4.5 Article

Distinguishing between green building occupants' reasoned and unplanned behaviours

Journal

BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 119-134

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2015.1015854

Keywords

consumption; environmental beliefs; habits; household; inhabitants; occupant behaviour; reasoned behaviour; residential; values

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0725503]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [0725503] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several frameworks incorporate social and psychological elements of environmentally significant behaviour, and most assume cognitive and deliberate decision-making. Household energy consumption behaviours, however, span a spectrum from reasoned and deliberate to unplanned and automatic. The aim of this paper is to advance knowledge of reasoned and unplanned behaviours in the context of pro-environmental action. Using results of a survey administered to occupants of an urban residential green building, this study explores five household consumption behaviours and tests the hypothesis that unplanned behaviours will be poorly predicted by a reasoned, values-based behavioural framework. Using path analyses, variables in a values-based framework are used to predict surveyed behaviours. Findings indicate that behaviours hypothesized to be unplanned were not well predicted by the values-based framework. The framework successfully predicted what was hypothesized to be a fully reasoned behaviour. Three potential reasons are discussed for the lack of prediction of some behaviours. A deeper understanding of how unplanned, automatic or habitual behaviours intervene in conservation intentions can help policy-makers and building designers better respond to influences of occupant behaviour on building performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available