A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This article reviews and evaluates the effectiveness of interventions aiming to encourage households to reduce energy consumption. Thirty-eight studies performed within the field of (applied) social and environmental psychology are reviewed, and categorized as involving either antecedent strategies (i.e. commitment, goal setting, information, modeling) or consequence strategies (i.e. feedback, rewards). Particular attention is given to the following evaluation criteria: (1) to what extent did the intervention result in behavioral changes and/or reductions in energy use, (2) were underlying behavioral determinants examined (e.g. knowledge, attitudes), (3) to what extent could effects be attributed to the interventions and, (4) were effects maintained over longer periods of time? Interestingly, most studies focus on voluntary behavior change, by changing individual knowledge and/or perceptions rather than changing contextual factors (i.e. pay-off structure) which may determine households’ behavioral decisions. Interventions have been employed with varying degrees of success. Information tends to result in higher knowledge levels, but not necessarily in behavioral changes or energy savings. Rewards have effectively encouraged energy conservation, but with rather short-lived effects. Feedback has also proven its merits, in particular when given frequently. Some important issues cloud these conclusions, such as methodological problems. Also, little attention is given to actual environmental impact of energy savings. Often, an intervention's effectiveness is studied without examining underlying psychological determinants of energy use and energy savings. Also, it is not always clear whether effects were maintained over a longer period of time. Recommendations are given to further improve intervention planning and to enhance the effectiveness of interventions.

Introduction

Household energy conservation has been a topic of interest within applied social and environmental psychological research for a number of decades. In the 1970s, the backdrop to conservation research was the energy crisis, raising concern about a possible depletion of fossil fuels. Currently, environmental problems such as global warming, and threats to biodiversity are the main reasons for studying energy conservation (Gardner & Stern, 2002).

Households constitute an important target group, being major contributors to the emission of greenhouse gases and, consequently, global warming. In 2003, households in the United States were responsible for 1214.8 million metric tons (viz. 21%) of US energy-related CO2-emissions. In addition, since 1990, emissions related to electricity use have risen by 2.4% annually, and those related to gas use have increased by 0.9% each year (US Department of Energy, 2005). In Western European countries, a similar trend can be observed. OECD figures on households’ contributions to total energy use generally range between 15% and 20% (Biesiot & Noorman, 1999). A closer look at in-home energy use of US and most Western European households reveals that it is used first and foremost for home heating, followed by heating of water, refrigeration and freezing, lighting, cooking, and air conditioning (Gardner & Stern, 2002; Milieu Centraal, 2005).

The pivotal question remains why energy use of households keeps rising. On the one hand, macro-level factors contribute to this increase. These may be referred to as TEDIC factors: technological developments (e.g. energy-intensive appliances), economic growth (e.g. increase of household incomes), demographic factors (e.g. population growth), institutional factors (e.g. governmental policies) and cultural developments (e.g. emancipation, increasing mobility of women) (see Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998). In turn, these TEDIC factors shape individual (viz., micro-level) factors such as motivational factors (e.g. preferences, attitudes), abilities and opportunities (the MOA-model, see Ölander & Thøgerson, 1995). If the aim of interventions is to reduce negative environmental impact by changing households’ consumption patterns, it is necessary to consider macro-level as well as micro-level variables (see also Gärling et al., 2002). Behavioral interventions may be aimed at voluntary behavior change, by targeting an individual's perceptions, preferences and abilities (i.e. MOA variables). Alternatively, interventions may be aimed at changing the context in which decisions are being made, for instance, through financial rewards, laws, or the provision of energy-efficient equipment (i.e. TEDIC factors). The latter strategy is aimed at changing the pay-off structure, so as to make energy-saving activities relatively more attractive. As this review will show, interventions within the realm of social and environmental psychology predominantly focus on voluntary behavior change, rather than changing contextual factors which may determine households’ behavioral decisions.

Behaviors related to household energy conservation can be divided into two categories: efficiency and curtailment behaviors (Gardner & Stern, 2002). Efficiency behaviors are one-shot behaviors and entail the purchase of energy-efficient equipment, such as insulation. Curtailment behaviors involve repetitive efforts to reduce energy use, such as lowering thermostat settings. Studies reviewed in this paper were aimed at both efficiency and/or curtailment behaviors, with the latter seeming somewhat overrepresented. This is striking, because the energy-saving potential of efficiency behaviors is considered greater than that of curtailment behaviors (e.g. Gardner & Stern, 2002). For instance, households may save more energy by properly insulating their homes than by lowering thermostat settings. It should be noted however, that energy-efficient appliances do not necessarily result in a reduction of overall energy consumption when people use these appliances more often (the so-called rebound effect, see Berkhout, Muskens, & Veldhuijsen, 2000). Here, the importance of the interplay between macro-level (e.g. technological innovations) and micro-level factors (e.g. knowledge of efficient use of technological innovations) becomes apparent.

Various social and environmental psychological studies have embarked on issues related to household energy use. One line of research focuses on testing the effectiveness of intervention strategies aiming to change energy-related behaviors. Another line of research is theory driven and aims to identify underlying determinants of energy use, such as attitudes (e.g. Becker, Seligman, Fazio, & Darley, 1981) and socio-demographics (e.g. Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985). In some studies, both the effectiveness of an intervention as well as (changes in) underlying determinants of energy use are monitored simultaneously (e.g. Geller, 1981; Staats, Wit, & Midden, 1996). The latter give additional insight into reasons why interventions were successful or not, and as such, they are a starting point for the further enhancement of an intervention's effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, empirical studies on the effectiveness of interventions to promote household energy conservation are reviewed. The aim is to come to consistent findings with respect to the effectiveness of these interventions. It is examined which factors determine an intervention's success or failure. Interventions are more effective to the extent that they target determinants of energy use and energy savings (e.g. attitudes, knowledge). Second, based on the strengths and shortcomings of the research reviewed here, suggestions are given on how to improve our understanding and knowledge of effective intervention planning. In doing so, this review aims to complement and update previous reviews on energy conservation and other pro-environmental behaviors (e.g. Cook & Berrenberg, 1981; DeYoung, 1993; Dwyer, Leeming, Cobern, Porter, & Jackson, 1993; Geller, 2002; Schultz, Oskamp, & Mainieri, 1995; Stern, 1992; Winett & Kagel, 1984).

Section snippets

Selection procedure

Various social and environmental psychological journals and databases (e.g. PSYCHLit, WebSPIRS) were consulted. Further, reference lists of articles were used to locate additional published material. This search resulted in a total of 38 peer-reviewed (i.e. quality guarantee) studies, dating from 1977 to 2004. These studies were mostly field experiments, using quasi-experimental designs. One single study was conducted in a laboratory setting.

In order to be selected for review, the study had to

Antecedent Interventions

In this section, studies are discussed using antecedent interventions to promote household energy conservation. As mentioned earlier, antecedent interventions influence one or more determinants prior to the performance of behavior. That is, interventions (e.g. information) are aimed at influencing underlying behavioral determinants (e.g. knowledge), which in turn are believed to influence behavior. The following interventions are considered antecedent interventions: commitment, goal setting,

Antecedent interventions: conclusions

Commitment may be a successful strategy for reducing household energy use, especially in view of the long-term effects found in several studies (Katzev & Johnson, 1983; Pallak & Cummings, 1976). However, Katzev and Johnson's second study (1984) only found short-term effects of commitment. Studies on goal setting (Becker, 1978; McCalley & Midden, 2002) showed that combining goal setting with feedback was more effective than goal setting alone. Information has also proven to be more effective

Consequence interventions

Consequence strategies are based on the assumption that the presence of positive or negative consequences will influence behavior. Pro-environmental behavior will become a more attractive alternative when positive consequences are attached to it (e.g. by providing a monetary incentive), and environmentally unsound behavior will become less attractive when negative consequences are attached to it. Feedback and rewards will be discussed in this section.

Consequence interventions: conclusions

Feedback appears to be an effective strategy for reducing household energy use in most studies reviewed here (e.g. Seligman & Darley, 1977), although some exceptions exist (e.g. Katzev et al., 1980–1981). Results of studies using feedback seem to suggest that the more frequent the feedback is given, the more effective it is. Positive effects have for instance been found for continuous feedback (e.g. McClelland & Cook (1979–1980), McClelland & Cook (1980)). Three studies found differential

Discussion

Interventions to promote energy conservation among households have been employed with varying degrees of success. The antecedent interventions commitment and goal setting appeared successful in bringing about changes in energy use, especially when used in combination with other interventions (e.g. Becker, 1978). Generally, information alone is not a very effective strategy (e.g. Van Houwelingen & Van Raaij, 1989). Information about energy problems as conveyed by mass media campaigns tends to

Recommendations

Many environmental problems, such as energy use, are related to human behavior and, consequently, may be reduced through behavioral changes. Comparing previous reviews on interventions aimed at changing energy-related behaviors (e.g. Dwyer et al., 1993; Schultz et al., 1995) to the current one reveals similarities and differences. These previous reviews had already pointed out issues in order to improve intervention studies, such as the inclusion of long-term measurements and the use of study

References (61)

  • H.J. Staats et al.

    Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public: Evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (1996)
  • A. Bandura

    Social learning theory

    (1977)
  • L.J. Becker

    Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1978)
  • L.J. Becker et al.

    Relating attitudes to residential energy use

    Environment and Behavior

    (1981)
  • R.G. Bittle et al.

    The effects of daily cost feedback on residential electricity consumption

    Behavior Modification

    (1979)
  • R.G. Bittle et al.

    The effects of daily feedback on residential electricity usage as a function of usage level and type of feedback information

    Journal of Environmental Systems

    (1979–1980)
  • J.S. Black et al.

    Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1985)
  • S.W. Cook et al.

    Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior: A review and conceptual framework

    Journal of Social Issues

    (1981)
  • R. DeYoung

    Changing behavior and making it stick. The conceptualization and management of conservation behavior

    Environment and Behavior

    (1993)
  • W.O. Dwyer et al.

    Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment. Research since 1980

    Environment and Behavior

    (1993)
  • G.T. Gardner et al.

    Environmental Problems and Human Behavior

    (2002)
  • B. Gatersleben et al.

    Household consumption, quality-of-life and environmental impacts: A psychological perspective and empirical study

  • E.S. Geller

    Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report enough?

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (1981)
  • E.S. Geller

    The challenge of increasing proenvironment behavior

  • E.S. Geller et al.

    A conceptual framework for developing and evaluating behavior change interventions for injury control

    Health Education Research: Theory and Practice

    (1990)
  • G.V. Glass et al.

    Meta-analysis in social research

    (1981)
  • M.H. Gonzales et al.

    Using social cognition and persuasion to promote energy conservation: A quasi-experiment

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1988)
  • S.C. Hayes et al.

    Reducing residential electrical energy use: Payments, information, and feedback

    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

    (1977)
  • S.C. Hayes et al.

    Reduction of residential consumption of electricity through simple monthly feedback

    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

    (1981)
  • E. Hirst et al.

    Evaluation of a Wisconsin utility home energy audit program

    Journal of Environmental Systems

    (1982–1983)
  • Cited by (1813)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text