Intervention Strategies

A literature review has been carried out on strategies influencing user behaviour. Intervention measures are classified according to Abrahamse et al. (2005), in which empirical studies were systematically assessed. According to the authors, two main approaches can be distinguished: antecedent and consequence strategies.

Antecedent strategies:

are strategies intervening prior to the behaviour they are intended to influence. The most important antecedent strategies are providing information material, agreeing on commitments and setting goals.

• Information strategies comprise media campaigns, written information, websites, exhibitions or home visits. Even though these kinds of measures are mostly not very cost-intensive, pure information strategies seem to have little effect (Abrahamse et al. 2005). Only by combining them with other measures, e.g. individual feedback, a significant reduction can be achieved. According to McMakin (2002), a reduction of 10% (gas and electricity for heating) has been achieved through targeted personal information plus home visits. Winett et al. (1985) claim that consumption can even be cut by 20% if information strategies are combined with a multitude of other actions.

• Commitment strategies: Within the commitment strategy households commit themselves to save energy (e.g. 5% electricity). Similarly to information these measures are low-cost strategies, but studies do not indicate major effects (Pallak and Cummings 1976, Katzev and Johnson 1983).

• Goal setting strategy: Households set energy saving targets for themselves. Combined with feedback, massive energy savings up to 15% (electricity) is possible. However, without feedback measures and ambitious goals the strategy is barely effective (Pallak and Cummings 1976, Katzev and Johnson 1983, Becker 1978).

Consequence strategies

are strategies intervening after the energy-related behaviour they are intended to modify. In the context of the BewareE project feedback measures are the most important example of consequence strategies.

• Feedback strategy: This category of actions refers to all kind of systematic evaluation of a household’s energy consumption that is presented to consumers to encourage behavioural changes. According to several studies this strategy seems to be very effective (Abrahamse et al. 2005, Seligman and Darby 1977, McCalley and Midden 2002, Brandon and Lewis 1999). Savings between 4 and 18% of electricity (McCalley and Midden 2002, Midden 1983) and 18% of gas consumption (McCalley and Midden 2002) can be achieved. However this type of action requires extensive staff employment.

• Incentive strategy: This strategy is based on offering incentives to consumers (e.g. low priced rates, extra payment, more favourable credits) for reducing their energy consumption. As long as the incentives are maintained, this kind of intervention appears to be the most effective method for saving energy. Several studies (Winett et al. 1985, McClelland and Cook 1980/gas) showed that by applying this strategy up to 6% of electricity or gas can be saved.

Summary

Empirical studies indicate that general information alone, disseminated through flyers, brochures, exhibitions, events, or campaigns is not very likely to modify consumer habits, whereas feedback measures combined with individual consultation and incentive strategies (as long as the incentives are maintained) seem to be a promising approach to shape human behaviour. Depending on the chosen strategies savings from 5 to 20% of gas and electricity consumption can be achieved. But most of the efficient strategies have been conducted in scientific projects. In practice (without additional support from science) saving 10% of energy by services is considered a success.

Literature

• Abrahamse, W. et al. (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation, in: Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005), 273-91
• Becker, L.J. (1978) Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation, in: Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978), 428-33
• Brandon, G. & Lewis, A. (1999) Reducing household energy consumption: A qualitative and quantitative field study, in: Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (1999), 75-85
• Katzev, R. & Johnson, T.R. (1983) A social-psychological analysis of residential electricity consumption: The impact of minimal justification techniques, in: Journal of Economic Psychology 3 (1983), 267-84
• McCalley, L.T. & Midden, C.J.H. (2002) Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback, in: Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (2002), 589-603
• McClelland, L. & Cook, S.W. (1979-80) Energy conservation effects of continuous in-home feedback in all-electric homes, in: Journal of Environmental Systems 9 (1979-80), 169-73
• McMakin, A.H. et al. (2002) Motivating residents to converse energy without financial incentives, in : Environment and Behavior 34 (2002), 848-63
• Pallak, M.S. & Cummings, N. (1976) Commitment and voluntary energy conservation, in: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2 (1976), 27-31
• Seligman, C. & Darby, J.M. (1977) Feedback as means of decreasing residential energy consumption, in: Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (1977), 363-8
• Winett, R.A. et al. (1985) Effects of television modeling on residential energy conservation, in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 18 (1985), 33-44