Creating Change Close to Home

Dear Lisa and Colleagues--

Controlling tv behavior watching behavior is very difficult due to its suite of deeply imbedded habits, but there are alternatives. It is possible to purchase relatively inexpensive motion detectors that turn lights, etc., on and off when someone enters or leaves a room. These devices fit in a standard electrical box and replace the standard toggle-type light switch. It would be fairly easy for an electrician to wire a baseboard outlet (or a circuit in a room) with one of these motion detector switches. (Using an on-off switch to control an outlet or circuit is often done in hotel rooms, at least in the US.) When the offending tv watcher left the room with the tv blaring the switch would soon turn off the outlet and the tv or whatever was plugged into the outlet. If someone fell asleep watching the tv it would turn the tv off as well. Has anyone actually tried this idea? I don't see why it wouldn't work, except if someone was sitting very still watching tv, then the sensor would turn the circuit off. TV is bad for you anyway--some PBS shows, Sundance Channel, etc., might be educational and uplifting, but most of it is junk, so maybe you should get rid of the tv set(s) as an alternative? I wonder what percent of US household electrical bills are devoted to tv sets and related equipment (VCRs, DVRs, digital/analog tuners, "home theater" set ups, etc.)? Many of these devices are always "on" even when turned off. My digital tuner is hot enough to warm up cold tea all of the time, even when "off". Power supplies, "getters", etc., are always on to allow for quick starts and prevent "long" warm up times. There now, I've asked more questions than I've answered! 8>)

Have a wonderful day.
Tom

Tom Shelley
118 E. Court St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 342-0864
[email protected]
http://www.myspace.com/99319958

Dear Elizabeth (and Colleagues)--

Thanks for your response. Yes, I would agree that behavioral change is the best way to go, especially in the home context. Especially if there is some sort of incentive program or context of consequences or understanding of one's life situation in which to act differently. The problem is that many Americans are not going to be amenable to such behavioral modification in the short run. There are a lot of ugly-minded individuals running around with an "I don't give a rat's behind" attitude, or they are otherwise difficult to reach in terms of cultural blocks or language misunderstandings, etc. In the short run it may be more imperative to not only work towards behavioral change but use whatever level of technology is available, as long as the life cycle of the technology doesn't do more harm than good. For example, we are just now conducting an energy conservation project on 3,044,00 sq. ft. of "public space" in 36 larger academic buildings at Cornell. Occupancy sensors will be installed to turn off lights in hallways, atriums, stairwells, etc., in all of these buildings when those spaces aren't occupied. In academic buildings this is not only evenings and weekends, but in some areas weeks at a time over the summer and breaks from classes. The project will cost over $3.2M and will probably pay for itself in 7 years or so. The energy savings will be 56% of the current consumption where in the lights are on all or most of the time, mostly as a security issue. This is a savings of 2 percent of the electricity used on an enormous campus, where even 2 percent is a lot! There is no way that behavioral changes could achieve such a savings on such a scale, especially given the age bracket of most of the students (older teenagers, early 20s) and the social and cultural factors at work in such a diverse environment. In fact, almost all of the access to switching devices for lights in public areas is not available to the public but is controlled by facility managers, electrical trades staff, etc. So sure, behavioral mod at home is the best way to go, and it is best at an institutional level when possible, but in the short run it is also very important to reduce the carbon foot print of the institution as much as possible as soon as possible and appropriate technology is going to accomplish this in a much more timely manner that behavioral change. My "$ ..02.

Tom

Tom Shelley,
Laboratory Ventilation Consultant
Department of Environmental Health and Safety
Cornell University
125 Humphreys Service Building
Ithaca, NY 14853
607 255-8200 (message at EH&S)
607 342-0864 (cell)
[email protected]

It is possible to purchase relatively inexpensive motion detectors that turn lights, etc., on and off when someone enters or leaves a room. Maybe, Tom, but - with respect - they actually encourage irresponsible (in this instance, unsustainable) behaviour ("someone else or something else will do it for me so I need not even think about clearing up behind me"). There is some discussion of the value of promoting one-time actions (e.g. purchasing and installing a motion detector that turns lights on and off) vs. promoting repetitive actions (e.g. getting people to turn off the lights each time they leave a room) in the following article: McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000, May). Fostering Sustainable Behavior Through Community-Based Social Marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5) 531-537. My understanding of what this article says is that when an environmental problem can be fixed through a one-time technological fix, such as installing a motion detector, it's a good idea to do so, precisely because the environmental benefits are ongoing without further thought on the part of the target audience. Those who are trying to influence behavior change can then focus on the many environmental problems that can't currently be solved through technological fixes, but that require the target audience to behave differently repeatedly. The article says that "it is significantly more difficult to bring about and maintain changes in repetitive behaviors than it is to foster one-time actions, " (p533) and that one-time behavior changes are often more effective in reducing resource use for that reason. The article does not address whether a technological fix encourages unsustainable behavior in other ways.

Regards,
Jan

Jan Aceti
Aceti Associates
19 Allen St. #2
Arlington, MA 02474-6809
Ph: 781-646-4593
Fax: 914-931-2038
[email protected]
www.acetiassociates.com

I tend to agree that automating such things as lights has less effect on, and in fact removes the responsibility for that behaviour from, the individual. Einstein said something about a problem that it can not be solved by the same thinking and perspective that created it, so if we continue to make machines, automate and adapt to fix our problems we continue to be unsustainable. This is a matter for the individual to connect with, understand and alter the behaviour in their own time and manner. Empower them and they will change, maybe a way of putting it. Perhaps you could attempt to educate your men by placing illustrations or information in places they could readily see though in my own household I simply exemplify the behaviour I wish to see, without incriminations, reinforced by patience and love and I see changes occurring around me. If they are touched by the problem/challenge/issue then they will change, in their own time. This is one of the biggest sustainability issues: allowing others to come to the table by their own volition, regardless of how we despair that they will. Be the change you wish to see - based on Gandhi's quote.

Kind regards,
Paul

Hi Lisa & others

I agree influencing other's behaviour is indeed a big challenge, especially when our change is linked to their cooperation. The key is speaking to the heart, not to the head. People do not seem to respond to well to being bribed or told what to do, at least not for long. For change to be sustainable, people need to feel a need to change, not just calculate one. So I would suggest a chat with the men of the house about what is important to them, what they want from life, what they care about. You could also share yours. You need to connect at a heart level. Then ask them how this might relate to their personal behaviour around the home and hopefully they will connect the dots themselves. The emphasis should be on asking and self-discovery - not telling.

Hope this helps - good luck!
Tim

Tim Cotter
AWAKE
56 Bloomfield Rd, Ascot Vale,
Melbourne, VIC 3032, Australia
Tel: (+61 3) 9370 0273
Fax: (+61 3) 9370 0276
Mobile: (+61) 0404 212 903
Email:

HI Lisa

Have you seen the EcoHouse Challenge that is showing on SBS at the moment on Wednesday nights? See http://www21.sbs.com.au/ecohousechallenge/. It was made in WA but shows how two families cope with the imposition of reduced electricity and fuel use, recycling etc. I have only seen one episode - last night - but it should be on the commercial channels where the people who are not already aware of such things can see it. Sympathise about the teenager - I have re-educated my husband and my son has gone as far as putting recycling in the box by the fridge but am still having a few difficulties with the 21yr old daughter!

Best wishes
Sally Paulin

Postgraduate Research Student/Tutor
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy
Murdoch University, South Street, Murdoch
WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6150
Tel 61 8 9360 2898 (Murdoch) or 0434 350 183

Nicely put Tim, Sort of what I was trying to say too.

Kind regards,
Paul

Dear Lisa,

Perhaps, in true CBSM spirit, you could sit down for a family meeting or dinner, and discuss - note, discuss, not direct or impose - the issue. Let them know ahead of time that you want to discuss the topic, so that it's not a surprise sprung on them when you do bring it up. At the meeting, find out in what areas they do participate in actions that are eco-friendly, and help them to see themselves as people who act in a sustainable way. Regarding the tv, find out where they are coming from - do they mean to leave the room with the tv on, or is it accidental? See if they can agree to the general idea that "TVs should be off when not being watched", and then see how you can help them remember. Not you telling them, as nobody likes being nagged, and few people actually like nagging, especially not long after the behaviour has occurred, but by something as simple as prompts on the remote or near the lightswitch, if you follow Tom's suggestion about attaching the entertainment system to a switched outlet. As a counterpoint to one of Tom's comments, I would be careful about using the "TV is bad" idea in the discussion. If they both feel that tv is an important part of their lives, they may resent having that belief imposed on them, or worse, feel they are being judged, and see themselves in negative light, which will not help foster their belief in their own positive environmental citizenship. I hope these ideas help in your quest for sustainability!

Cheers,
Gillian Maurice

We have "Love OFF" stickers on TVs, microwaves, light switches as visual reminders. (Love is represented by a heart shape.) Idea from the Stop Climate Chaos campaign. Email me if you would like a PDF of the sticker design. Visual sign posting of different bins has also substantially increased our recycling rates.

Andrew