Energy Efficiency Report Front Page Design Debrief of Research Findings conducted by Andrew Irving A

1
Energy Efficiency Report Front Page
DesignDebrief of Research Findings conducted
by Andrew Irving Associateson behalf of
Energy Saving TrustJune 2005
2
INTRODUCTION
3
Research Objectives

• To explore appeal and potential of 3 alternative
  design routes
• To gain reactions to and understanding/relevance
  of the energy efficiency and environmental impact
  rating charts
• To obtain reactions to inclusion of additional
  chart showing fuel consumption rating
• To assess appeal and relevance of including
  potential ratings
• To provide guidance for developing approaches
  into a finished front page
• To explore and understand what energy
  efficiency means to consumers

4
Method

• Qualitative approach involving 4 group
  discussions structured to represent broad
  cross-section of recent and intending property
  purchasers
• All groups comprised 6-7 respondents and a total
  of 26 respondents took part
• All groups were mixed sex and ages
• Groups last 1½ hours and followed a discussion
  guide agreed with EST
• As well as standard exclusions, recent and
  intending purchasers of new build, listed and
  buy to let properties were excluded
• Fieldwork took place in Midlands (Sutton
  Coldfield) and South East (Staines) on 15th and
  16th June 2005
• Verbal debrief of findings was given at EST on
  24th June 2005

5
Sample Structure
6
Background Observations
7
Observations on Research Approach

• Research was intended to be small-scale check on
  alternative revised approaches
• Not practical in 4 group sample to have
  systematic rotation of 3 designs
• In order to put parameters on exercise, agreed
  that first design show would also be R3V2
• Subsequent designs were then rotated

8
Factors Influencing House Purchase

• Currently, energy efficiency had little or any
  impact on decision
• More important factors included
• location (near to schools, transport links,
  amenities, etc.)
• size of property/rooms
• (size of) garden
• condition of property
• price/affordability
• First time buyers (FTBs) were often pre-occupied
  with financial difficulty in getting on the first
  rung of the property ladder
• Some were seeking to buy with friends/partners or
  looking into government schemes to help FTBs
• Others compromising on location/condition of
  property, etc.

9
Home Information Pack

• Detailed knowledge about forthcoming Home
  Information Pack was patchy
• But some awareness that sellers might have to
  supply more information prior to putting
  property on market
• Attitudes towards pack were mixed. Positively,
  home buyers felt it could save them time and
  money
• And general belief system might discourage people
  from testing out the market
• But there were also concerns that
• it could slow down property market
• sellers would increase house prices to compensate
  for cost
• surveys produced by the vendor could not be
  relied on
• system might not be properly regulated

10
Broad Reactions to Proposed Energy Report
11
Energy Report (1)

• When shown, prompted fairly positive response
• Most felt it was about the right length and
  provided them with some useful energy information
• Specifically the idea of having current and
  potential heating and lighting costs was welcomed
  
• Potential heating and lighting costs helped to
  motivate respondents both to read on and/or
  consider improvements
• In general page 2 worked quite well and most
  appreciated being able to see where the property
  was failing and what could be done
• Also interest in the lower and higher cost
  measures on page 3.
• In conjunction with the potential savings/ratings
  these helped respondents decide, which, if, any
  of the improvements might be worth making

12
Energy Report (2)

• Only minority picked up on information about
  grants
• Indications this information was
  interesting/motivating and might benefit from
  being given greater prominence
• Hints that headings and sub-headings throughout
  report were all very similar
• Could be varied in order to pages/sections more
  structure/emphasis

13
The Preferred Approach
14
The Preferred approach R1V1 (1)

• Selected by overwhelming majority as preferred
  design route
• Seen as professional looking and fairly
  clear/easy to understand
• Using same style chart made it easier to grasp
  intended communication
• Energy efficiency rating (EER) chart fairly
  extensively recognised thus easier to assimilate
  and understand
• Approach also scored well in terms of conveying
  potential rating making it motivating both to
  read on/consider improvements
• Main message conveyed was that property was
  average in terms of its energy performance

15
The Preferred approach R1V1 (2)

• Although one or two requests for it to be more
  obvious that score was out of 100
• Environmental Impact Rating (EIR) less
  immediately familiar - but name fairly
  self-explanatory
• Not always immediately obvious which end of the
  scale to aim for
• But perception might have been enhanced by chart
  on R3V2 where they were aiming for lower score
• Giving ratings equal prominence sometimes made it
  difficult to take on board significance of two
  different ratings

16
The Preferred approach R1V1 (3)

• Text for keys on both charts probably too small
  and sometimes missed

• Also hints that key for EIR chart a bit
  overlong/cumbersome and prompted requests for
  simplified version
• When looking at front page, tendency to focus on
  charts first
• Suggested that explanatory text needed to be more
  closely linked with the relevant charts to aid
  comprehension

• Potential rating helped to convey where property
  was and where it could be
• But also some requests to have
• average score to provide further context
• explanation of why potential not 100

17
Reactions to Alternative Design Approaches
18
Route 3

• Sometimes appealed initially because of familiar
  EER chart
• Fact it was larger/given more prominence added to
  appeal more interesting and relevant rating
• But absolute appeal undercut by EIR chart
• Use of different chart seemed to obfuscate and
  cloud understanding
• Also quite widespread resistance to/criticism of
  graphics used which came across as
  childish/patronising
• And significance of smudges not always taken on
  board in first place
• Understanding of EIR further limited because
  explanatory text alongside EER

19
Route 2

• Attracted some minority support
• Mainly because design looked simple and some
  found information easy to assimilate
• But for many, lack of a potential rating a key
  drawback
• As it stood it was far less motivating to read
  on/consider making improvements
• Without the potential rating, also difficult to
  assess what current scores meant
• Also observed that key for chart only related to
  energy efficiency
• In practice this weakened the logic of the design
• Appeal of design could be enhanced by including
  potential ratings

20
Impact of Fuel Consumption Rating on Reactions to
Design Approaches
21
Route 3
Route 3
Route 1

• Introduction of fuel consumption rating made
  Routes 1 and 3 look very dense, cluttered and
  uninviting
• Giving the 3 charts equal rating made respondents
  uncertain about significance of different ratings
• Further reducing the size of charts on Routes 1
  and 3 also made them very hard to read

Route 2

• Graphic charts depicting EIR and FCR on Route 3
  overwhelmed EER chart/ attracted mainly negative
  comments
• Route 2 seen as least cluttered design initially
  thus addition of FCR had little impact
• But lack of potential rating still a key drawback

22
Fuel Consumption vs. Energy Efficiency

• Fuel consumption rating was an unfamiliar concept
  when relating to domestic energy and properties
• Did not add anything to their understanding of
  the energy performance of the property
• Most assumed FCR would correlate with EER
• When invited to choose between the two ratings
  EER much more relevant and salient
• Energy efficiency mainly associated with saving
  money and to a less extent, helping the
  environment
• Almost universal agreement that FCR could be
  dropped from front page

23
Letter vs. Numerical Rating
24

• Idea of having a score out of 100 seemed quite
  sensible
• Generally assumed higher scores were better
• On all routes most assumed property in question
  was average (55)
• But some requests for it to be made clearer that
  scores were out of 100
• Most accepted score as of energy efficiency
• But might be helpful to signpost readers to
  explanation of SAP
• Use of a letter for EIR attracted a cool response
• Putting an E in seemed a bit tautologous in
  design terms

25
CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
26
Conclusions Energy Report

• As with previous project, this research confirms
  that including an energy report in proposed Home
  Information Pack attracts broad approval
• In this updated version, having information on
  both current and potential heating and lighting
  costs is considered both interesting and
  motivating
• Section detailing lower and higher cost measures
  also attract positive comment
• Mainly because it helps intending purchaser work
  out which improvements might be more worthwhile
  to make

27
Conclusions The Preferred Route

• Route 1, Version 1 attracts the most support. It
  is seen as professional, clear and relatively
  straightforward
• Inclusion of a potential rating is considered
  crucial
• It both enhances comprehension of how well the
  property is doing as well as motivating readers
  to read on and/or consider making improvements
• Currently the energy efficiency rating most
  familiar and relevant
• Some interest in knowing the environmental impact
  rating
• But, giving both ratings equal prominence may
  make it more difficult to take on significance of
  the different ratings
• It is possible that this could in turn weaken
  reports ability to motivate respondents to
  improve their energy efficiency rating
• Thus sufficient emphasis on potential
  ratings/savings will be crucial

28
Conclusions Reactions to Other Routes

• Route 2 attracts some support mainly because the
  design looks simple
• But absence of potential rating a key drawback
  and makes it a far less motivating document
• Initially, Route 3 sometimes appeal mainly
  because of the familiar energy efficiency chart
  which most find fairly easy to understand
• But, absolute appeal of this approach is undercut
  by the different environmental impact chart

29
Conclusions Fuel Consumption Rating

• The fuel consumption rating is an unfamiliar
  concept when related to domestic energy and
  properties
• Energy efficiency is a much more familiar and
  recognised rating which is equated primarily with
  saving money and, to a less extent, helping the
  environment
• Inclusion of the FCR on the design approaches
  does not add anything to understanding
• Rather on Routes 1 and 3 particularly, its
  inclusion makes the designs look very dense,
  cluttered and uninviting

30
Recommendations

• Of the approaches under consideration, Route 1,
  Version 1 consistently selected as the approach
  that is easiest to understand
• When developing this route, consideration might
  be given to
• making the charts/keys larger to aid
  comprehension
• simplifying the key for the EIR chart
• repeating the energy efficiency rating elsewhere
  on the front page to reinforce current and
  potential rating
• moving the explanatory text about the ratings
  beneath the charts to ensure they are read in
  conjunction with the charts
• including a paragraph to explain why the
  potential rating is not 100
• giving some indication of what an average rating
  might be for a similar property in terms of size,
  period, etc. to provide further context
• giving the information about available grants
  rather more prominence in the document