Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Overcoming Consumers’ Barriers to the Adoption of Sustainable Lighting: Considering CFLs and LEDs Across the Life Course
EPA Grant Number: SU834333Title: Overcoming Consumers’ Barriers to the Adoption of Sustainable Lighting: Considering CFLs and LEDs Across the Life Course
Investigators: Hebert, Paulette , Stall-Meadows, Celia , Johnston, Jan , Chaney, Sylvia
Institution: Oklahoma State University
EPA Project Officer: Page, Angela
Phase: I
Project Period: August 15, 2009 through August 14, 2010
Project Amount: $10,000
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2009) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Challenge Area - Sustainable and Healthy Communities , P3 Challenge Area - Air Quality , P3 Awards , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
This consumer-focused pilot project integrated available technical and behavioral literature with new survey data and field experiences in residential settings to reveal adoption barriers and encourage informed choices for sustainable lighting across the life course. Qualitative and quantitative aspects of sustainable and unsustainable lighting were studied and demonstrated to allow for consumers’ field comparisons of lighting characteristics. Additionally, willingness-to-buy, efficacy/energy efficiency, environmental hazards, initial and life-cycle costs, lamp life, waste production, waste disposal, and other possible obstacles to adoption were studied. This 8 month project consisted of 5 phases: 1) Study existing literature. 2) Measure, monitor and document existing lighting conditions at residential sites. 3) Install temporary sustainable lighting treatments, measure, monitor, document, and create an educational display. 4) Perform field studies, exhibit educational display, administer surveys, create video. 5) Analyze results, create teaching tools, write report, edit video, present to public. This field study project was led by students in 2 existing, required courses. Consumer education display, computer model, and a video were produced.
The main objective for this consumer-focused pilot project was to integrate available technical and behavioral literature with new survey data and field experiences in residential settings to reveal adoption barriers and encourage informed choices for sustainable lighting across the life course.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Outputs included: pre-test and post-test surveys, AutoCAD (computer model) drawings documenting the existing furniture floor plans of three areas in each of two sites, “before” and “after” lighting levels and ultraviolet measurements, policy knowledge from EPA and DOE fact sheets communicated via on-site educational displays and oral sessions on relevant environmental and health issues, PowerPoint slide presentation, a project abstract submitted to the NSDE Green Forum, two newspaper articles, a streaming video broadcast regarding the study an innovative documenting the field sites and the interdisciplinary students-in-action and a research poster for the National Sustainable Design Expo.
Pre-test and post-test surveys were administered before and after residential field study experiences with incandescent, CFL and LED lighting treatments. A total of one hundred consumers, aged 20 to 83, took part in the surveys associated with the study. Over 85 undergraduate and six graduate students enrolled at OSU, representing five different courses participated in some aspect of the study. Phase 1 involved four disciplines: interior design, apparel design, gerontology, and merchandising. Participants’ residential field study experiences occurred between the pre-test and post-tests. Field experiences were directed by instruction sheets and be documented with consumer response sheets. A highly significant difference was found in pre- and post-test perception of incandescent bulbs. Between the pre and post-tests, participants were exposed to an educational display and educational session which imparted fact sheets regarding sustainable lighting which were created by experts. Participants were less likely to agree that incandescents were energy efficient on the post-test than they were on the pre-test. No significant difference was found for CFLs. A highly significant difference was found in pre- and post-test perception of LEDs. Participants were more likely to agree that LEDs are energy efficient on the post-test than they were on the pre-test. No statistically significant relationship was found between age group and awareness of the three lighting sources: incandescent, CFLs, and LEDs in the lighting survey. However, Baby Boomers were more likely than the other age groups to prefer incandescent lighting in the blind field test which required participants to visit three testing areas (per site) illuminated with supplemental lighting treatments (lamped with incandescents, CFLs or LEDs). No significant relationship was found between different age groups and their reported current adoption level of CFLs. However, a highly significant relationship was found between age group and current adoption of LEDs. Baby Boomers were more likely to claim that they had adopted LEDs for use than the other age group and were more likely than other groups to be willing-to-pay more for compact fluorescent than for incandescent light bulbs.
Conclusions:
This study tested a new methodology and substantially contributed to new knowledge in the area of lighting and sustainability. However, the current research is somewhat skewed towards Oklahoma residents and there was only limited participation in the study. Therefore, results from this study cannot be generalized. A national study with additional participants is needed regarding adoption of sustainable lighting across the life course.
Supplemental Keywords:
willingness-to-pay, measurement methods, decision making, elderlyRelevant Websites:
Paulette Hebert, Lighting Designer Exit
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.