Browsing by Subject "vaikutuskeino"

City of Helsinki is aspiring towards carbon neutrality by 2050. Households play an important role in this matter, as their share of carbon dioxide emissions is substantial in the city-level. The energy efficiency of different household appliances is improving, but their usage is rising in tandem. Overall, it is recognized that there needs to be a change in household behaviour. In this thesis I examine what kinds of low carbon actions households are taking and what has motivated them to do so. The thesis is done in co-operation with Aalto University’s HAPPI project, which deals with carbon neutral living in Helsinki. The project studies possibilities to promote climate friendly actions on a residential level. Research was carried out in Mellunkylä, a residential area in eastern Helsinki. The contribution of this thesis is to recognize customs that advance and support low carbon actions on a residential level. The research question took shape as: “What are the low carbon actions that the households in Mellunkylä are taking and why are they taking them?” In order to answer both questions, I decided to use two methods: a survey and interviews. The survey aimed to provide quantitative information about the people living in Mellunkylä as well as a generalization on how they were acting, what they were interested in and what they saw as barriers to further behavior change. In order to better understand what these actions mean for the households and to gain information about their values and other motivations, qualitative interviews were a justified method to further assess the research problem. They aimed to specify the behavior changes that had already occurred and what kinds of motives lie behind these behaviors, as well as to assess the barriers to other behavior changes. Results from both studies indicate that most households were generally making mostly curtailment actions, such as reducing the use of lightning, household appliances and water consumption. There were also efficiency actions, which for the most part consisted of investing on new lightning and household appliances. The households were not fond of acquiring green electricity and were not generally trying to reduce their emissions through heating-related solutions. The households had a general idea of why they should reduce their energy consumption: energy use was commonly understood a societal problem and everyone’s responsibility. The interviewees mentioned altruistic values and biospheric concerns most often, which was fruitful in that these kinds of values are important in saving energy in the long run. Of the external motivators economic factors were mentioned repetitively. They were thought to have an effect on the individual as well as on the economy. It seemed that the households were hoping to be able to use energy without worries and with small expenses. This suggests that the motivations for low carbon actions lie within costs and ease of life rather than environmental concerns. Habits were often mentioned as a barrier to behavior change. Also costs and inability to follow one’s energy consumption were some of the barriers that stood out in the studies. This is in line with the fact that the participants were making more of the curtailment actions rather than efficiency actions, which can be more costly. The case study households showed interest in following their energy consumption, so some kind of feedback as well as personal recommendations for improvement could be in place. This is an important area where the city could take actions, for example, by supporting the households to commit in reducing their energy consumption. It should be noted that in reaching a low carbon lifestyle, there are various routes, of which living-related low carbon actions are only one piece. It is important to find the actions and interventions which can result in long lasting behavioral changes.