quickly enough.

4. Compact ﬂuorescent bulbs are incompatible
with common light ﬁxtures.

 

 

 

 

RQ3. Homeowners ’ environmental lighting behaviors

 

Energy-efﬁcient lighting usage behavior 2 0.83

 

1. When I buy lighting products, I look for the
energy efﬁcient ones.
2. Most of the areas in my house use energy-

 

 

 

efﬁcient lighting.
Habitual behavior 2 0.87
l. I only turn on lights in the rooms where I am
1n.
2. As I leave the room, I make sure that I turn off
the light switch.
Citizenship behavior 2 0.71

 

1. I would be willing to pay higher prices for
environmental friendly lighting products to
protect the environment.

2. I would support government policies banning
energy-wasting incandescent light bulbs for
homes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

64

REFERENCES

65

REFERENCES

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored
information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-
related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27, 265-276.

Adler, J. (2006). Environment: The new greening of America. Newsweek, CXLVII (3),
42-52.

Alreck, P.L., & Settle, RB. (2003). The survey research handbook, Boston: McGraw-
Hill/ Irwin.

Banwell, P., & Figueiro, M. (2005). Overcoming the myths of energy-efﬁcient lighting in
residential applications, Proceedings from Right Light 6: The International
Association for Energy Efﬁcient Lighting (IAEEL). Shanghai, China.

Banwell, P., Brons, J ., F reyssinier-Nova, J. P., Pizzo, P., & Figueiro, M. (2004). A
demonstration of energy-efﬁcient lighting in residential new construction.
Lighting Research and Technology, 36, 147-164.

Barr, 8., Gilg, A.W., & Ford, N. (2005). The household energy gap: examining the divide
between habitual- and purchase-related conservation behaviors. Energy Policy,
33, 1425-1444.

Beckstead, J. W., & Boyce, PR. (1992). Structural equation modeling in lighting
research: An application to residential acceptance of new ﬂuorescent lighting.
Lighting Research and Technology, 24, 189-201.

Biner & Butler (1987). Normative settings and setting behaviors of college students: A
new methodological approach. Paper presented at the 59th annual meeting of the
Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.

Black, J .S., Sterrn, P., & Elworth, IT (1985). Personal and contextual inﬂuences on
household energy adaptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 70 (1), 3—21.

Brons, J. (2004). Creative uses of ﬂuorescent lighting; energy-efﬁcient ﬂuorescent
lighting need no longer play second ﬁddle to incandescents. Home Energy, 21(5),
13-15.

Cairney, J. & Boyle, M.H. (2004). Home ownership, mortgages and psychological stress.
House Studies, 19(2), 161-174.

Conway, K.M. & Leslie, RF. (1992). Hurdling barriers to efﬁcient lighting. Lighting
Design + Application. 22(2), 26-31.

66

 

Conway, K.M., & Mehra, M. (1998). Lighting market opportunities: Reconciling
consumers’ purchasing behaviors with environmental values. Journal of
Illuminating Engineering Society, 27(2), 67-76.

Dillman, D.A., Rosa, E.A., & Dillman, J .J ., (1983). Lifestyle and home energy
conservation in the United States: the poor accept lifestyle cutbacks while the
wealthy invest in conservation. Journal of Economic Psychology 3, 299—3 15.

Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., , Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/

Electric Power Research Institute, EPPI (1998). Perceptions of compact ﬂuorescent
lamps in the residential market. Mountain View, California : MACRO Consulting,
Inc.

F orsyth, K., Haley D. & Kozak, R. (1999). Will consumers pay more for certiﬁed wood
products? Journal of Forestry, 97(2), 18-22.

Gordon, G. (2003). Interior lighting for designers (4“ ed. ). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

International Association of Energy-efﬁcient Lighting, IAEEL. (2000). Retrieved from
http://www.iaeelorgl

International Energy Agency, IEA (2006). Retrieved from
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/subiectqueries/kevresult.gsp?KEYWORD_ID=4122

Jennings, J ., Moezzi, M., Brown, R., Mills, E., Sardinsky, R., Heckendron, B., et a1.
(1997). Residential Lighting: The data to date. Journal of the Illuminating
Engineering Society, 26, 129-38.

Judd, Smith, & Kidder (1991). Research methods in social relations. Forth Worth: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.

Karlen M. & Benya, J. (2004). Lighting design basics. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,
INC.

Nunnally, J .C. Jr. (1970). Introduction to Psychological Measurement. New York:
McGraw Hill

Ozanne, L.K. & Vlosky, R. P. (1997). Willingness to pay for environmentally certiﬁed
wood products: A consumer perspective. Forest Products Journal, 47(6), 39—48

67

Painter, J ., Semenik, R., & Belk, R., (1983). Is there a generalized conservation ethic? A
comparison of the determinants of gasoline and home heating energy conservation.
Journal of Economic Psychology 3, 3 17—33 1.

Poortinga W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern and
environmental behavior: A study into household energy use, Environment and
Behavior, 36 (1), 70-93.

Rea, M.S. (Ed). (2000). Lighting Handbook (9“ ed.) New York: Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA).

Smithonian Institution. (2008). Lighting the way: collecting history with World Wide Web.
Retrieved from http://americanhistog.si.edu/lightproject/introduction/intro.htm

Stern, PC. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signiﬁcant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, GA. (1995). The new environmental paradigm in
social psychological perspective. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-745.

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. Human
Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.

US. Department of Energy (2009). Deﬁnition of color rendition. Retrieved from

http://wwwenergysavers.gov/your home/lighting daylighting/indexcfm/mﬁopic
=1 1990

US. Department of Energy (2009). Retrieved from httpW://wwwenergy.ggv_/

Van Raaij, W.F. & Verhallen, T.M.M. (1983). A behavioral model of residential energy
use. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3, 39-63.

Veitch, J .A. & Gifford, R., (1996). Assessing beliefs about lighting effects on health,
performance, mood, and social behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28(4), 446-
470.

Veitch, J.A., Hine, D. W. & Gifford, R., (1993). End users’ knowledge, beliefs, and
preferences for lighting. Journal of Interior Design, 19(2), 15-26.

Wilhite, H. Nakagami, H., Masuda, T., Yamaga, Y., & Haneda, H. (1996). A cross-
cultural analysis of household energy use behavior in Japan and Norway. Energy
Policy, 24 (9), 795-803.

Winchip, SM. (2005). Designing a quality lighting environment. New York: Fairchild
Publications, Inc.

68

      

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

wnulwlygnlmm

3