ECEEE summer study 2011 presentation on using social media to promote energy efficiency research in New Zealand. Panel 8 - Dynamics of Consumption (which I co-led with Michael Ornetzeder)

1. Paper No. 263 Dr Sea Rotmann
Making Energy Efficiency
Research Relevant
A note on the evaluation of
social media as a tool for
engaging energy practitioners
and consumers
Authors: Dr Sea Rotmann, Amardeep Sandhu, and Dr Lauren
Christie

2. Emissions in NZ
In 2008 - 45% of the Green-House gases from energy
1% increase every 3 years
NZ’s 2010 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy reflects this by setting a
target of saving 55PJ with targeted energy efficiency interventions
by 2025

3. Connecting with the Consumer
– the promise of social media
There is great body of work around influencing consumer
behaviour
Efficiency – including buying behaviours
Curtailment – conservation and energy saving
behaviours
Social Media holds the promise of a two-way
engagement
Collaborative Real time feedback Permanent Access
Nudge Overcome locational constraint Evidenced
M&E
Engage – Digital Natives Language of the
Alignment with capability consumer

4. The Motivating Change
Project
Can social media
extend the reach of researchers
to
engage practitioners and end
users of research?
Motivating Change Workshop
Behavioural Innovators
Workshop
Story Telling
Workshop

5. Issues with connecting research
with research end users
• Dry, theoretical, scientific jargon, stats
• Driven by theoretical knowledge and
publication and citation records
• Common public and decision-makers
rarely read scientific journals, research
reports or attend academic seminars
• Media only covers research findings if
sensational
• Conferences are one-time events held
at one location 5

6. Some key questions
• Can we use social media to engage a larger
audience for research?
• Can we create a smarter way of attending a
conference?
• Can it act as an enduring, ‘living’ store of
knowledge
• Can it engage end users of research
beyond the workshops and solicit feedback
and engagement?
• Can we use key decision makers and
influencers to better transfer the message?
6

7. The workshops
7

8. Some outcomes
CHALLENGES & GROUP IDEAS TO OVERCOME:
Sea’s Challenge: Turning research into practice and measuring the impact
• Research outcome evaluation tool
Aaron’s Challenge: Encouraging business to undertake more research
• Lunches – elite/status element to them
• Peer level – top down-peer level – bottom up
• Give them tools to walk away with
Carl’s Challenge: Collaboration between different researchers and end users of research
• Council portal as a way of collecting community actions
Carolyn: Different partners’ needs
• Sort your own needs & goals first
• Do research and listen to the research – what people are saying
• Engage and understand partner needs
• What can each offer
• Give each a role of autonomy
Scott: Finance
8
• Sharpen the message to investors

9. Some outcomes
DEVOLVE’N’SOLVE SESSION:
Plenary Examples:
Sandy (Business hat): people won’t adopt a product/service etc until it becomes a norm. The barrier is that we need
someone to really ‘sell’ the product/service until it becomes a norm. This selling needs to also be consultative as well.
Sea (Research, Policy hat):
1 – it is everyone’s problem: scientists-funders-NGO’s-thinkers/doers. They are all linked but we don’t understand
each other and instead throw rocks at (blame) each other. Goal is to close the loop between the agents.
2 – How can we use social media better (especially for professionals)?
Lee (NGO hat): we all know the layers that need to happen, however they are all expensive and time consuming and not
everyone has the resources to do them all (or do them properly). We don’t have a NZ hub where we all thread our bits of
knowledge, projects, learnings into.
9

10. Some outcomes
Offers and pledges put on the table:
• Paul (NERI) – 1-year’s free membership to NERI (= access to capability map and resources on website etc)
• Liana (Hikurangi) – can hold this space for a bit to keep the conversations going (which is an offer of our time, alumni
& networks, facilitation).
• Sea (EECA) – funding for 1 more workshop. Will continue with her master plan on demand-side research, IEA
International best practice guide with end-user involvement, and 2 international conferences (will feedback to this
group)
• Amardeep (Midas) – will give midas institute website & forum for next 6-months and help understand what works and
doesn’t work
• Lee (WWF) – Treehouse as a meeting location for another workshop
• Molly Melhuish – sailing lessons on Sundays (to really teach energy efficiency, functional technology, and to learn how
to sail)
• Diana (IUCN) – have a commission on education and communication. There are two workshops coming up (in
Auckland Jan 17th and Wellington Jan 18th) on strategising communication and sharing resources. Email her for info.
◦ Google ‘love not loss’ short video about communicating bio-diversity loss
• Paul (ATLA) – opportunity to be involved with a community wind-farm (based in the Wellington region)
• Richard Morrison (KCDC) – offered to do his eco design advisor consultancy job for whoever needs it
10

11. Social Media Technologies
used
The consortium piloted social networking
site LinkedIn
and a
website/blog/vlog
that included media sharing as a way to
initially trial reaction and participation

12. The Blog & Forum
The Midas Institute blogged the entire workshop at
http://midasinstitute.org.nz/events/motivating-
change-workshop/.
The blogs included:
•Full High Definition Video posting of the Presenter Sessions
•Full High Definition Video posting of the Workshop Sessions
•Blog posts from various participants including the Chief Executive of the
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority of New Zealand
•Each posting had the relevant attachments and supporting documents
(for example, the power points of the presentations).
•Each posting could be:
• Commented upon
• Rated – based on a 5 star basis (with 5 stars being the highest)
• The comments could also be further commented upon
• It could be shared on various sites (for example, Twitter, Facebook
and Digg).

13. Findings – Reaching a wider
Audience
950% increase in participants Over 47% were repeat visitors
77% of the visits were An average visitor visited 5+
direct postings

14. Findings – Reaching a wider
Audience
13 additional countries
Viewed in 46% attendees not from
Wellington

15. Findings of usefulness of
social media
√ Reached a wider audience
√ Storage of knowledge
√ Engaged the end users beyond the
duration of the workshop
? Solicit Feedback from the end users
? Effectiveness of Key Opinion Leaders

16. Findings
• Some Qualitative and Intangible
Findings are:
– Use of Online Special Interest Group to
link researchers with research end users
– A wider mix of practitioners and end users
than usually presented at such events
– Interest in the creation of NZ motivating
change community
– Interest and input into future events
– Pledges and offers of help

17. Discussion – What went well
Interest in Participation
Wider Engagement with the Research and
Community groups
Establishing Connections and
Commitment

18. Discussion – What else was
learnt ?
cultural issues in close societies
Are there in their
use of social media?
Language differs
Social Media from
Research Language
Fostering engagement through ensuring
trust and
keeping the discussion professional

19. Some feedback on use of
social media
“It's accessible, convenient to me, and stays on the web.”
“It enables easy sharing of links to reference material.”
“Being able to watch presentations again and pull out what I think are the key points.”
“Can access at any time.”
“The range of people there is potential to connect with.”
“That there is more freedom for and less inhibition against putting forward and
responding to wide ranging ideas.”
“You can secretly 'stalk' the questioners and respondents to inform your own knowledge
of who is who and what their knowledge and views are.”
“That you can quickly tap into global perspectives and comments.”
“That it will make little difference to anything at all.”
“That what turn out to be key ideas can get lost in the general volume of traffic
generated.”
“Limited shared learning of experiences and ideas - no "brainstrorming"
potential.”
“The interest fades and the discussion discontinues meaning the potential is
not reached.”
“The fear that my questions / comments will seem lame as everyone knows more than
me!”
“It significantly reduces the number of participants to those comfortable using that
form of discussion.”
“That my personal views are taken to reflect the views of my organisation.”
“That I sound like an arse - I get something wrong or someone else contradicts or
berates me.”
19

20. Questions?
sea.rotmann@eeca.govt.nz
paul@neri.org.nz
amardeep.sandhu@midasinfomedia.com
20