Title: Energy Efficiency Report Front Page Design Debrief of Research Findings conducted by Andrew Irving A
1Energy Efficiency Report Front Page
DesignDebrief of Research Findings conducted
by Andrew Irving Associateson behalf of
Energy Saving TrustJune 2005
2 INTRODUCTION
3Research 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
4Method
- 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
5Sample Structure
6 Background Observations
7Observations 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
8Factors 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.
9Home 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
10Broad Reactions to Proposed Energy Report
11Energy 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
12Energy 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
13The Preferred Approach
14The 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
15The 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
16The 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
17Reactions to Alternative Design Approaches
18Route 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
19Route 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
20Impact of Fuel Consumption Rating on Reactions to
Design Approaches
21Route 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
22Fuel 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
23Letter 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
26Conclusions 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
27Conclusions 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
28Conclusions 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
29Conclusions 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
30Recommendations
- 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