research proposal for master's in mechanical engineering

Thesis Proposal

Note: This article is partially based on the 2017-2018 MechE Graduate Student Guide (PDF) . Please check the latest guide for the most-up to date formatting requirements.

Criteria for Success

A strong thesis proposal…

Motivates your project and introduces your audience to the state-of-the-art for the problem you’re working on.
Explains the limitations in the current methods through literature review and/or original analysis. This should also explain why the limitations matter and why they’re the right ones to focus on.
Clearly explains your technical approach to make specific improvements to some part of the field.
Uses original analysis and literature to support the feasibility of the approach.
Describes what is original about your work.
Provides a practical outline for completing this research : a degree timeline laying out quantifiable hypotheses, experimental/numerical/theoretical techniques, and metrics for evaluation .

Structure Diagram

Meche-specific structure requirements.

Your thesis proposal should be limited to 6 pages including figures and references.

In addition, you need a cover page that (only) includes:

tentative title of the thesis
brief abstract
committee chair and/or advisor should be indicated
include their official titles, departmental affiliations, and email addresses

The purpose of your thesis proposal is to introduce your research plan to your thesis committee. You want the committee members to come away understanding what your research will accomplish, why it is needed ( motivation ), how you will do it ( feasibility & approach ), and most importantly, why it is worthy of a PhD ( significance ).

You intend to solve a real and important problem, and you are willing to dedicate years of your life to it, so use your proposal to get the committee excited about your research!

Analyze your audience

Unlike many of the papers and presentations you will write during graduate school, only a select few people will read your thesis proposal. This group will always include your PhD committee and your research advisor, and may include other interested MechE faculty or scientists and engineers at your funding source.

Therefore, you will typically have a good understanding of your audience before it is written. This can allow you to tailor your message to the technical level of your specific audience. If you aren’t sure what your audience could reasonably be expected to know, be conservative! Regardless, your audience is always looking to answer the questions: “ what is this research, how will you perform it, and why does it matter?”

While the small audience may make you less interested in committing time to your proposal, the exercise of motivating and justifying your work plan will be critical to your PhD.

Follow the standard structure for research proposals

While some variation is acceptable, don’t stray too far from the following structure. See also the Structure Diagram above.

Introduction . Provide only the necessary information to motivate your research, and show how it fits into the broader field. What is the problem you are trying to solve? By the end of the introduction, your audience should understand the basics of what you will do and why you will do it.
Background/Methodology . Describe the current state of the art and related research fields in sufficient technical detail. The goal is provide just enough detail to give the reader a sound understanding of the limitations and the need for new work. Do not go into detail that does not directly help in understanding your You are not trying to make your reader understand everything about the topic or demonstrate how much you know.
Objectives . Although not strictly necessary, this section lets you summarize concrete goals of your work, and can help to serve as a checklist for yourself as you move through the process. This is best for projects that tackle many interrelated problems. Think of this as a list of concrete (quantifiable) goals that you want to accomplish.
Proposed Work. Explain how your work will solve the problems that you have identified. How will you address the objectives above? Provide just enough technical specificity to leave the reader with a firm grasp of what you will do.
Provide a set of time-structured goals and deliverables. While this is not strictly necessary, your committee will want a timeline when you meet with them, so it can help to start planning now. You want to graduate, so make sure that you have a plan to do so!
This is a standard section listing references in an appropriate format (MLA, APA, etc.)

Consider the logical sequence of your sections. After the introduction, your audience should be intrigued by a key problem, and intrigued that you know how to solve it. Through the background, they learn that this problem is more difficult than they originally realized. Finally, in the proposed work they learn that your proposal addresses the additional complexity introduced in the background, and they have confidence that you can actually solve the problem.

Summarize the current research field

You need to have a strong grasp of the broader research community. How can you contribute, if you don’t know what is done and what needs to be done?

The point here is not to educate your audience, but rather to provide them with the tools needed to understand your proposal. A common mistake is to explain all of the research that you did to understand your topic and to demonstrate that you really know your field. This will bore your audience, who either already knows this information or does not see why they should care. It’s more important to show where current gaps are. Cut anything that doesn’t answer the what and why of what people are doing. Your depth of knowledge will come through in your thoughtful proposal.

Justify the significance of your work

Answer the question: “What happens if your work is successful?” Again, you are trying to convince your readers either to give you funding or to work with you for three (or more) years. Convince them that your project is worth it.

Your research doesn’t have to revolutionize your field, but you need to explain concretely how it will move your field forward. For example, “Successful development of the proposed model will enable high-fidelity simulation of boiling” is a specific and convincing motivation, compared to, “The field of boiling modeling must be transformed in order to advance research.”

Justify your research plan

Identify the steps needed to overcome your identified problem/limitation. Though your PhD will evolve over time, the tasks and timeline that you identify in your proposal will continue to help determine the trajectory of your research. A good plan now can save a lot of work a few years down the road.

A strong research plan answers three key questions:

g., “In order to engineer material properties using mesoscopic defects, it is necessary to characterize the defects, measure how they affect material response, and identify techniques to reproducibly create the defects at specific sites within a material.”
g., “In my PhD, I will focus on developing high-speed dynamic imaging techniques to characterize transient defect states in metallic nanowires. I will then use these techniques to measure the properties of nanowires fabricated with three different processes known to produce different defect structures.”
How will you evaluate success in each step? These metrics should be concrete and measurable! Putting the thought into metrics now will make it easier for your committee (and yourself) to check a box and say ‘you can graduate.’

Each of these questions should be supported by details that reflect the current state of the art. Technical justification is critical to establish credibility for your plan. Reference the material that you introduced in the background section. You should even use your research plan to tailor your background section so that your committee knows just enough to believe what you’re claiming in your plan.

Based on the tasks and metrics in your plan, establish specific reflection points when you’ll revisit the scope of your project and evaluate if changes are needed.

Include alternative approaches

You won’t be able to predict all of the challenges you will encounter, but planning alternative approaches early on for major methods or decision points will prepare you to make better game-time decisions when you come up against obstacles. e.g.,

I will develop multi-pulse, femtosecond illumination for high speed imaging following Someone et al. Based on the results they have shown, I expect to be able to observe defect dynamics with micron spatial resolution and microsecond temporal resolution. If these resolutions are not achievable in the nanowire systems, I will explore static measurement techniques based on the work of SomeoneElse et al.

Resources and Annotated Examples

Annotated example 1.

This is a recent MechE thesis proposal, written in the style of an IEEE paper. 1,022 KB

How to Select Mechanical Engineering Research Topics?

Table of Contents

Selecting the right mechanical engineering research topics is crucial for driving impactful innovation and addressing pressing challenges. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you choose the best research topics:

Identify Your Interests: Start by considering your passions and areas of expertise within mechanical engineering. What topics excite you the most? Choosing a subject that aligns with your interests will keep you motivated throughout the research process.
Assess Current Trends: Stay updated on the latest developments and trends in mechanical engineering. Look for emerging technologies, pressing industry challenges, and areas with significant research gaps. These trends can guide you towards relevant and timely research topics.
Conduct Literature Review: Dive into existing literature and research papers within your field of interest. Identify gaps in knowledge, unanswered questions, or areas that warrant further investigation. Building upon existing research can lead to more impactful contributions to the field.
Consider Practical Applications: Evaluate the practical implications of potential research topics. How will your research address real-world problems or benefit society? Choosing topics with tangible applications can increase the relevance and impact of your research outcomes.
Consult with Advisors and Peers: Seek guidance from experienced mentors, advisors, or peers in the field of mechanical engineering. Discuss your research interests and potential topics with them to gain valuable insights and feedback. Their expertise can help you refine your ideas and select the most promising topics.
Define Research Objectives: Clearly define the objectives and scope of your research. What specific questions do you aim to answer or problems do you intend to solve? Establishing clear research goals will guide your topic selection process and keep your project focused.
Consider Resources and Constraints: Take into account the resources, expertise, and time available for your research. Choose topics that are feasible within your constraints and align with your available resources. Balancing ambition with practicality is essential for successful research endeavors.
Brainstorm and Narrow Down Options: Generate a list of potential research topics through brainstorming and exploration. Narrow down your options based on criteria such as relevance, feasibility, and alignment with your interests and goals. Choose the most promising topics that offer ample opportunities for exploration and discovery.
Seek Feedback and Refinement: Once you’ve identified potential research topics, seek feedback from colleagues, advisors, or experts in the field. Refine your ideas based on their input and suggestions. Iteratively refining your topic selection process will lead to a more robust and well-defined research proposal.
Stay Flexible and Open-Minded: Remain open to new ideas and opportunities as you progress through the research process. Be willing to adjust your research topic or direction based on new insights, challenges, or discoveries. Flexibility and adaptability are key qualities for successful research endeavors in mechanical engineering.

By following these steps and considering various factors, you can effectively select mechanical engineering research topics that align with your interests, goals, and the needs of the field.

Step by Step Guide on The Best Way to Finance Car

The Best Way on How to Get Fund For Business to Grow it Efficiently

MS in Mechanical Engineering - Thesis Guidelines

Students may choose to pursue a thesis as part of their MS degree program, but only with the consent of a faculty advisor willing to supervise the thesis work.

Preparation of a thesis representing an independent research work is a pivotal phase of this MS degree program. It provides the student with an opportunity to work on an open-ended problem, developing a particular solution that is not pre-determined and involving synthesis of knowledge and intellectual creativity. The thesis may involve an investigation that is fundamental in nature, or may be applied, incorporating theory, experimental testing and/or analytical modeling, and/or creative design. Through the thesis, candidates are expected to give evidence of competence in research and a sound understanding of the area of specialization involved. Students are also strongly encouraged to present their research at scientific conferences and publish the results of their thesis research in a peer-reviewed journal.

Students receive a grade of Y (incomplete) in these courses as long as the thesis in progress. Eventual thesis grades replace the incomplete grades upon formal completion of the thesis. In order to receive a grade of Y for ME-0296, students must submit a thesis prospectus that outlines the area of work, thesis goals, proposed approach and a review of relevant past work in the literature before the end of the first semester in which the student enrolls in ME-0296, typically the third semester of full-time study. An example of a recent MS thesis prospectus can be found in the Mechanical Engineering office.

The examining committee for MS candidates completing theses should be composed of three (3) members.

Thesis advisor (committee chair)
One technical expert outside of the ME department
A third member of the committee, often another faculty member in the ME department

The committee chair is normally a full-time, tenure-track faculty member. One committee member must be from outside the ME department. Thesis normally counts as 9 credits towards the MS degree requirements. However, a student, with the approval of his/her thesis advisor, has the option to complete a 6-credit thesis by submitting a petition form to the Department. This petition must be signed by the student and the thesis advisor and will become part of the student's academic record. With a 6-credit thesis, a student must complete an extra graduate-level course (for a total of 8 courses) to fulfill the 30-credit requirement for graduation. This option is not typically available to those intending to pursue a Ph.D. degree.

Thesis Completion

The MS thesis is completed upon:

A successful oral defense (open to the community)
Submittal of an approved thesis to the Office of Graduate Studies

The student should consult the Graduate Student Handbook for specific dates and deadlines for this process in the graduation semester.

Visit the Health Advisories website for the latest vaccination and mask information and to Report a Case.

Mechanical Engineering

How to Write a Project Proposal

Contents of proposal.

A recommended template for an MS project or thesis proposal is provided at the following link, from which you can make a Google Docs copy or download a Microsoft Word file:

ME 295 and ME 299 Proposal Template

Proposal Approval Process

The project proposal must be written so that it provides a strong evidence of a student’s thorough understanding of the topic and the capabilities to carry out the work successfully. There are three levels of approvals and signatures required to ascertain that the student in fact has the understanding and capabilities to complete the project successfully. First, the proposal is reviewed, evaluated, and signed by the advisory committee. Next, the signed Proposal Evaluation Form is attached to the proposal, along with the completed Proposal Cover Sheet and submitted to the ME office for approval and signatures of the Graduate Advisor and the Department Chair. Refer to the Projects and Thesis tab for proposal deadline.

See our detailed instructions [pdf] for submitting the project proposal in DocuSign to help guide you through the process.

Proposal Deadline

The proposal must be approved by the advisory committee, the Graduate Advisor, and the Department Chair prior to the university deadline for adding a course, usually the second week of February for the Spring semester and the second week of September for the Fall semester. The add-code for the first term project is issued by the ME office only after the approved project proposal has been received. Failure to meet the deadlines can delay your graduation.

Sample Proposals

The following are some representative examples of project proposals. Your proposal may have additional requirements depending on your project committee chair.

Sample 1 (Bicycle brake)
Sample 2 (Collapsible cup)
Sample 3 (Object detection)
Sample 4 (Metamaterial)
Sample 5 (Battery)

Mechanical engineering (MS, PhD)

Innovation is at the forefront of ASU’s mechanical engineering graduate program as faculty and students work side by side to research and create solutions for worldwide issues related to energy, human health and transportation.

With a graduate degree from the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, you’ll handle top-level research with access to faculty and industry professionals. From carbon fiber to carbon neutrality, you’ll gain skills that are essential to innovating in nearly any field.

Degrees offered

Mechanical engineering, ms.

Following undergraduate studies, students have the option to choose between two Masters of Science tracks: a thesis option and non-thesis option.

MS students are admitted by default in the non-thesis option
MS students can transfer to the thesis option once they are active in the program and have secured a MS thesis faculty advisor
The non-thesis option allows students two experiences including a portfolio and an applied project.

Mechanical engineering, PhD

Continuing original research is the focal point for mechanical engineering doctoral students at ASU. PhD candidates are required to write and defend a dissertation that describes an original contribution within the chosen discipline, all while being supplied with the best preparation for employment by academic institutions, government laboratories and industrial research laboratories.

Graduate resources

Course Descriptions
Accelerated Master’s programs
Class Search/Course Catalog
Graduate College FAQs
Online Advising Appointments
Graduate Forms
Fellowships and Funding
International Applicants
All Graduate Programs

Program information

Graduate Faculty
Internships
Research Areas

Application and admission information

Application information.

The following application materials must be submitted directly to Graduate Admission Services:

If your institution sends electronic official transcripts, we accept the following electronic transcript services: E-Scrip, Parchment, Credentials Inc., and National Student Clearinghouse. All E-Scrip, Parchment, and National Student Clearinghouse transcripts must be sent directly to [email protected] from those transcript services or from the institutions that use those services. If you can and choose to use these services, you should apply online to the ASU Graduate Admission Services application prior to having your official e-transcripts sent.

If your institution does not use one of those transcript services, you will need to mail an official transcript. Your six digit application ID should be on the transcript envelope if possible.

Application for Admission

Can only be accessed online. Click here to go to Application for Admission

Application Priority Deadline

Fall Semester – December 31 Spring Semester – August 1

A priority deadline means that applications submitted and completed before the priority deadline will receive priority consideration. Applications submitted after the priority deadlines will be reviewed in the order in which they were completed. An application is complete after all materials are received by Graduate Admissions.

Application Fee

US citizens $70 Non-US citizens $115

This is a processing fee assessed by Graduate Admission Services and cannot be waived or deferred: graduate.asu.edu/admissions/how_to_apply

Transcripts and GRE scores

Transcripts.

Only official transcripts are accepted; no photocopies. These must be mailed to Graduate Admissions Services (see address above). For international students, transcripts must be in the original language, along with an official English translation. Also see:

Graduate Admissions Services: students.asu.edu/graduate/apply

Official score sent by ETS only. Guideline for the GRE: verbal 146+, quantitative 159+, analytical 3.5+. Institution code for ASU: 4007; there is no department code.

GRE Waiver : GRE scores are useful, but not required for MS students. GRE waivers do not apply to PhD applications.

Resume, personal statement and letters of recommendation

A resume is useful but not required. Upload a resume in the online application process.

Personal statement

Essay describing your background, academic achievements, research interests, career goals, and why you wish to pursue graduate study in Mechanical Engineering at ASU. You will be asked to upload your personal statement in the online application process. .

Three (3) recommendation letters

The online application will ask you for three names and three email addresses for three recommenders; and the company/school for which they work. Your recommenders will receive an email and must submit their letter of recommendation electronically.

International applicants

Additional admission requirements for international applicants.

Admissions: students.asu.edu/graduate/international

Visa/Immigration information

students.asu.edu/international/immigration

English proficiency (for international graduate applicants)

A TOEFL, IELTS or PTE score is required by the graduate Mechanical Engineering program, in order to be considered for admission.

Official TOEFL sent by ETS only. Minimum scores: iBT 80; pBT 550. Institution code for ASU: 4007; for department code, applicant may enter 0000
Official IELTS sent by issuing institution only. Minimum score: 6.5. No institution code is needed
Official PTE sent by Pearson only. Minimum Score: 60

You could qualify for an exemption from this requirement by one of the following two options:

This requirement would be met if you successfully complete the highest level at the Global Launch Intensive English Program with grades of B or better; AND in addition, acquire a score of 50 or better on the Speak Test (must be taken at Arizona State University).
You successfully complete the highest level at the Global Launch Intensive English Program with grades of B or better OR
Attended in person a regionally accredited college or university in the United States and earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in the U.S., OR
Attended in person a regionally accredited college or university in the United States and completed at least 12 credit hours of graduate course work with a cumulative GPA of 3.00 on a 4.00 scale or higher (all credits must be earned in the U.S.), OR
Attended in person a regionally accredited college or university in the United States and completed at least 90 credit hours of undergraduate course work with a cumulative GPA of 3.00 on a 4.00 scale or higher (all 90 hours must be earned in the U.S.)

For more information, visit the Graduate Admission Services English Proficiency Requirement and Exemption website .

Still have a question? Contact Advising

If you still have questions regarding admission requirements and procedures, please contact the SEMTE graduate advising office:

Phone: 480.965.2335 Email: [email protected]

Undergrad Handbook
Undergrad Student Awards
Requirements
Educational Objectives

Example Proposal Forms

Student Workspace
Faculty Workspace
Beyond RISE
Frequently Asked Questions
ME Undergrad Symposium
Capstone Design (ME 450)
SURE (Summer Research)
Accreditation
Academic Advising
Contact Academic Services

Below are example proposal forms for ME 290, 390, and 490. These forms are for preview purposes only. To submit a proposal please visit the RISE Student Workspace .

Mechanical Engineering Proposal

Proposal maker.

research proposal for master's in mechanical engineering

For some reason, engineering project proposals are drawn up. There are several engineering project proposals for you to convince potential sponsors , financial institutions, and creditors. Some engineering project proposals are also put forward that enables engineers’ plans to be taken into account and approved by the company management to work or the customers who want to obtain services. A proposed engineering project is indeed a conceptual proposal so that the engineer’s specific ideas for a particular project of engineering reflect and present them.

10+ Mechanical Engineering Proposal Examples

1. mechanical engineering project proposal.

Size: 192 KB

2. Mechanical Plumbing Engineering Services Proposal

Size: 450 KB

3. Mechanical Engineering Technology Proposal

Size: 125 KB

4. Mechanical Engineering Services Proposal Template

Size: 131 KB

5. Mechanical Engineering Proposal Form

Size: 41 KB

6. Mechanical Engineering Laboratory Proposal

7. Basic Mechanical Engineering Proposal

Size: 91 KB

8. Mechanical Engineering Proposal Agreement

Size: 70 KB

9. Mechanical Engineering Service Consultant Proposal

Size: 156 KB

10. Mechanical Engineering Proposal Example

11. Printable Mechanical Engineering Proposal

Size: 67 KB

What Does a Mechanical Engineer Do?

Mechanical engineers build devices that produce power such as electric motors, internal combustion engines, steam and gas turbines, and electricity-using machines such as cooling and air conditioning systems. In the interior of buildings, mechanical engineers design other devices, such as lifts and escalators. You can also check the development project proposals .

How To Finish a Mechanical Engineer Proposal?

You must complete your proposal before the deadline. A proposal submitted close to the deadline may be riddled with errors and incoherent. It is possible that presenting such a proposal will harm the pitch and lead to its rejection. Furthermore, this may appear unprofessional to the audience, jeopardizing any future opportunities for the proposing team. Always set aside time to proofread and review your proposal. When it comes to putting the finishing touches on a proposal, there are a few things to keep in mind. You can also check the professional proposals .

1. Reduce the number of words while keeping the font size the same.

Specific proposals have a maximum page count. When a proposal exceeds the page limit, the simplest solution is to reduce the font size. This is not recommended, as it will only make the proposal more difficult and irritating to read. Utilize this extra page as an opportunity to eliminate superfluous words from the proposal. A good proposal is concise and direct while still providing all necessary details and information. You can also check service proposals .

2. Check your work for errors.

The reason is self-evident and was mentioned earlier. It is essential to keep in mind that the charts and graphs in the proposal are clear and readable. Furthermore, ensure that the format is in the form provided by the requestor.

3. Allow others to proofread your work.

In addition to you doing the proofreading, have someone outside your field read your proposal. Allowing someone outside your area to read your proposal can help you assess its clarity and flow. Remember that the proposal’s audience will not be all experts in the field, and as such, it is critical to write one that is not so technical that the pitch gets lost in a sea of jargon. You can also visit the proposal examples .

4. When writing the summary, take extra caution.

The first impression of the proposal will be the executive summary. Make sure it is clear, concise, and exciting in particular. You can also see templates for the project development proposal. You can also look at proposal memo examples .

What is a project proposal’s format?

Often, a project proposal will include a Gantt chart outlining the Project’s resources, tasks, and schedule. Deliverables for the Project This section contains a list of all the deliverables you anticipate seeing once the Project is complete.

What is the definition of a proposal?

A proposal is a suggestion for people to consider and decide on a plan or an idea, usually formal or written.

What is a proposal for renewal?

A renewal proposal is an application for additional support for the period following a standard or ongoing subsidy. All other suggestions come under competition from a renewal proposal and must be developed so thoroughly as if the proposer were first to apply.

When it comes to preparing the document, having the right mindset and completing an outstanding engineering proposal project can be highly beneficial. Feel free to use the downloadable examples, tips, and guidelines to help you use your time and effort more efficiently when creating an engineering proposal project .

Text prompt

Instructive
Professional

Generate a proposal for a new school recycling program

Compose a proposal for a school field trip to a science museum.

School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering

Library item label woz ere --> undergraduate undergraduate study mechanical engineering aerospace engineering civil and structural engineering student profiles scholarships and bursaries careers postgraduate postgraduate taught study mechanical engineering aerospace engineering civil and structural engineering student profiles postgraduate taught scholarships careers phd phd study research projects phd profiles centres for doctoral training research research case studies research groups research projects research facilities people people mechanical engineering academic staff civil engineering academic staff aerospace engineering academic staff research staff professional services staff technical staff school school about the school contact us learning and teaching facilities accreditation news jobs equality, diversity and inclusion working with industry school of mechanical, aerospace and civil engineering.

Our innovative teaching and cutting-edge research make us leaders in mechanical, aerospace, civil and structural engineering. We help to create and protect the world we live in. Driven by excellence, we inspire and empower our researchers and students to engineer a better future.

Study with us

Mechanical engineering students taking notes

University of Sheffield’s Class of '24 Mechanical Engineering Students Celebrate Graduation

Mechanical Engineering proudly celebrated the achievements of our Class of '24 at a graduation reception in our Engineering Heartspace

Aerospace engineering at Sheffield ranked among the top in the Russell Group in the National Student Survey

The University’s subject of Aerospace Engineering has been ranked No.1 in the Russell Group by students for: teaching on my course, learning opportunities, assessment and feedback, academic support, organisation and management and the student voice.

Civil Engineering academic wins 2024 Best Research Oriented Award

Dr Charles Rougé, Senior Lecturer in Water Resilience, has been selected to receive the 2024 Best Research Oriented Paper award from the Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management on his paper “Forecast Families".

A small group of Civil & Structural Engineering students

Civil Engineering at Sheffield rated top in the Russell Group in the National Student Survey

The University’s subject of Civil & Structural Engineering has been ranked number one in the Russell Group by students in this year's National Student Survey.

About the school

The mappin building looking from the front.

School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering Sir Frederick Mappin Building The University of Sheffield Mappin Street Sheffield S1 4DT

General enquiries: [email protected]

Mechanical Engineering enquiries: +44 114 222 7700

Aerospace Engineering enquiries: +44 114 222 7837

Civil Engineering enquiries: +44 114 222 5738

If you're thinking of studying at the University of Sheffield and need more information, you can call or message us on live chat.

Contacts for prospective students

Faculty of Engineering's Heartspace and Mappin buildings from the Portobello street entrance

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Machine learning
Sustainability
Black holes
Classes and programs

Departments

Aeronautics and Astronautics
Brain and Cognitive Sciences
Architecture
Political Science
Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
Lincoln Laboratory
School of Architecture + Planning
School of Engineering
School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Sloan School of Management
School of Science
MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

From large labs to small teams, mentorship thrives

Press contact :.

At left, Cynthia Breazeal and two mentees converse in a lab. At right, Ming Guo sits and is surrounded by graduate students

Previous image Next image

Each year, new MIT graduate students are tasked with the momentous decision of choosing a research group that will serve as their home for the next several years. Among many questions they face: join an established research effort, or work with a new faculty member in a growing group?

Professors Cynthia Breazeal, leading a group of over 30 students, and Ming Guo, with a lab of fewer than 10, demonstrate that excellent mentorship can thrive in a research group of any size.

Cynthia Breazeal: Flexible leadership

Cynthia Breazeal is a professor of media arts and sciences at MIT, where she founded and directs the Personal Robots group at the MIT Media Lab. She is also the MIT dean for digital learning, leading MIT Open Learning’s business and research and engagement units. Breazeal is a pioneer of social robotics and human-robot interaction, and her research group investigates social robots applied to education, pediatrics, health and wellness, and aging.

Breazeal’s focus on taking multidisciplinary approaches to her research has resulted in an inclusive and supportive lab environment. Moreover, she does not shy away from taking students with unconventional backgrounds.

One nominator joined Breazeal's lab as a design researcher without a computer science background. However, Breazeal recognized the value of their work within the context of her lab’s research directions. “I was a bit of an oddball in the group”, the nominator modestly recounts, “but had joined to help make the work in the group more human-centered.”

Throughout the student's academic journey, Breazeal offered unwavering support, whether by connecting them with experts to solve specific problems or guiding them through the academic job search process.

Over the Covid-19 pandemic, Breazeal prioritized gathering student feedback through a survey about how she could best support her research group. In response to this input, Breazeal established the Senior Research Team (SRT) within her group.

The SRT includes PhD holders such as postdocs and research scientists who provide personalized mentorship to one or two graduate students per semester. The SRT members serve as dedicated advocates and points of contact, with weekly check-ins to address questions within the lab. Additionally, SRT members meet by themselves weekly to discuss student concerns and bring up urgent issues with Breazeal directly. Lastly, students can sign up for meetings with Breazeal and participate in paper review sessions with her and co-authors.

In the nominator’s opinion, this new system was implemented because Breazeal cares about her students and her lab culture. With over 30 members in her group, Breazeal cannot provide hands-on support for everyone daily, but she still deeply cares about each person's experience in the lab. The nominator shared that Breazeal “understands as she progresses in her career, she needs to make sure that she is changing and creating new systems for her research group to continue to operate smoothly.”

Ming Guo: Emphasizing learning over achievement

Ming Guo is an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Guo’s group works at the interface of mechanics, physics, and cell biology, seeking to understand how physical properties and biological function affect each other in cellular systems.

A key aspect of Guo’s mentorship style is his ability to foster an environment where students feel comfortable expressing their difficulties. He actively shows empathy for his students’ lives outside of the lab, often reaching out to provide support during challenging times. When one nominator found themselves faced with significant personal difficulties, Guo made a point to check in regularly, ensuring the student had a support network of friends and labmates.

Guo champions his students both academically and personally. For instance, when a collaborating lab placed unrealistic expectations on a student’s experimental output, Guo openly praised the student’s efforts and achievements in a joint meeting, alleviating pressure and highlighting the student’s hard work.

In addition, Guo encourages vulnerable conversations about issues affecting students, such as political developments and racial inequities. During the graduate student unionization process, he fostered open discussion, showing genuine interest in understanding the challenges faced by graduate students and using these insights to better support them.

In Guo’s research group, learning and development are prioritized over achievements and goals. When students encounter challenges in their research, Guo helps them maintain perspective by validating their struggles and recognizing the skills they acquire through difficult experiments. By celebrating their progress and emphasizing the importance of the learning process, he ensures that students understand the value of their experiences beyond outcomes. This approach not only boosts their confidence, but also fosters a deeper appreciation for the scientific process and their own development as researchers.

Guo says that he feels most energized and happy when he talks to students. He looks forward to the new ideas that they present. One nominator commented on how much Guo enjoys giving feedback at group meetings: “Sometimes he isn’t convinced in the beginning, but he has cultivated our lab atmosphere to be conducive to extended discussion.”

The nominator continues, “When things do work and become really interesting, he is extremely excited with us and pushes us to share our own ideas with the wider research community.”

Share this news article on:

Paying it forward

Twenty-three MIT faculty honored as “Committed to Caring” for 2023-25

Ben Schneider sits at a table that reflects his image. Seated next to him, a bearded graduate student wearing a turban speaks.

Support outside the comfort zone

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Photo of Alex Shalek standing by the wall of a science lab

Alex Shalek named director of the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science

Read full story →

An aerial view of a complex highway interchange in Los Angeles.

New tool empowers pavement life-cycle decision-making while reducing data collection burden

A dual-arm robot manipulates objects on a table in front of it

A new model offers robots precise pick-and-place solutions

With sustainable cement, startup aims to eliminate gigatons of CO₂

Jennifer Huck takes a selfie in her white naval dress uniform at Fenway Park

3 Questions: Preparing students in MIT’s naval ROTC program

13 people pose together on a catwalk over hydrogen pipelines

Going Dutch on climate

More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

Map (opens in new window)
Events (opens in new window)
People (opens in new window)
Careers (opens in new window)
Accessibility
Social Media Hub
MIT on Facebook
MIT on YouTube
MIT on Instagram

SUBMIT A STORY IDEA

Regents announce Suresh Garimella as U of A presidential candidate

Suresh Garimella

The Arizona Board of Regents announced today that Suresh Garimella , president of the University of Vermont, is a candidate for the position of 23rd president of the University of Arizona.

As president of the University of Vermont, Garimella more than doubled the university's research enterprise and strengthened state and community relationships. Garimella is a professor of mechanical engineering and a highly cited scholar and researcher, who has continued to focus on teaching and mentoring students as president, annually leading an undergraduate seminar class in civil discourse and continuing to supervise Ph.D. students.

Prior to his time at UVM, Garimella was executive vice president of research and partnerships and a distinguished professor at Purdue University, where he helped build the university's research enterprise and online footprint and diversified its funding sources.

The board will interview Garimella on Friday, Aug. 9, from 7-9 a.m. After the interview in executive session, the board may reconvene in public session, which will be available via livestream and posted on the board's YouTube channel in the following days.

"The board and search committee were impressed by the exceptional caliber of prospects aspiring to lead the University of Arizona into a new era of excellence," said ABOR Chair Cecilia Mata, who served on the search committee. "After a thorough search process, Dr. Garimella displays the visionary leadership qualities and a record of distinguished scholarship necessary to lead the U of A into its next chapter."

The U of A Search Advisory Committee has met numerous times over the last five months, vetting all presidential prospects, informed by feedback provided by the community. Throughout the search, ABOR and the search committee engaged community members and stakeholders during 19 listening tour sessions, dozens of individual meetings, three public town halls, and through emails and a campuswide survey, resulting in feedback from more than 4,200 students, employees and community members. In addition, search committee members have connected with their networks and constituencies throughout the process.

"It has been a joy to represent the U of A during the search for our next president, and I'm delighted by the collaboration and consideration of ABOR and my colleagues on the search committee," said presidential search committee member Joellen Russell , U of A Distinguished Professor of Geosciences. "We ended with a deep pool of amazing prospects, and I'm so pleased Dr. Garimella has accepted an interview with ABOR. As a sitting president of a fellow land-grant university and eminent scholar, his interest in this job means that he sees the potential and strength of this multicultural powerhouse in the desert that is the University of Arizona."

University President Robert C. Robbins announced in April that he would step down after fulfilling the terms of his current contract, set to end in June 2026, or before that if ABOR were to name a successor sooner.

Additional information about the U of A presidential search can be found on the ABOR website , and comments on the search may be sent to [email protected] .

Additional information:

Learn more about Garimella
Presidential search community feedback
Presidential Search Advisory Committee
Arizona Board of Regents YouTube channel

Resources for the Media

ABOR Media Relations [email protected]

A woman in a blue and redcompetitive swimwear at the top of a diving platform. Above her are the words "Arizona Swimming & Diving"

Going for gold: U of A's Delaney Schnell among several Wildcats heading to Paris Olympics

By the numbers: 12 things to know about Arizona's move to the Big 12

U of A researcher featured in Netflix film 'Inside the Mind of a Dog'

U of A joins STARS College Network to boost support for prospective students from rural areas

University of arizona in the news.

The Washington Post Thursday Dogs can smell human stress, and it bums them out, study shows

The Washington Post Thursday Can you tell which sport is which? Paris Olympics symbols go avant-garde.

The Washington Post Thursday Sponge vs. dishcloth: Which one is grosser?

The New York Times Tuesday Hurricane scale alone can't account for a storm's destruction

National Geographic Tuesday Apollo moon rocks reveal secrets of the moon's thin 'atmosphere'

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Understanding users of online energy efficiency counseling: comparison to representative samples in norway.

$\r\nChristian A. Klckner*$

1 Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
2 Department of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Introduction: To achieve substantial energy efficiency improvements in the privately owned building stock, it is important to communicate with potential renovators at the right point in time and provide them with targeted information to strengthen their renovation ambitions. The European Union recommends using one-stop-shops (OSSs), which provide information and support throughout the whole process, from planning to acquisition of funding, implementation, and evaluation as a measure to remove unnecessary barriers.

Methods: For this paper, we invited visitors of two Norwegian websites with OSS characteristics to answer an online survey about their renovation plans and energy efficiency ambitions. The participants visited the websites out of their own interest; no recruitment for the websites was conducted as part of the study ( N = 437). They also rated a range of psychological drivers, facilitators, and barriers to including energy upgrades in a renovation project. Their answers were then compared to existing data from representative samples of Norwegian households regarding home renovation in 2014, 2018, and 2023, as well as data from a sample of people who were engaged in renovation projects in 2014, which was collected by the research team with a similar online survey. Furthermore, 78 visitors completed a brief follow-up online survey one year later to report the implemented measures.

Results: We found that visitors of the websites are involved in more comprehensive renovation projects and have substantially higher ambitions for the upgrade of energy efficiency compared to the representative samples. They also perceive stronger personal and social norms, as well as have a different profile of facilitators and barriers.

Discussion: The findings suggest to policymakers that OSSs should be marketed especially to people motivated to upgrade energy efficiency but lack information and are unable to implement their plans alone. Also, the construction industry might refer interested people to such low-threshold online solutions to assist informed and more ambitious decisions.

1 Introduction

Reducing energy use in the building sector by increasing energy efficiency is a key pillar of decarbonising Europe as formulated in the EU’s “Fit for 55” legislation ( Schlacke et al., 2022 , 4). On a global level, the residential sector is the third largest energy consumer, representing 27–30% of the energy consumption, almost at the same level as transportation and industry ( Nejat et al., 2015 , 843; IEA, 2023 ). Also in Europe, the residential sector stands for 26% of final energy consumption, being the second largest consumption sector after transportation ( Tsemekidi et al., 2019 , 1). Whereas the primary energy consumption in the residential sector decreased by 4.6% between 2000 and 2016 ( Tsemekidi et al., 2019 , 9), there is still a substantial untapped potential for further improvement of energy efficiency in the sector. This can be achieved through energy efficiency renovation of the existing building stock ( Pohoryles et al., 2020 , 11–12). Realizing this potential requires that also private house owners invest in energy efficiency measures. However, the annual rate of housing renovation in Europe is only about 1% ( Biere-Arenas and Marmolejo-Duarte, 2022 , 185), which is far too slow to reach the ambitious energy conservation targets. Besides, not all of those renovations include energy efficiency improvements. This raises the question of how property owners make decisions about renovating and energy efficiency measures and how they can be efficiently supported in these processes. To alleviate this problem, one-stop-shops (OSS), which are places where interested citizens can get counseling and support for the whole process of an energy retrofit, have gained a lot of attention lately as a means to support citizens in the matter of energy retrofits also from the European Union (as for example reflected in recently finished EU projects like “EUROPE one stop” or “ProRetro”).

1.1 One-stop-shops in energy counseling

Bertoldi et al. (2021 , 3–12) analysed the role of OSSs across Europe. They concluded that OSSs may be able to address some of the main barriers that households face when deciding about energy efficiency renovations. Often, these barriers can be categorized as economic (upfront costs, need for loan, split incentives between landlords and renters/disagreement between owners), information (information asymmetries, outcome uncertainties, incorrect beliefs), and decision-making (limited attention, social invisibility of the action, cognitive burden, loss aversion, status quo bias). Their analysis of 63 OSSs over Europe showed that the services the OSSs offer differ considerably, as do their business models. Some of them are public entities that often offer services for free, others are commercial enterprises. Their clients are usually homeowners living in relatively old buildings, and only a few of them work with social housing. Also Bagaini et al. (2022 , 3–4) analysed and categorized 29 OSS initiative around Europe and formulated five key elements on which the different OSS differed: (a) value proposition, (b) services, (c) partnership management, (d) revenue stream, and (e) shared value. Based on these dimensions, they destilled three archetypes for OSS models: They refer to them as the Facilitation Model (mostly focused on providing information to homeowners without a revenue generation model behind), the Coordination Model (also taking in a project management role with the contractors and generating revenue by fixed fees), and the Development Model (similar to the Coordination Model but with a revenue generated dynamically from the shared energy savings). Along similar lines, Pardalis et al. (2022) compared publicly and privately funded OSSs. In addition to the facilitation and the coordination model they separate the development model into “all inclusive models” (where the renovation process is fully managed by the OSS under one single contract, but energy savings are not guaranteed) and “ESCO models” (where Energy Service Companies−ESCOs−manage the whole renovation package and also guarantee energy savings). Whereas publicly funded OSSs are evaluated as providing homeowners with crucial services at the right time, privately funded OSSs struggle more with generating revenue and providing access to financing.

According to Bertoldi et al. (2021) , a key activity all of the surveyed OSSs cover is the assessment of the status quo, which is done in different ways (sometimes as a guided online self-assessment). Then, a stage of guidance toward possible measures is started, usually resulting in an individual renovation plan. In the next stage, financing is secured (either directly or indirectly, for example by supporting applications for subsidies). In the implementation stage, OSSs either manage the implementation themselves or recommend contractors who will do that. Often OSSs are involved in quality assurance of the implemented measures afterwards, sometimes certifying the result. Some OSSs also monitor the building after the energy upgrade to support the clients, often through a contract where financial benefits are shared between the OSS and the client (often in ESCO models). Finally, most OSSs also engage in campaigns for energy efficiency in buildings to increase awareness.

McGinley et al. (2020 , 355–57) formulate some key considerations for OSS design. They define OSS as offering full-service retrofitting, including initial building evaluation and thorough analysis, proposal of retrofitting solutions, retrofit execution, and quality assurance. However, they also state that little is known about characteristics and motivations of households that are drawn to OSS and how household decisions are impacted by OSSs, a research gap we aim to fill with this paper.

A number of recent EU projects have addressed the issue of OSSs in detail. In particular, the “EUROPA one stop” project (europaonestop.eu) is interesting as it created an online platform (SUNShINE−savehomesave.eu) to connect homeowners, facility managers, and contractors working on energy efficiency upgrades and provide them with easy access tools to online diagnose their renovation potential. This platform is structurally comparable with the platforms analysed in this paper and can be considered a concept following the facilitation model. However, to understand how homeowners may be affected by OSSs, it is important to take a look at decision-making processes.

1.2 Psychological drivers of implementing energy efficiency in renovation of privately owned dwellings

In a detailed study of decision-making about energy retrofits in Norwegian households data of which was also used as a comparison for this study, Klöckner and Nayum (2017 , 1014) found that an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour ( Ajzen, 1991 , 182; Klöckner, 2013 , 1032) formed a viable theoretical framework to structure these decision processes. They were able to show that personal norms, positive attitudes, and high self-efficacy were the decisive factors for forming intentions to include energy efficiency upgrades in renovation projects. Social norms were closely related to personal norms and an important trigger of these. More distal factors were problem awareness, value orientations, perceived consumer effectiveness, and innovativeness. The most central concepts are briefly introduced in the next paragraph.

In this context, personal norms are a feeling of moral obligation to invest in better energy efficiency. Positive attitudes are the overall evaluation of the pros and cons of the decision to invest. That is how good or bad this would be, all taken into account. Self-efficacy captures how capable one feels to implement the investment, a factor that most likely will be directly affected by engaging with an OSS. Following the theoretical framework as outlined and tested by Klöckner and Nayum (2017 , 1014), an intention to invest will thus be formed: (a) if people feel that they are morally obliged to do that because wasting energy is a bad thing which is more likely; (b) if other people who are important to them support this view. Furthermore, c) a positive attitude to energy efficiency investments d) and a high self-efficacy (i.e., knowing how to implement these measures and/or who to contract to do it) also contribute. As attitudes are a combination of positive and negative beliefs about the behavioral alternatives that people choose between ( Ajzen, 1996 , 385–403), a closer look at assumed barriers and facilitators underlying those alternatives could help in understanding the decision process further, as discussed in the next section.

1.3 Barriers and facilitators of energy efficiency measures in buildings

A number of studies analyzed facilitators of or barriers against implementing energy efficiency in a residential building from different theoretical and methodological perspectives. In his PhD thesis, Pardalis (2021 , 60) finds, based on an online survey with almost 1000 homeowners in Sweden, that the house age and time lived in a house but also energy concern trigger the decision to renovate. These factors are, again, influenced by sociodemographic factors of the occupants. Thus, structural aspects seem of importance as drivers of the retrofit decision.

Digging deeper into the decision process, Xue et al. (2022 , 5) conducted interviews with 39 professionals in the retrofit market to identify barriers to energy retrofitting from the perspective of the public sector, the private sector, and the owners who conduct the retrofit. They found financial issues as the most important barrier in all three groups. For owners who are supposed to implement energy efficiency measures, they further named lack of information, lack of creative models or cases, risks connected to the project, trust, and negative social influence as important barriers. Also, problems of reaching an agreement, time consuming processes, limited added value, and concerns about payback time were named.

Many of these aspects were also reflected in another qualitative study. Klöckner et al. (2013 , 406–408) interviewed 70 Norwegians on drivers and barriers regarding energy efficiency behaviour. They found that economic barriers (e.g., lack of investment money), motivational barriers (e.g., too much effort, loss of comfort, low perceived efficacy), structural barriers (e.g., building structure, ownership), and informational barriers (e.g., lack of trust, uncertainty, lack of specific information) were central.

Departing from practice theory in an ethnographic study of renovation projects, Judson and Maller (2014) interviewed 49 Australians involved in renovation projects and unraveled the process of renovation even more. They found that renovation projects, to a large degree, are shaped and reshaped by the existing or evolving practices people have within their buildings. Energy efficiency is traded off against other needs and meanings, negotiation between different household members occur, and focus shifts dynamically. Some parts of the home have a meaning for its inhabitants as part of their daily practices which cannot just be changed to enhance energy efficiency.

With a quantitative perspective, Klöckner and Nayum (2016 , 5) studied barriers in different stages of renovation processes in a representative sample of Norwegian households. Their findings indicate that facilitators like perceived increase in comfort, anticipated better living conditions or increased marked value were important in the early stages of decision making. Information about subsidy schemes or trustworthy information about the procedures came out as important at a later stage when planning was more advanced. Correspondingly, some barriers like building protection regulations, planning to move soon, or not owning the building were relevant already early in the process before people started even thinking about an energy retrofit, whereas barriers like too much disturbance of everyday life, contractors with a lack of competence, the need to supervise contractors, or a lack of economic resources were turned out to be relevant barriers later in the process. A particularly important barrier appeared to be the feeling that “the right point in time for a larger renovation project has not come, yet”.

In an economic modeling approach comparing expected utility theory (which assumes that decision makers chose the alternative with the best possible utility for them) and cumulative prospect theory (which assumes that decisions about investments are strongly affected by specific decision biases), Ebrahimigharehbaghi et al. (2022) found that cumulative prospect theory, which takes biases like “reference dependence” (utility changes are interpreted differently with respect to difference reference points), “loss aversion” (losses weigh higher than gains of the same size), “diminishing sensitivity” (avoiding risk for positive outcomes but taking risks for negative outcomes), and “probability weighting” (events with low probability but more extreme outcomes are overestimated) is much better equipped to predict homeowners investments in home energy efficiency in a large sample from the Netherlands than classical expected utility theory. This shows that people’s decision-making in such cases takes other aspects than economic utility into consideration to a large degree.

Studies such as the ones briefly mentioned above show that the selection of aspects that can interfere with or facilitate a decision-making process about energy retrofits is plentiful. In addition, they even have different importance depending on where in the process a decision-maker is. This makes it demanding to provide the most helpful support for decision-makers in the residential sector. It seems important to provide the right information at the right time to the right people, which underscores the need for careful targeting and timing of information provision. Flexible and interactive online counseling systems, which can take people through all stages of the process, similar OSSs, may be a way to find a good balance between resources needed and effects achieved in targeted energy counseling. Interestingly, Pardalis (2021 , 66) asked homeowners what would be most important for them with respect to OSSs, and guarantees for costs and quality, as well as having one contact and one contract and a preliminary check and counseling were on top of the list, directly addressing some of the issues identified as barriers in many of the studies above.

1.4 The present study

Summarizing what has been outlined in the introduction, energy efficiency upgrades of residential buildings are a major contributor to reaching the targets of the energy transition of the European Union. However, the private residential sector is lagging behind in this process. Renovation rates of the aging building stock are low. Even when the buildings are renovated, energy efficiency measures are not always implemented. In cases where some energy efficiency measures are included, they are often not to the standard that would be recommendable. One-stop-shops have been heavily promoted recently as a way of removing the burden of planning, financing, and implementing a deep renovation project from the individual house owners. Consequently, many such services have been implemented around Europe with differing business models, financing, and mandate. However, relatively little is known about who uses these services and what effect they have on their users. Especially, it is unknown to a large degree how interacting with a low-threshold digital OSS following a facilitation model shapes its users’ perception of barriers and facilitators of a retrofit decision, and if it affects their motivations and ambitions for this project. This research gap is addressed by the present study. More specifically, we are analysing if visitors of energy efficiency counceling websites differ in their engagement in retrofits, their energy efficiency ambitions, the profile of psychological variables, the drivers and barriers from representative samples of the population and a sample of home renovators.

Our study is, thus, contributing to the literature by providing new insights into how natural users of websites with OSS characteristics differ from the general population of homeowners on a number of psychological and socio-demographic characteristics. This helps on the one hand to identify who are the target group for such low-threshold website services, but on the other hand, we also provide an assessment if their renovation ambitions, and especially the level to which they intend to implement energy efficiency measures in these updates differs after they visited the service. Through a one-year follow-up, we can also provide an assessment of to which degree the planned measures were implemented. Taken together, the focus on primarily psychological drivers and barriers of energy efficiency investments in homes for a very specific target group in comparison to large, representative samples of homeowners paints a new, and informative picture of who the users of these websites are not only socio-demographically, but also psychologically, what they are looking for on these websites, and to which degree the websites support them in their pathway towards more energy efficient homes. Being able to run the comparisons of a relatively large sample of website users to several, large representative comparison samples which were surveyed with the same methodology in the same country over the course of 10 years provides an unique opportunity to understand the target group.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 study design.

For this study, we collected responses from users of two online energy efficiency counseling websites, which have a similar structure that might be conceptualized as OSS following a facilitating model. These websites offer an analysis of the current energy standard of privately owned residential buildings (either as a guided self-assessment or based on data from the Norwegian building registry). They can also suggest a rough renovation plan and connect the homeowner to potential contractors who can implement energy efficiency measures. Moreover, they can provide information about costs, pay-off rates, subsidies (incl. information on how to apply), etc. Energismart.no is promoted by the environmental organization Friends of the Earth Norway, whereas energiportalen.no is promoted by Viken county. From January 2022 until January 2023, participants for the study were recruited from natural visitors of both websites by messages on the websites and pop-up windows, which promoted participation in our study and provided a link to the online questionnaire. We thus recruited people who visited the websites out of their own interest without promoting using the websites from our end. This sampling strategy was chosen to recruit a ecologically valid group of website users.

In the online survey, participants were then asked about their plans for retrofitting their homes, recently finished or ongoing retrofitting projects, the ambitions for energy efficiency upgrades as part of these retrofits, and psychological drivers and barriers of the decisions.

Since randomization of users of the websites was not possible, as people self-assigned to the websites, we chose a comparison group design, where we compared the means and distributions of key variables in our survey against representative homeowner data collected in 2014, 2018, and 2023 ( Klöckner and Nayum, 2016 , 2017 ; Egner and Klöckner, 2021 ; Egner et al., 2021 ; Peng and Klöckner, 2024 ) with the same survey instrument (see Table 1 for an overview of the survey samples). Because of that design, we are unable to draw causal conclusions, but we can get indications for differences between the samples (for a deeper discussion, see the limitations section below). We were also not able to survey our participants before they entered the websites. Thus, we do not know if the described differences were already there before they used the website, or which differences were caused by the website visit. It is likely that people visit such counseling websites when they already have developed an interest for the information presented there. Thus, some of the differences will have existed already pre-visit. Especially some of the drivers and barriers, but also some parts of the psychological profile might fall into that category and it is important to keep this in mind when interpreting the results. Furthermore, we do not know how long people stayed on the websites, what they read, and how much they used the information to adapt their renovation strategy, which would have given us more insights into their user experience. However, we believe that comparing the visitors to representative homeowners from different historical points in time in the same country surveyed with the same questionnaire can give us some relevant insights and at least input for generating new hypotheses.

Table 1. Overview of sample statistics in the different samples.

Differences between the samples were identified by comparing 95% confidence intervals for the means. Non-overlapping confidence intervals were interpreted as significant mean differences. Effect sizes for the differences are presented in Supplementary Appendix Table 1 .

One year after the participants answered the survey, we approached them again with a short survey asking if and which retrofitting measures had been implemented in the meantime and if not, why. The follow-up survey was sent to every participant who agreed to be contacted again.

The surveys conducted in all different studies compared here were collected through an online survey platform operated by the University of Oslo (Nettskjema.no). The questions used for the analyses presented in this paper composed only part of the questionnaires; we describe only the relevant questions below. The full survey can be found in the data repository together with the dataset. 1

2.2.1 Sociodemographic information

In the surveys, participants were asked about their gender, age, highest education level, gross household income (in the 2023 data collection, individual gross income was recorded), the type of house they lived in, and if they owned or rented etheir dwellings. The categories of these variables can be found in Table 1 .

2.2.2 Deep renovation

To capture if the participants were just finished, engaged in, or planning what we refer to as a “deep renovation” project, we asked them the following questions:

(1) Within the previous three years, were you involved in a renovation project that involved (a) substantial work on the roof like replacing all tiles, (b) replacing at least 50% of the outer walls, (c) replacing at least 50% of the window area, and/or (d) substantial work on the foundation? This definition was developed for the 2014 study in a collaboration of the researchers behind the studies and the Norwegian Energy Efficiency Agency Enova and used in the same form in all data collections since. The aim of this definition was to differentiate larger renovation projects from smaller, more cosmetic renovation projects.

(2) Are you currently involved in a renovation project according to the definition above or are you planning to engage in such a renovation project within the next three years?

However, the definition does not automatically assume that energy efficiency measures are included in the deep renovation project.

The ambition level of these renovation projects was measured by how many of the four components they (are planning to) implement, and it ranges from 1 to 4.

2.2.3 Energy efficiency upgrade

If participants answered “yes” to either or both of the questions presented in the previous section, they were asked if that renovation project included, includes or is planned to include (a) additional insulation of the roof of at least 10 cm, (b) adding additional insulation to the walls of at least 5 cm, (c) energy saving windows with a μ-value of 1.0 or lower, (d) at least 5 cm additional insulation to the foundation walls, (e) installation of mechanical ventilation, and/or (f) installation of balanced ventilation. Also here, the definition of these measures was agreed upon with Enova in 2014 to represent a substantial improvement in the energy standard of the respective building component. For our analyses, we counted the number of these measures that had been/were planned to be implemented in the deep renovation project. The number could thus be between 0 and 6.

2.2.4 Personal norms, social norms, attitudes, and efficiency

Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour ( Ajzen, 1991 , 182) extended by personal norms from the Norm-Activation Model ( Schwartz and Howard, 1981 ), four psychological variables are central to understand people’s intentions: attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioral control or behavioral efficacy, and personal norms. Each of these variables was measured by two items in the surveys, with a 7-point Likert scale from −3 to +3. Higher values indicate stronger norms, attitudes, or efficacy.

The two items to measure social norms were “People who influence my decisions think I should insulate my home” and “People who are important to me think I should retrofit my home”. The two items to measure perceived efficacy were “I know which person or company I need to contact to have my home professionally insulated” and “I know what I need to do to insulate my home”. The two items to measure personal norms were “Because of my values/principles, I feel obliged to insulate my home” and “I feel personally obliged to retrofit my home”. For each pair of items, the mean score was calculated and used in subsequent analyses.

Attitudes were measured with four semantic differentials: “Increasing the energy standard of my home would be (a) useless−useful, (b) uncomfortable−comfortable, (c) unfavorable−favorable, and (d) bad−good”. Each pair has −3 as the anchor for the negative word and +3 as the anchor for the positive word. For further analyses, the mean of the four items was calculated.

All items had been used in an identical way since the first study in 2014, as documented elsewhere ( Klöckner and Nayum, 2016 , 2017 ). In the 2023 data collection, different answering scales were used, therefore the results are not comparable and are not reported here ( Peng and Klöckner, 2024 ).

2.2.5 Barriers and facilitators

Finally, a list of potential barriers and facilitators of energy efficiency upgrades was presented in random order to the participants, asking how much they agreed with each item. The items can be found in the Supplementary Appendix . These lists were derived from a qualitative study on reasons why Norwegians upgrade or decide not to upgrade energy standards of their dwellings ( Klöckner et al., 2013 ). In the 2023 data collection, different answering scales had been used, therefore the results are not comparable and are not reported here.

2.3 Sample and comparison groups

The sample of counseling website users was recruited from the first week of January 2022 to the first week of January 2023. In total, 437 answers were collected. These answers were not equally distributed over the year, however, as ( Figure 1 ) shows. Whereas relatively many responses were collected in winter and early spring 2022, the interest was reduced in late spring and summer before it skyrocketed after summer 2022, as well as in winter 2023. This coincided with electricity price peaks in Norway (especially in the South) and media discussions about that topic. Thus, a first conclusion can already be that the interest in using energy efficiency counseling websites clearly follows the pattern of the energy price fluctuation and accompanying societal discussion.

Figure 1. Number of participants recruited for the counseling website user survey per week in 2022 (the line is the moving average).

Table 1 below shows the sociodemographic statistics of the sample from the counseling websites in comparison to the existing samples in detail. As can be seen, the samples are comparable on most of the dimensions. All samples contain close to 50% males and females (with the most deviation in the sample of renovators from 2014). The average age is around 50 years in all samples, with the youngest average age in the 2023 population sample and the oldest average age in the sample of the users of the websites. Education varies quite strongly, with the population sample from 2014 being the outlier with far lower education level than all other samples. Participants recruited from the counseling websites had the highest education level. The median household gross income category is the same in most samples. However, it is lower in the 2014 population sample and higher in the sample of people who answered the one-year follow-up after the visit on the counseling websites. Income categories of the 2023 sample cannot be compared, as individual gross income was recorded in that data collection. However, it can be extrapolated that the average household income would be comparable to the other samples. The proportion of people living in detached houses is particularly high in the sample of website users and the renovator sample from 2014. Also, the level of people owning their dwelling is close to 100% in these groups and a little lower in all other groups. As a conclusion, it can be said that the samples are comparable on most dimensions. Meanwhile, the website users are most similar to the people who were recruited as being in a renovation project in 2014. That is, they are more likely better educated, more likely to live in a detached house, and more likely to own their dwelling than representative samples of Norwegian households.

In the following section, we present the results of the comparison of the counseling website users with the other available samples. To do this, we examine the 95% confidence intervals as displayed in the figures for overlaps between the group of website users and the other groups. As the data is partly in separate datasets, we did not calculate formal significance tests, but a non-overlapping 95% confidence interval corresponds to an assumed significant difference between the respective groups. The numbers for the website users are always highlighted in the figures. Effect sizes are reported in Supplementary Appendix Table 1 . An overview of all results can be found in Table 2 .

Table 2. Summary of the differences between the website visitors and the representative homeowner samples from 2014, 2018, and 2023, as well as the renovator sample from 2014.

3.1 Engagement in deep renovation

As can be seen in Figure 2 , the percentage of people who were involved in a deep renovation project is higher in the group of counseling website users than in all three population samples. The same can be said for the ongoing or planned deep renovation projects, which are also more common for people visiting the energy counseling websites. Only the group that was specifically recruited in 2014 to only contain respondents who either just had been, were still, and/or were planning a deep renovation project in the near future has higher numbers (which is not surprising). Interestingly, the number of finished and planned projects in the population sample is lower in 2023 than in 2018 and 2014, likely an effect of renovation saturation after COVID years.

Figure 2. Percentage of households per group who were, are or plan to be in a deep renovation project (see definition in the text). The columns with the bold lines are the users of the counseling websites, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals (CI), non-overlapping CI are regarded as indicating a statistically significant difference.

Among the users of the energy counseling websites, the ambition level is higher than in any other group, both for finished, ongoing and planned projects (see Figure 3 ). This means that they are engaged in slightly larger projects, involving more of the four different potential measures (walls, windows, roof, foundation). Thus, these people probably are or plan to be involved in more comprehensive renovation projects.

Figure 3. Ambition of the deep renovation (how many different measures are included of walls, windows, roof, and basement). The columns with the bold lines are the users of the counseling websites, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals (CI), non-overlapping CI are regarded as indicating a statistically significant difference.

3.2 Energy efficiency ambitions

When looking at the level of ambitions for integrating energy efficiency upgrades in the renovation projects, the picture is even more interesting (see Figure 4 ). Among the users of the energy counseling websites, the ambition level is substantially higher than in any other group, both for finished, ongoing, and planned projects. On a side note, even if the total percentage of people involved in deep renovation was lower in the population in 2023 than in 2014 and 2018, the degree to which energy efficiency measures are included is increasing as can be seen in Figures 2 , 4 . This may be an effect of the energy crisis in Europe in 2022.

Figure 4. Ambition of the energy retrofit as part of the renovation (how many different energy efficiency measures are included of more insulation of walls, better windows, more insulation of roof and basement, balanced ventilation system, and heat pump). The columns with the bold lines are the users of the counseling websites, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals (CI), non-overlapping CI are regarded as indicating a statistically significant difference.

3.3 Psychological drivers

When comparing the psychological profiles of the website users to the population profiles from 2014 and 2018, it can be seen that the website users have substantially higher personal norms. This indicates that they feel more moral pressure to increase the energy efficiency of their dwellings (see Figure 5 ). They also feel stronger social norms, meaning more social pressure from their peers to engage in such energy upgrades. For attitudes, the differences are smaller. Meanwhile, the attitudes are slightly more positive than for the population samples, on the same level as for the renovators in 2014. Interestingly, despite small differences, the website users have the lowest perceived self-efficacy, especially compared to the renovators in 2014. In contrast to renovators in 2014, they feel less convinced that they know how to go about for the renovations.

Figure 5. Means in key psychological variables driving the decision to renovate and energy upgrade. The bold black line is the sample from the counseling websites, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals (CI), non-overlapping CI are regarded as indicating a statistically significant difference.

3.4 Facilitators and barriers of energy efficiency upgrades

Figures 6 , 7 show how the website users perceive facilitators and barriers of energy efficiency upgrades of their dwellings in comparison to people in the other samples. For some facilitators and barriers, differences are substantial: counseling website users expect more comfort, a cost reduction, a house that is better to live in, increased property value, and less waste of energy as a result of the renovation. They score the lowest of all samples, though, on availability of information, payback time, and availability of subsidy.

Figure 6. Means in key facilitators for an energy upgrade. The bold black line is the sample from the counseling websites, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals (CI), non-overlapping CI are regarded as indicating a statistically significant difference.

Figure 7. Means in key barriers towards an energy upgrade. The bold black line is the sample from the counseling websites, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals (CI), non-overlapping CI are regarded as indicating a statistically significant difference.

For the barriers, they score particularly high on perceptions of the renovation taking too much time, on lack of money, difficulty of finding information, a lack of ability to decide what to do, and a lack of capable contractors. They score lower on perceptions of it not being the right time to act.

3.5 Implemented energy efficiency actions

In the one-year follow-up, the participants of the energy counseling website survey were contacted again and asked if they implemented the planned actions. 201 participants (46.0% of all participants) gave permission to be contacted a year after the initial survey was completed, and 78 (38.8% of all who were willing to be contacted) answered the short follow-up survey.

Of the 78 participants, 25 stated that they implemented the energy efficiency upgrades that they were planning to implement (32.1%). 29.2% of these changed at least 50% of the outer walls, 45.8% worked on the roof, 45.8% on the windows, and 37.5% on the foundation walls.

Of the 25 who implemented the measures, 15 added at least 5 cm insulation to the walls, 13 installed highly efficient windows (μ = 1.0 or smaller), 13 installed new mechanical ventilation, 12 insulated the roof with at least 10 cm additional insulation, 10 insulated the foundation walls with at least 5 additional cm of insulation, and 7 installed a balanced ventilation system. In addition to these measures, 11 installed heat pumps, 11 installed clean-burning wood stoves, and 5 installed solar panels on their houses. Overall, the measures taken were fairly ambitious.

The main reasons for not implementing the planned measures among the remaining participants of the follow-up were lack of economic funding (57.1%), lack of subsidies (42.9%), and that the time was not right, yet, to start the renovation, again reflecting some of the main barriers indicated in the introduction.

4 Discussion

The study conducted with the users of two energy efficiency counseling websites had three aims: (a) finding out if users of the website differed from representative samples of Norwegian households in terms of engagement in retrofits and have higher ambitions for their renovation projects and the energy efficiency measures embedded in them, (b) finding out if they differ in the psychological profile in central variables driving the decision-making process, and (c) finding out if they perceive facilitators and barriers in this process differently than representative samples of households. Furthermore, a follow-up study aimed to find out how many participants implement their ambitions up to a year later.

For all three main questions, we find substantial differences. Whereas the website users are mostly comparable to the general population of Norwegian households regarding socio-demographics (but have a higher education level and an even smaller percentage of people renting their dwelling, which reflects well the drivers for renovation projects as identified by Pardalis, 2021 ), their psychological profile differs in two important points. Compared to all other samples (also including the renovators studied in 2014), the website users have far higher levels of personal norms−they feel they really should do something about the energy standard of their homes−and also higher social norms. Considering the importance of these two factors for intentions to implement energy renovations ( Klöckner and Nayum, 2017 , 1014), this finding is relevant. Having such high levels of these two variables makes it more likely that people will form intentions to improve the energy standard of their homes. It also indicates that people like these are a prime target group for interventions like OSSs: They are already motivated to take action because they have high energy-related moral standards, and they feel the social pressure of their peer groups.

Since we could not survey these people before they went to the website, we do not know if they had such high personal and social norm values already before the visit to the website. On the other hand, since one of the websites is promoted by the environmental organization Friends of the Earth Norway, it can be assumed that this is the case. Interestingly, users of the counseling websites had a slightly lower level of self-efficacy, especially compared to the renovators from 2014. This implies that a lower level of self-efficacy might be a barrier to implement the intentions they form, and maybe also a reason for visiting the websites. Again, this means that this group is a very attractive target group for OSS-type interventions: Alleviating the low self-efficacy is something a well-designed OSS can achieve by reducing uncertainties, providing requested information, and not the least making the link between the urge to act on the side of the homeowners and the competence the homeowners are lacking provided by skilled and trustworthy contractors. This finding is, again, very much in line with what Pardalis (2021) found as being the most important features of OSSs from the perspective of potential users.

Also in terms of facilitators and barriers analysed, counseling website users had some values substantially different from the other groups. In particular, increased expected comfort levels, expected cost reductions, and expectations of having a better house to live in after the renovation were more important facilitators for website users than for the population samples or the renovators. Expecting an increased value of the house after the renovation was also higher than for the population samples, but at the same level as for the renovators. Perceiving the current energy standards a waste was standing out again for the website users. This indicates that they enter the process with a different, more energy interested perspective (or they get convinced of that by visiting the website). Interestingly, counseling website users score lower on perceptions that information is easy to find, and that access to subsidy is available. Maybe this is also a reason why they ended up on the websites in the first place.

Among the barriers, the website users mention a lot more often the time demand for supervision and the lack of money as the main barriers. They thereby raise the need to have a facilitator (or even a manager) of the renovation process, again a function OSSs typically fill. The websites we studied are following a facilitation model, but still leave the management of the project to the homeowners. From their answers, we can conclude that many of them would actually prefer a more comprehensive model. Also here, they reiterate that they consider information hard to find, that they cannot decide what to do, and that contractors lack competence. The latter three again might be reasons for being interested in the website services in the first place. The websites seem to partly satisfy their needs, as can be seen in that a significant amount of the website visitors implement their renovation plans within a year. However, some still sit with the same lack of support and the same barriers after a year. Maybe for them, a more comprehensive OSS model with a higher degree of process management would be more appropriate. In line with the renovators from 2014, the website users are to a lesser degree unsure if the right point in time for a renovation project has come. Overall, the order of importance of renovation facilitators and barriers to a large extent reproduces what has been found in earlier studies ( Klöckner et al., 2013 ; Klöckner and Nayum, 2016 , 2017 ; Bertoldi et al., 2021 ; Xue et al., 2022 ).

Most importantly, we found that the visitors of the websites had stronger ambitions for their renovation projects, and in particular for the implementation of energy efficiency measures as part of them. Of course, we do not know if this was caused by visiting the websites or if it was already higher before they visited. Nevertheless, we can assume that there is at least some mutual influence. People with a stronger motivation, but who are unsure about how to implement, visit the websites, which then confirm their motivations and provide hands-on counseling to remove the implementation barriers. This then eventually might result in higher ambitions. This is good news for the OSS concept, even the low-threshold version of it that these websites represent ( McGinley et al., 2020 ). However, not all visitors seem to receive from these websites what they need. For the future, it might be recommendable to use low-threshold OSSs like the ones studied here following a facilitating model as an entry point but implement an (automated, maybe AI-based) detection of who would benefit from more comprehensive OSS models to channel these people to the offers that better suit their needs.

Finally, we could at least tentatively show−even if based upon only relatively few cases and subject to large sample attrition−that about 1/3 of the participants manage to implement their energy upgrade intentions. These people usually combine several measures and implement a deep renovation. For these people, the websites seem to have pushed them in the right direction without too much effort. As such, these websites have their niche as gatekeepers for a deeper process for some people, as the final push and reassurance for others.

5 Limitations and future research needs

Even if the study presented here shows some interesting results in a field where more research is needed, there are a number of limitations that are mostly caused by the design we had to choose. The biggest limitation of this study is that the participants recruited among the website users were, for obvious reasons, not randomly assigned to use the website but self-selected, and they were not surveyed before the visit on the website, a limitation that was already discussed in the methodology section. In addition, the users of the website fall into a narrower sociodemographic category than the population samples, though they seem to be rather comparable with people engaged in renovation projects six years prior to our study. Furthermore, we do not know how long people stayed on the websites, what they read, and how much they used the information to adapt their renovation strategy.

To address these limitations, studies with more controlled experimental designs would be advisable. Assigning participants randomly to different conditions (including no OSS, and different models of OSS) would give a better understanding of what the effects of the OSS are and what differences people come with in the process. Such a study could also test, whether different forms of OSS interact with different sociodemographic and psychological profiles of homeowners. In simple words, it might answer the question, which form of OSS works for which type of homeowner.

6 Conclusion

One-stop-shops have been promoted as a measure to overcome the inertia in energy efficiency retrofitting, especially in the privately owned residential building stock. Results from our study on users of two Norwegian energy efficiency counseling websites, which offer services in many ways similar to an OSS following a facilitator model, show that the users of these websites clearly differ from representative samples of Norwegian households that were surveyed with similar instruments. Their profiles were more like a sample of people who were in the beginning or in the middle of a larger renovation project, which was surveyed in 2014. However, the results also show that they are scoring substantially lower on their perceived access to information and subsidy. Regarding the psychological profiles, they were much more strongly motivated by personal and social norms than average households. Most importantly, it appears that visitors of such low-threshold websites have substantially higher ambitions for the energy upgrades, which about 1/3 of them have implemented a year after they visited the websites. Interest in online energy efficiency counseling services seems to be impacted by societal discussions about energy and/or by energy prices, as suggested by the spike in recruitment to our survey coinciding with an energy price increase during 2022 (however, this intriguing possibility will need to be confirmed in future studies). From a policy perspective, the results are interesting because they indicate that low-threshold OSSs can be gateways capturing people who are motivated for energy efficiency upgrades but not able to make the decision for several reasons. For some of them, the services that these relatively simple online platforms can offer is already enough to reduce their uncertainty and make the missing connections. For those still not satisfied after visiting these platforms, future developments should explore whether they can be automatically directed to more comprehensive forms of OSSs.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://zenodo.org/records/10453810 .

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

CK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. AN: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. SV: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of the article. This study has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 957115 as part of the ENCHANT project: www.enchant-project.eu. Data for three of the comparison groups for the analyses was extracted from two previous projects funded by the Norwegian Energy Efficiency Agency, and one comparison group was extracted from data from an ongoing project funded by the Research Council of Norway (BEHAVIOUR, Project No. 308772).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1364980/full#supplementary-material

^ https://zenodo.org/records/12605729

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ajzen, I. (1996). “The directive influence of attitudes on behavior,” in The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior , eds M. G. Peter and J. A. Bargh (New York, NY: The Guilford Press), 385–403. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778

Bagaini, A., Croci, E., and Molteni, T. (2022). Boosting energy home renovation through innovative business models: ONE-STOP-SHOP solutions assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 331:129990. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129990

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bertoldi, P., Boza-Kiss, B., Valle, N. D., and Economidou, M. (2021). The role of one-stop shops in energy renovation-a comparative analysis of OSSs cases in Europe. Energy Build. 250:111273. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111273

Biere-Arenas, R., and Marmolejo-Duarte, C. (2022). “One stop shops on housing energy retrofit. European cases, and its recent implementation in Spain,” in Proceedings of the international conference on sustainability in energy and buildings , (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 185–196.

Google Scholar

Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Qian, Q. K., de Vries, G., and Visscher, H. J. (2022). Application of cumulative prospect theory in understanding energy retrofit decision: A study of homeowners in the Netherlands. Energy Build. 261:111958.

Egner, L. E., Christian, A. K., and Giuseppe, P.-M. (2021). Low free-riding at the cost of subsidizing the rich. Replicating Swiss energy retrofit subsidy findings in Norway. Energy Build . 253:111542.

Egner, L. E., and Klöckner, C. A. (2021). Temporal spillover of private housing energy retrofitting: Distribution of home energy retrofits and implications for subsidy policies. Energy Policy 157:112451.

IEA (2023). Building. Available online at: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings (accessed July 01, 2024).

Judson, E., and Maller, C. (2014). Housing renovations and energy efficiency: Insights from homeowners’ practices. Build. Res. Inform. 42, 501–511.

Klöckner, C. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour–A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1028–1038.

Klöckner, C., and Nayum, A. (2016). Specific barriers and drivers in different stages of decision-making about energy efficiency upgrades in private homes. Front. Psychol. 7:1362. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01362

Klöckner, C., and Nayum, A. (2017). Psychological and structural facilitators and barriers to energy upgrades of the privately owned building stock. Energy 140, 1005–1017.

Klöckner, C., Sopha, B. M., Matthies, E., and Bjørnstad, E. (2013). Energy efficiency in Norwegian households–identifying motivators and barriers with a focus group approach. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 12, 396–415.

McGinley, O., Moran, P., and Goggins, J. (2020). “Key considerations in the design of a one-stop-shop retrofit model,” in Civil Engineering Research in Ireland vol . 5. Available online at: https://sword.cit.ie/ceri/2020/13/5

Nejat, P., Jomehzadeh, F., Taheri, M. M., Gohari, M., Zaimi, M., and Majid, A. (2015). A global review of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43, 843–862. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.066

Pardalis, G. (2021). Prospects for the development of a one-stop-shop business model for energy-efficiency renovations of detached houses in Sweden. Gothenburg: Linnaeus University Press.

Pardalis, G., Mahapatra, K., and Mainali, B. (2022). Comparing public-and private-driven one-stop-shops for energy renovations of residential buildings in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 365:132683. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132683

Peng, Y., and Klöckner, C. A. (2024). “Factors affecting Norwegian households’ adaptive energy-efficient upgrades in response to the energy crisis,” in Poster presented at the ECEEE summer study , (Lac d’Ailette). doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102498

Pohoryles, D., Maduta, C., Bournas, D. A., and Kouris, L. A. (2020). Energy performance of existing residential buildings in Europe: A novel approach combining energy with seismic retrofitting. Energy Build. 223:110024. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110024

Schlacke, S., Wentzien, H., Thierjung, E. M., and Köster, M. (2022). Implementing the EU Climate Law via the ‘Fit for 55’package. Oxford Open Energy 1:oiab002. doi: 10.1093/ooenergy/oiab002/6501634

Schwartz, S. H., and Howard, J. A. (1981). “A normative decision-making model of altruism,” in Altruism and helping behavior , eds J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum). doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5

Tsemekidi, T., Bertoldi, S. P., Diluiso, F., Castellazzi, L., Economidou, M., Labanca, N., et al. (2019). Analysis of the EU residential energy consumption: Trends and determinants. Energies 12:1065. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00367-2

Xue, Y., Temeljotov-Salaj, A., and Lindkvist, C. M. (2022). Renovating the retrofit process: People-centered business models and co-created partnerships for low-energy buildings in Norway. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 85: 102406. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102406

Keywords : energy efficiency, renovation, one-stop-shops, counseling, psychological drivers, theory of planned behaviour, personal norms, facilitators

Citation: Klöckner CA, Nayum A and Vesely S (2024) Understanding users of online energy efficiency counseling: comparison to representative samples in Norway. Front. Psychol. 15:1364980. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1364980

Received: 03 January 2024; Accepted: 18 July 2024; Published: 06 August 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Klöckner, Nayum and Vesely. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Christian A. Klöckner, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

COMMENTS

Thesis Proposal : Mechanical Engineering Communication Lab
Note: This article is partially based on the 2017-2018 MechE Graduate Student Guide (PDF).Please check the latest guide for the most-up to date formatting requirements. Criteria for Success. A strong thesis proposal… Motivates your project and introduces your audience to the state-of-the-art for the problem you're working on.; Explains the limitations in the current methods through ...
How to Write a Project Proposal
First, the proposal is reviewed, evaluated, and signed by the advisory committee. Next, the signed Proposal Evaluation Form is attached to the proposal, along with the completed Proposal Cover Sheet and submitted to the ME office for approval and signatures of the Graduate Advisor and the Department Chair. Refer to the Projects and Thesis tab ...
PDF Graduate Degree Program Proposal Example and Templates
EE 69800 research hours with the student's advisor.Ph.D.: 48 hours of course work and 42 hours of appropriate. EE 69900 research hours with the student's advisor.Full-time status requires enrollment in 8 credit hour. per semester or 6 credit hours in the summer session. Typically graduate students en.
PDF Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
MASTER'S THESIS PROPOSAL. Six hours of a research thesis are required for the MS degree in Mechanical Engineering (ME). The research is developed and conducted under the guidance of the student's Advisory Committee. Please note that, by university policy, all courses outside the thesis must be formal.
Doctoral Research Proposal
Doctoral students will write a research proposal document, which is limited to 30 pages (with 12-point font, single spacing, and 1-inch margins all around) and should contain sections describing. a plan for the completion of the research. The committee will consider whether the proposed problem is suitable for doctoral research, whether the ...
PDF Writing a Research Proposal
Writing a Research Proposal A guide for Science and Engineering students A Research Proposal has several inter-related purposes: Writing an effective research proposal also trains you in a valuable skill required to operate effectively in both academia and industry after you graduate. You are presenting a reasonable thesis idea or hypothesis, the
Top 150 Mechanical Engineering Research Topics [Updated]
Top 50 Mechanical Engineering Research Topics For Advanced. Development of advanced materials for high-temperature applications. Optimization of heat exchanger design using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) Control strategies for enhancing the performance of micro-scale heat transfer devices.
MS in Mechanical Engineering
An example of a recent MS thesis prospectus can be found in the Mechanical Engineering office. The examining committee for MS candidates completing theses should be composed of three (3) members. The committee chair is normally a full-time, tenure-track faculty member. One committee member must be from outside the ME department.
PDF Master of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering
OPTIONAL MASTER'S PROJECT PROPOSAL. Up to six hours of an optional practice-oriented project can be taken by master of engineering (MEng) students. The project is developed and conducted under the guidance of the student's Advisory Committee and is focused on a problem of interest to the practicing engineering community.
PDF Master of Science in Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
und research, historically have a lower probability of completing their degree.A Master's program of study is quite different from an undergraduate program, particularly because of the manner in which the student is expected to self. direct their thesis work, be self-motivated, and determine their own schedule. Therefore, it is impo.
PDF Guide to Graduate Study in Mechanical Engineering
The Mechanical Engineering (MechE) Department offers the following graduate degrees: 1. Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering (SMME) 2. Master of Science in Ocean Engineering (SMOE) 3. Master of Science in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (SMNAME) 4. Master of Science in Oceanographic Engineering (SMOGE, joint MIT/WHOI degree) 5.
PDF PROPOSAL FOR A NEW MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAM
The proposed Master of Science in Materials and Energy Science & Engineering (MS in MESE) represents an endeavor at UofL to create a degree enabling both UofL graduates and non-UofL graduates with Bachelor's degrees in engineering and sciences to enroll in a Master's degree program housed in the J.B. Speed School of Engineering. Currently ...
How to Write a Project Proposal
A detailed rundown of how graduate students should go about generating their project proposals for a MS in Mechanical Engineering at SJSU. COVID-19 Visit the Health Advisories website for the latest vaccination and mask information and to Report a Case.
PDF Thesis/Project Proposal Format
The format for the thesis/project proposal is: Cover Page - Title; student name, date, signature of graduate student; ECE 600 Master's Thesis: names, signatures, date of student's Graduate Committee. ECE 501 Master's Project: name, signature, date of student's Graduate Advisor. EGR 500 Engineering Internship: name, signature, date of ...
Doctoral Program
The exam consists of a written exam covering a number of areas of Mechanical Engineering. MORE Doctoral Research Proposal. In consultation with the research advisor, doctoral students will present a research proposal, which identifies a specific problem to investigate, to a three-person faculty committee. MORE Semi-annual Progress Reviews
Mechanical engineering (MS, PhD)
Innovation is at the forefront of ASU's mechanical engineering graduate program as faculty and students work side by side to research and create solutions for worldwide issues related to energy, human health and transportation. With a graduate degree from the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, you'll handle top-level research with access ...
PDF MECHANICAL PROJECT PROPOSAL
Existing Mechanical System Summary. The total cost, given by the project manager, of the MEP system was $5,271,200. The total area of the building was 103,000 ft2, yielding a cost of $51.17/ft2. This does not include approximate costs of $100,000 for commissioning and $69,100 for air balancing, hydronic balancing and commissioning support.
PDF Roposal for A Master of Science in Mechatronics
aster's programs, exist in the United States. University of Michigan offers a Master of Science in Robotics with a focus on the research and development of human-robot interactions, bio-inspired com. liant systems, robotics, and nano-manipulation. Georgia Tech is also ranked among the best universities in the US for peopl.
Project-Based Learning in a Mechanical Engineering Course: A new
Project-Based Learning in a Mechanical Engineering Course: A new proposal based on student's views. ... perceptions of undergraduates and graduate students in Mechanical Engineering. From this research, the relevant information is obtained regarding the influence of the IP's in students' curricula and as added value for the professional work ...
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Program Description. The Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering graduate program prepares students to apply physics, mathematics, and materials science to solve real-world problems. We offer MS and Ph.D. programs for students who wish to pursue research-oriented careers and the MEng program for students who wish to enter the industry as practicing ...
Example Proposal Forms
Example Proposal Forms. Below are example proposal forms for ME 290, 390, and 490. These forms are for preview purposes only. To submit a proposal please visit the RISE Student Workspace. ME 290. ME 390. ME 490. Mechanical Engineering. G.G. Brown Laboratory.
Mechanical Engineering Proposal
For some reason, engineering project proposals are drawn up. There are several engineering project proposals for you to convince potential sponsors, financial institutions, and creditors.Some engineering project proposals are also put forward that enables engineers' plans to be taken into account and approved by the company management to work or the customers who want to obtain services.
Mechanical Engineering, Ph.D.
Graduate courses in these areas, in addition to the general core graduate courses, provide the foundation for earning a PhD degree in mechanical engineering. The student must demonstrate mastery of the selected study area through the qualifying exam, the proposal of a research topic, and the defense of a research-based dissertation.
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
17 July 2024 Aerospace engineering at Sheffield ranked among the top in the Russell Group in the National Student Survey The University's subject of Aerospace Engineering has been ranked No.1 in the Russell Group by students for: teaching on my course, learning opportunities, assessment and feedback, academic support, organisation and management and the student voice.
From large labs to small teams, mentorship thrives
The nominator shared that Breazeal "understands as she progresses in her career, she needs to make sure that she is changing and creating new systems for her research group to continue to operate smoothly." Ming Guo: Emphasizing learning over achievement. Ming Guo is an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.
Regents announce Suresh Garimella as U of A presidential candidate
As president of the University of Vermont, Garimella more than doubled the university's research enterprise and strengthened state and community relationships. Garimella is a professor of mechanical engineering and a highly cited scholar and researcher, who has continued to focus on teaching and mentoring students as president, annually leading ...
Frontiers
1 Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; 2 Department of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Introduction: To achieve substantial energy efficiency improvements in the privately owned building stock, it is important to communicate with potential renovators at the right point in time and provide them with targeted information ...