discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225413709
CITATIONS READS
529 2,029
1 author:
Corinna Fischer
ko-Institut e.V.
23 PUBLICATIONS 673 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Corinna Fischer on 30 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104
DOI 10.1007/s12053-008-9009-7
Received: 3 December 2007 / Accepted: 28 March 2008 / Published online: 6 May 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008
C. Fischer (*)
Fachbereich 2 - Bauen, Energie, Umwelt,
1
Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, All energy scenarios, e.g., for Germany, agree that a
Markgrafenstr. 66, sustainable energy system is impossible without significant
10969 Berlin, Germany cuts in overall consumption (Enqute-Kommission 2002; DLR
e-mail: fischer@vzbv.de et al. 2004; DIW et al. 2005).
80 Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104
conservation is a difficult task, because electricity monthly (or, in many countries, even annual) bill on
differs in significant ways from other consumer goods. an aggregate price for food consumption. She has
It is abstract, invisible, and untouchable. It is not no idea how, when, or by which appliances electric
consumed directly but indirectly via various energy current was used. Nor is she informed whether her
services. Electricity consumption is therefore not consumption is relatively high or low (which could
perceived as a coherent field of action. Rather, it stimulate a search for reasons), or whether it has
involves activities as diverse as listening to music, increased or decreased (and thus, whether her actions
cooking meals, working with the computer, or making had any effect).
a phone call. Moreover, electricity conservation is not Feedback may be improved in various ways.
limited to the act of using electricity but starts with Possibilities include increasing the frequency of
choosing and purchasing energy-using appliances like feedback, providing a time-, room- or application-
a TV set, washing machine, computer equipment, or specific breakdown, improving the visual design, or
electric heater. In each of these activities, conservation adding further information, for example, time series,
means a different set of behavioral modifications. It is comparisons with an average, or information about
difficult for the consumer to link all these various environmental impact.
activities and develop a coherent, comprehensible, and As shown by a number of international model
concise cognitive frame of what electricity conserva- projects and scientific studies, such improved feed-
tion could mean in everyday life. back can help to repair the problems associated with
The invisibility of electricity also means that the electricity conservation. In an excellent review of
consumer usually receives little feedback on her experience, Darby (2006) has found that improved
consumptionshe does not experience the diminish- feedback may reduce consumption by up to 20%.
ing stock and does not find herself in control of her Recently, EU policy has been taking on such
consumption. Also, electricitys qualitiesincluding encouraging experience: EU Directive (2006/32/EC)
its ecological featurescannot be directly perceived, on energy end-use efficiency and energy services,
making it hard for the consumer to develop an dating from April 2006, calls for informative billing
emotional involvement. It is hardly a product to be and other types of feedback, where appropriate (see
proud of, to show around, or to worry about. the Conclusions).
Consumers regard electricity as a necessary, but The present article builds on existing review work
unspectacular everyday product of which security of on feedback (Darby 2001; Roberts and Baker 2003;
supply is important, but specific features do not Abrahamse et al. 2005; IEA 2005). It re-analyzes
matter much. In contrast to products like organic relevant projects and studies reviewed by these
food or sustainable housing, sustainable electricity articles as well as some additional literature not yet
consumption can therefore not easily become an covered. Its aim is threefold. First, it wants to
element of lifestyle (Birzle-Harder and Gtz 2001). contribute to a more theoretically guided understand-
And neither do its costs usually make up for an ing of why and how feedback works. For this
important share of a households budget. Thus, all in purpose, a psychological model of environmentally
all, electricity turns out to be a low interest product. relevant behavior is presented and tentatively linked
to the topic of feedback. Secondly, the article would
like to shed some light on the question of why results
Consumer feedback as a road to sustainable of individual studies on feedback differ so much and
consumption? what it is that causes feedback to succeed (or fail). To
achieve that, relevant dimensions are identified that
One idea for supporting sustainable electricity con- differ between the various studies. The differences
sumption is to improve feedback on consumption, on relate to the context and method of the respective
its cost, and its environmental impacts. Today, such project, but more importantly, to design features of
feedback is far from what it could be. Kempton and the feedback itself. Linking these features to the
Layne (1994) equate consuming electricity to shop- psychological model, some hypotheses are derived on
ping in a grocery store in which no individual item how feedback needs to be designed in order to
has a price marking, and the consumer receives a achieve optimum results. Empirical evidence is
Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104 81
sought from the studies and research gaps are We switch on the light, stove, or electric heating
identified. In doing so, the paper pursues its third, without thinking; we use the washing machine the
methodological objective: to comment more critically way we have learned to use it, we have a routine of
and in more detail on the available database than throwing clothing into the dryer after washing, or of
existing articles do, allowing the reader to judge switching on the radio or TV when we come home.
results more carefully. Habitual behavior is functional because it spares us
the time and effort of decision-making on issues that
re-occur regularly and for which we have once
Some theory learned or worked out a way of how to solve them.
However, habitual behavior may also deliver sup-
Environmental psychology has developed various optimal results because we have never really thought
models to explain environmentally relevant behavior about an optimum way to do it. Or if we have, the
and provide a basis for successful behavioral change. situation may have changed in the meantime and
Matthies (2005) has reviewed theory and findings the behavior may not be appropriate any more. In the
from all over the discipline and integrated them into a field of environmentally relevant behavior, many
heuristic model of environmentally relevant behavior habits are environmentally detrimental because the
(see Fig. 1). This integrated model can be helpful for environment was not a relevant issue to consider at
explaining why and how feedback on electricity the time the habit was formed, or because beliefs
consumption can reduce consumption. about environmental effects held at that time have
The model distinguishes between two types of been shown to be wrong, or because the situation has
action: routinized or habitual behavior (here presented changed so that a once beneficial behavior is not
in the form of environmentally detrimental habits useful any more.
on the bottom of the figure) and conscious decisions For new norms and considerations to enter the
(represented in the mid and upper part of the figure). decision-making process, a conscious decision needs
Habitual behavior is behavior that is not reflected to be taken. This means that habits must be broken up
upon. It is performed regularly in the same way. somehow. A person must realize that there are various
Many of our everyday activities are habitual and this options to choose from, and that norms and criteria
is also true for most electricity-consuming activities: are needed for evaluating those options. This process
Consciousness Personal
of environmental environmental
problem norm
Weighting of
Social norm moral, social
Consciousness
(Expectations of and other
of relevance of
, relevant other costs and Action
one s behaviour
persons) benefits;
Consciousness decision
, Other motives:
of one s possibi-
lities (sense of e.g. minimizing
control) cost of action
is called norm activation. According to the model, need or desire for all the services associated with
norm activation is made up of three building blocks. electricity consumption, such as lighting, cooking, or
First, the person must realize that there is a problem2. heating. These services may also be associated with
We realize that there is a problem if a habitual other, more general motives, such as a desire for
solution is not available, or does not work out any comfort, relaxation, or efficient work organization.
more, or is being questioned. Finally, there may be desires to receive these services
After realizing that there is a problem, two further in certain ways, such as conveniently, cheaply, or
steps are necessary to complete norm activation: A reliably.
person must realize that his or her behavior is relevant Norms may conflict with each other or with other
to the problem, and s/he must become conscious that motives. Therefore, a person must enter in an
s/he has possibilities to influence his or her behavior evaluation process; during which, moral, environ-
and its outcomes (in the literature, this is usually mental, personal, or social costs and benefits are
called sense of control). Only then will s/he reflect weighed. During this process, norms and motives may
upon changing his or her behavior in order to solve also be redefined in the light of the available
the problem. For example, if a person realizes that her information. As a result, the decision for a certain
annual electricity bill is high, but attributes this fact to more or less environmentally beneficialaction
electricity prices and not to her consumption behavior, emerges. Under specific conditions, such an action
she will not make a decision on this behavior. The same may be performed regularly and develop into a new
is true if she attributes the cost to her behavior, but does habit or routine.
not know how to control it, e.g., because she has no What is not explicitly mentioned in the model is
idea which appliances caused the high consumption. the fact that considerable information is necessary in
When norm activation is completed, a person order to perform the decision process. Basically, a
enters into a process of weighing and evaluating person must know about the nature of the problem,
different motives in order to reach a decision on how the existing options and their respective consequences,
to act. The motives, according to the model, comprise in order to judge them in terms of norms and motives.
personal norms, social norms3, and other motives. Thinking in categories of such a model enables us
Personal norms are personal ideas about how one to detect in which ways feedback can operate. First, it
should act. Social norms, in contrast, are ideas about can direct attention towards electricity consumption,
which norms relevant others might hold. They are demonstrating to the consumer how much electricity
important because persons value social relationships everyday activities consume. This way, consumers are
and therefore orient their behavior, among other confronted with a problem that requires conscious
things, along lines of what they think is socially decision. A door is opened for reflecting their
desired. Finally, there are a host of other motives behavior, questioning habits, and receiving arguments.
which are not specified in detail in the model, but Depending on its form and content (see Types of
may easily be so. In our case, they may comprise the feedback section for details), feedback can frame this
problem in different ways (e.g., as a problem of
wasting money, or of damaging the environment);
2 thus, influencing the reasoning process.
As her aim is to explain environmentally conscious behaviour,
defined as solving environmental problems, Matthies describes Feedback can also increase the consciousness of
the problem more specifically as an environmental problem. the relevance of ones own behavior. The more closely
However, electricity consumption, although it has important electricity consumption can be linked to specific
environmental impacts, cannot solely or even predominantly be
appliances and activities, the clearer the relevance of
conceptualized as behaviour that is directed at solving an
environmental problem. Therefore, I think it is more appropri- behavior becomes. Appliance-specific feedback can
ate in our context to choose a more general approach by help the consumer to detect how a certain appliance
analyzing how conscious decisions generally come about, and or a certain way of using it affects the amount of
only in a second step, how environmental considerations may
electricity consumed and the money spent. This also
enter the process.
3 increases the sense of control because the consumer
Here again, Matthies specifies the norms involved as
environmental norms. For reasons explained above (footnote can find out how changes in behavior or appliance
4), I prefer a more general approach. stock affect the outcome.
Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104 83
On the level of motivation, improved feedback can papers discussed in the five reviews were included4.
activate other motives conducive to electricity con- They have been complemented by some additional
servation. Depending on how it frames the problem, papers not yet covered by those reviews, mainly from
feedback can activate a desire for cost savings or for German-speaking or Nordic countries. A list of the
minimizing environmental impact. Comparative feed- papers analyzed is included in the references list.
back (as described in more detail below) can stimulate All in all, the original papers cover 26 projects
a sense of competition. To improve the incentive from ten countries: the USA (three), Japan (two), and
character even more, feedback could be combined many Northern and Western European countries
with other instruments, like price incentives, goal (Denmark (four), Finland (two), Germany (two), the
setting, or a contest. Netherlands (one), Norway (three), Sweden (six),
From these considerations, one can deduct the Switzerland (one), UK (two)). Thus, there is a
hypotheses that feedback is most effective if it: remarkable lack of knowledge from Southern European
and Accession countries.
& successfully captures the consumers attention
Project results depend on the projects goals, on
& draws a close link between specific actions and
methodological aspects (such as study design and
their effects
sample), and on the different features of the feedback
& activates various motives that may appeal to
itself, such as frequency, content, breakdown, presen-
different consumer groups, such as cost savings,
tation, inclusion of comparisons, and combination
resource conservation, emissions reduction, com-
with additional information and other instruments.
petition, and others.
The papers reviewed vary widely in all these respects.
In the following section, I will review empirical In the following sections, I will systematize the
evidence on the effects of feedback and interpret it original papers5 according to these aspects in order
along the lines of these theoretical considerations. to give a better understanding of the information base.
Project goals
A review of international experience
By providing feedback on electricity consumption,
Database one may pursue different goals. Motivating and
enabling households to lower overall consumption is
The review presented here covers five review studies the most prominent one, but feedback is also given
(Darby 2001, 2006; Roberts and Baker 2003; with other goals. This must be kept in mind when
Abrahamse et al. 2005; IEA 2005) and 21 original evaluating results, as different methods of feedback may
papers on the effects of feedback on electricity have different success with respect to the various goals.
consumption and on consumers reactions, attitudes, In the projects reviewed, the main reasons for
and wishes concerning such feedback. The criteria for giving feedback were:
the choice of papers were as follows: in order to retain
& to enable and motivate households to conserve
some topicality, I restricted myself to papers dating
energy, or to stimulate ecological behaviour (17
from the last 20 years, that is, from 1987 onward. I
projects)
also confined the analysis to projects that were
& to improve customer satisfaction or service (five
explicitly designed for giving feedback (e.g., via the
projects, three of which in combination with
meter, displays, or the bill) and excluded broader
energy conservation)
approaches where feedback may come indirectly as a
by-product (e.g., energy advice or community learning).
4
Finally, feedback solely designed for the purpose of load Due to language constraints, only English and German papers
could be considered. As the paper by Darby (2006) became
shifting (usually as a complement to time-of-use available within short notice, some of the references cited there
pricing), was also excluded, focusing instead on could not be considered.
feedback designed to have (also) an effect on overall 5
I do not include the review studies in this section. However,
consumption. Insofar as they fulfill these criteria and the insights gained from the review studies will enter the
were available (which was a problem sometimes), the reasoning process when developing conclusions.
84 Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104
& to achieve load shifting or peak shaving (two projects, blurred, though).6 Fourteen of those employ a design
both in combination with energy conservation) with multiple groups, using several experimental
& to raise consumers consciousness (one project) groups and/or an experimental group and a control
& to explore consumer preferences, trying to detect group.7 Eight others are restricted to the implementa-
what kind of feedback households would like to tion and evaluation of one specific feedback method.
have on their electricity bills (two projects) For purposes of data gathering, the model projects
& or, less specifically, to test any effects of and field experiments use various combinations of
improved feedback (two projects, one of which different methods: electricity consumption measured
in combination with energy conservation). by electronic meters, external meter readers, or
customers themselves reported conservation activities,
and all sorts of surveys, questionnaires and interviews
dealing with issues such as satisfaction, attitudes,
Study designs and samples preferences, and conservation motivation.
Knowing the size and type of the sample is
The study design determines the sort of questions that important for assessing the representativeness of the
can be asked, the sort of answers that may be result. Households are not all the samecultural,
provided, and the ecological validity of the results. social, or political variations may make crucial
We can broadly distinguish between more research- differences. For example, there are indications that
oriented and more applied projects. Research-oriented feedback works very differently in different social
projects try primarily to test the implication of a milieus (Nielsen 1993). The projects reviewed here
theory/theories or to fill knowledge gaps left open by cover quite a range of different household types in
earlier research. The design follows the research terms of household size, features of the building,
question and does not care too much about applica- appliance stock, ownership, income, and social status.
bility in the real world, for example regarding cost In a number of projects, this mixing is deliberately
efficiency, intensity of labor, or technical requirements done in order to achieve a representative sample. This
for the solutions that are being tested. In these cases, broad array allows some assessment of the generaliz-
the approach is usually systematic and results are ability of results. On the other hand, with regard to
reliable. But on the other hand, problems may arise project size, the situation is not as good. Many field
with putting the knowledge into practice. On the other experiments include no more than ten to 50 house-
hand, more practically oriented projects tend to test one holds. This leads to subgroups being very small
or two preferred and applicable solutions. The proven (around ten households) and raises questions about
solutions are therefore easier to implement, but on the the significance of results. Some studies (Dobson and
other hand, the information is often rather unsystematic Griffin 1992; Haakana et al. 1997; Brandon and
and there may be a lack of scrutiny. Lewis 1999; McCalley and Midden 2002) include
For a systematic evaluation of different sorts of around 100120 participants, but by splitting them
feedback, designs with a control group and several into several subgroups, again, arrive at rather small
experimental groups exposed to various types of subgroups. A number of big field experiments with
feedback are ideal. With respect to ecological validity, over 1000 participants are not reported in great detail
model projects or field experiments tend to be (Henryson et al. 2000). For one experiment (Karbo
superior to laboratory studies or surveys (although and Larsen 2005), there are only preliminary results
they, too, may use designs that are difficult to
implement in the real world).
In our database, 15 projects have a more scientific
6
By a field experiment, I mean a project conducted with the
core purpose of generating information and insight on the
and ten a more applied character. Two studies rely on
effects of feedback. It has a more scientific character. A model
surveys alone, focusing on preferences and attitudes project means a project that is being conducted with the core
(Egan 1999; Sernhed et al. 2003). One is a laboratory purpose of testing a certain type of feedback in practice.
study (McCalley and Midden 2002). By far, the 7
Three of them have only one experimental group and a
majority of the projects are model projects or field control group, and one has several experimental groups but
experiments (the boundary between both being lacks a control group.
Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104 85
available. This leaves us with nine to ten reasonably projects, the feedback is given for less than 3 months
well-documented projects with big samples for (usually 46 weeks; in two billing projects only
analysis: three field experiments (Sexton et al. 1987; once).8 In another eight (including the rest of the
Nielsen 1993; Arvola et al. 1993), five model projects billing projects), it is given over at least 9 months (up
(Garay and Lindholm 1995; Wilhite and Ling 1995; to one or several years).
Wilhite et al. 1999; and, with some restrictions,
Dnnhoff and Duscha 2008) and two surveys (Egan Content Feedback may be given on electricity
1999; Sernhed et al. 2003). consumption alone (e.g. kWh), on cost, or on
All in all, there is a lack of projects that are both environmental impacts of consumption. The model
scientifically and ecologically valid. Such projects suggests that these different contents frame the
would use a representative sample, systematically problem in different terms and thus activate different
vary the feedback given, and use control groups in motives and personal and social norms. It remains an
order to trace back the effects of specific types of open question which motives and norms would be
feedback. They would use feedback options that strongest in which target groups. In the projects
could be implemented in real life, and provide a reviewed, all three kinds of information are used,
detailed documentation of their methods and results. though the emphasis is on consumption and cost.
Unfortunately, most reviewed projects lack one or the Seventeen projects feedback consumption and cost;
other of these features (see for more details Research four, consumption only (Haakana et al. 1997; McCalley
gaps section and the Conclusions). and Midden 2002; Mack and Hallmann 2004; Mosler
and Gutscher 2004). Only two projects (Jensen 2003;
Types of feedback Brandon and Lewis 1999 in one experimental condi-
tion) feedback environmental information.
On the basis of our model, we theorized that
successful feedback has to capture the consumers Breakdown Providing a breakdown, e.g., for specific
attention, to link specific actions to their effects and to rooms, appliances, or times of the day is provided, is
activate various motives. If this is the case, then almost the only way of providing a direct link
different characteristics of the feedback itself become between action and result and thus, establishing
relevant, among them, its frequency, content, break- consciousness of the relevance of individual actions.
down, presentation, inclusion of comparisons, and However, only six of the reviewed projects provide
combination with additional information and other some sort of breakdown while two restrict themselves
instruments. The feedback described in the papers to a single appliance type anyway (cooking appliances
varies widely with respect to these features. The in Mansouri and Newborough 1999; Wood and New-
following section gives an overview. borough 2003; and washing machines in McCalley
and Midden 2002). Sexton et al. (1987) and Dobson
Frequency and duration From the model, it would and Griffin (1992) provide a breakdown for all major
follow that feedback is more effective, the more appliances. Wilhite et al. (1999) test a breakdown for
directly after an action it is given. Quick feedback typical uses (lighting, heating...), based on interview
would improve the link between action and effect, data. Karbo and Larsen (2005) use a daily load curve,
and therefore, increase consciousness about the based on measured data, and an appliance-specific
actions consequences. Furthermore, persistent effects breakdown, based on interview data, both upon
would be more likely if feedback is given over a request. And Ueno et al. (2005 and 2006) provide
longer time, because new habits can form during that appliance- and time-specific breakdowns (daily and
time. In the reviewed projects, the frequency of ten-daily load curve) upon request, based on real
feedback ranges from continuous to bimonthly with consumption data.
eight projects giving feedback more often than
monthly (six of which continuously), five projects 8
The projects by Ueno et al. (2005, 2006) actually lasted
giving it monthly and nine projects giving it less often
longer, but have been evaluated only at one early point of time,
(it is not reported for all projects). With respect to namely after they had been running for 4 weeks (or 6 weeks,
duration, there is a very clear-cut division: In nine respectively).
86 Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104
Medium and mode of presentation Our model does Egan (1999), Henryson et al. (2000), Dnnhoff and
not directly alert us to the relevance of the medium Duscha (2008).
and way of presentation. However, it has long been Equally important is the way of presentation. Much
clear from communication sciences and learning depends on the comprehensibility and appeal of text
theory that the way information is presented is crucial or graphics. The projects apply numerous variants of
for its adoption (Roberts and Baker 2003). The reason presentation, the most common being text, load
is of course that the information needs to capture curves, bar charts or pie charts (for an application-
attention and be understood before it can become specific breakdown or comparisons in time and with
effective. Two basic media may be used: electronic other households), and horizontal lines or bell curves
media and written material. Electronic media is used (for comparison with other households). Here, the
in eight studies, taking different forms. One relatively devil is very often in the details. Most projects do not
unique approach is to install an electronic display seem to reflect these problems: the choice of a
directly at an appliance, which can provide informa- specific design is usually not discussed at all nor are
tion about the consumption of this particular appli- reasons given for a specific choice. Only two projects
ance (Mansouri and Newborough 1999; McCalley test design variations systematically (Egan 1999;
and Midden 2002; Wood and Newborough 2003). Wilhite et al. 1999).
Also, an electronic, maybe interactive, meter may
show the total consumption of a household, provide Comparisons There are two basic types of compar-
additional information such as time-specific break- isons: historic comparison relates actual to prior
down or cost (Sexton et al. 1987; Jensen 2003). consumption (often, temperature-corrected, with the
Another approach is to use computer and internet as same period in the previous year). Normative com-
interactive tools. A computer program is supplied parison compares consumption to that of other
with data that may stem from user input (e.g., on households (e.g., with a national or regional average,
household size, appliance stock) and/or from metering households in the neighborhood, or households that
of actual consumption data, and can provide the user are in some way similar, e.g., in size, type of house,
upon request with a broad range of information, e.g., application stock). Comparisons may stimulate spe-
load curves, appliance-specific breakdown, compari- cific motives for energy conservation, for example, a
sons, or energy-saving tips (Dobson and Griffin 1992; sense of competition and ambition. They also make
Brandon and Lewis 1999; Karbo and Larsen 2005; transparent whether consumption in a certain period
Ueno et al. 2005, 2006). Advantages of electronic or of a certain household is out of the norm, thereby
feedback are its flexibility (being able to react to users capturing the consumers attention, alerting him to a
demands, and showing different kinds of information potential problem and activating the search for
upon request), and its ability to quickly process and reasons and redress. Almost all reviewed projects
present actual consumption data. Interactive tools may present, or deal with, historic comparison. Twelve
also stimulate users curiosity and experimenting. On studies also deal with normative comparisons.
the other hand, electronic feedback may be difficult to
access for users not used to electronic media, and Additional information and other instruments Feed-
interactive tools require more user involvement. back is very often combined with other instruments
Written material may come on its own in the form which makes a lot of sense from a theoretical point of
of direct mailings, brochures, etc. This is done in four view. Information on consumption will not work
projects (Haakana et al. 1997; Brandon and Lewis without a motivation to conserve, which may be
1999; Jensen 2003; Mack and Hallmann 2004). provided by other instruments like financial incen-
Another possibility, used by nine projects, is to use tives (Sexton et al. 1987; Nielsen 1993), goal setting
the electricity bill as a carrier of feedback information. (McCalley and Midden 2002; Mosler and Gutscher
This approach seems promising because it can be 2004), or personal commitment (Mack and Hallmann
expected that the bill is read more carefully and raises 2004; Ueno et al. 2005, 2006). On the other hand,
more interest than additional material. Such efforts are feedback will not work if households have no idea on
described in Arvola et al. (1993), Garay and Lindholm what they can do about their consumption. This
(1995) Wilhite and Ling (1995), Wilhite et al. (1999), problem may be remedied by additional information
Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104 87
on how to save energy; ideally, closely connected to sorted the cases according to whether they include it
the appliance or situation on which feedback is given. or not, and compared the performance of the cases
Most projects use or explore such additional infor- including that feature with that of the cases not
mation (with the exception of Dobson and Griffin including it. Taken together, these two steps provided
1992; Egan 1999; Jensen 2003; Sernhed et al. 2003, some preliminary conclusions on the relationship
and the Tibro project reported in Henryson et al. between success and design. In the following section,
2000). I present those conclusions. Results of existing review
articles are incorporated in the discussion.
My aim was, first, to find out whether feedback works Does feedback work?
at all, and secondly, how it must be designed to work
best. The latter is methodologically very challenging. One result, at least, seems clear: feedback stimulates
Projects can only be with greatest care. As has energy (and specifically, electricity) savings. Not all
become clear from the above, they differ markedly studies discuss actual savings; but those who do
with respect to study design, sample, and method of generally find savings ranging from 1.1% to over
data gathering, differences occurring both in sub- 20%. Usual savings are between 5 and 12%.9
stance and in scientific elaborateness. What is more, However, in a few instances, no savings were
results are not always reported quantitatively or in found. To look carefully at these examples teaches us
sufficient detail to make a comparison. And if they something about the preconditions for feedback to
are reported, studies use very diverse reporting work.
schemes. They vary in baseline, in time and duration In the project described by Dnnhoff and Duscha
of measurement, and in the unit for which savings are (2008), electricity customers received a one-time
reported. Table 1 summarizes the studies, giving an supplement to their annual bill that provided norma-
overview of the reporting schemes used. tive comparisons and energy-saving advice. Appar-
To arrive at some conclusions, I first checked best ently, this kind of one-shot feedback was too
cases, that is, the projects or experimental conditions unobtrusive to raise attention and too loosely linked
which produced highest savings. For this purpose, I to concrete actions to help consumers enhance
grouped studies according to their reporting schemes, control.
so that studies with at least roughly comparable In the study of Sexton et al. (1987), the main
schemes fell into the same group (see Table 1). For purpose was load shifting. Feedback accompanied the
a comparison, I used all studies that reported average test of a tariff structure where peak and off-peak
savings of an experimental group as compared to a tariffs differed considerably (between 3:1 and 9:1).
control group (the other groups of studies were too Feedback informed consumers about their current use
small and too heterogeneous to allow for a meaning- and projected cost per hour, and a light signal alerted
ful comparison). Within this selection of studies, I them to the switch between peak and off-peak hours.
identified the projects or experimental conditions in Apparently, the feedback showed to customers that
which the difference between experimental group and electricity was unexpectedly cheap in off-peak hours
control group was highest. In addition, I also and stimulated heavy load-shifting activities. Thus,
identified the experimental conditions providing high- the savings that occurred in peak periods were, all in
est savings within each study that worked with several all, cancelled out by increased off-peak consumption.
experimental groups. This way, I could identify which Nielsen (1993) found that almost no savings
design features were present in those two kinds of occurred in a working-class area with small flats,
best cases and could thus be regarded as supportive
for success. However, results were not too clear
because some of the same features were also present 9
Information on statistical significance of the findings is often
in less well-performing projects. Therefore, as a lacking, but the sheer number of studies which report savings is
second approach, I took each design feature at a time, a good indicator for the general effectiveness of feedback.
88
Table 1 Overview of reviewed literature
Dobson 1 100 US households Field experiment. Electricity Average Control group Average of 12.9% less consumption
and Griffin (25 in experimental Continuous feedback consumption consumption in 60 day than control groups
(1992) (S) group, 2 control on consumption and each group treatment Difference to control
groups) cost, broken down to period group: 12.9 percentage
various appliances and points (pp)
time intervals.
Measurement
of consumption
Wilhite 1 1,450 Oslo Model project. Electricity Average reduction in Control group Yearly average Experimental groups
and Ling households (of Improved electricity consumption, each experimental during each consume 7.6% less than
(1995) (A) which 1285 bill with various customer group. Reported of the three control group in second
remained) in combinations of satisfaction, conservation treatment year and 10% less in
three experimental increased frequency, understanding activities years third year
groups and one historic comparison of bill Experimental groups
control group. and advice. Measuring report various
Response rate to of consumption, conservation activities
questionnaire not questionnaire, more often than control
reported interviews group. Customer
satisfaction and
understanding of bill
rose markedly
Difference to control
group: 7.6/10 pp
Reporting of average reduction compared to historic baseline and control group
Arvola et al. 1 696 Helsinki Field experiment. Electricity Average reduction Control group, Yearly average Rising overall
(1993) (A) households in three Improved bills (actual consumption, Yearly average during 2 consumption compared
experimental groups consumption, historic satisfaction and in year before treatment to base year, but
and one control comparison) and comprehension treatment years consumption in
group. 550 advice. Measuring of of bill experimental groups
answered electricity consumption, rose less than in control
questionnaire or interviews, group
interview questionnaire Exp. Group 1 increased
1.1 percentage points
less than control group
89
90
Table 1 (continued)
McCalley 1 100 Dutch Lab study. Computerized Electricity Average reduction Baseline Twenty times Average reduction
and individuals in three machine washing consumption over 20 washes interval: (each wash) Group 1 Feedback and
Midden experimental simulation. Feedback per wash in each experimental Average of 6 self-chosen goal:
(2002) (S) groups and one on consumption after group pre-treatment 21.9%
control group each wash, in washes. Control Group 2 Feedback and
combination with group assigned goal: 19.5%
self-chosen or Group 3 Feedback
assigned goal. only and control
Calculation of group: about 10%
consumption per wash, each
questionnaire. Difference to control
group: 11.9/9.5/0 pp
Mack and 1 30 households in Field experiment. Electricity Average reduction Baseline interval: 4 weekly Reduction during
Hallmann German Weekly written consumption. of participants average of 6 measurements treatment period that
(2004) (S) neighborhood feedback. Meter Conservation (and control measurements during can be attributed to the
(19 experimental readings, interviews activities group. Average during 3 months intervention, treatment: 2.9%.
group, 10 control number of before treatment 30 measurements Reduction during five
group, one conservation (temperature over 10 months posttreatment intervals
excluded) activities in corrected). Control after treatment, (altogether 10 months):
participating group divided in 5 between 1.5 and 3.6%.
households) intervals with 6 No reduction in control
measurements group. In average 4.8
each conservation activities
during treatment, 4.4
after treatment
Difference to control
group: 1.53.6 pp
Mosler and 1 48 individuals in Field experiment. Electricity Average reduction in Baseline 1 (or 4?) Treatment period: Group
Gutscher four experimental Feedback as daily meter consumption each experimental interval: 4 weeks measurements 1 (advice, feedback
(2004) (S) groups and one self-readings, in various group before during each and commitment),
control group in combinations with intervention. phase: 4-week gr. 2 (advice and
Swiss canton Zurich advice and goal setting. Control group baseline, feedback) and gr. 3
self-recruited Evaluation via weekly 4-week treatment (advice only)
91
92
Table 1 (continued)
of reported
conservation
activities nor in
electricity consumption.
All groups reduced
consumption by
about 5%
Difference to control
group: not significant
Miscellaneous reporting schemes
Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104
Brandon 1 120 UK households Field experiment. Electricity No. of Baseline Average of Only in experimental
and Lewis in seven Various combinations consumption households interval: yearly 8 monthly group 6 (computerized
(1999) (S) experimental groups of in each experimental average before readings during feedback) there was a
and one control media (paper, group who increased begin of treatment and significant effect: 12
group electronic) vs. decreased treatment one final reading participants decreased
and content (cost, consumption. after treatment consumption (by 31%
environment, Each groups average on average), only 3
comparisons). Meter change participants increased it
readings, interviews, (by 4% on average). In
focus groups the other groups, about
half of the participants
increased and half
decreased
Wilhite et al. 2 (1) 2,000 Stavanger (1) Model project. (1) Customer (1) Share of (1) One survey (1) One survey Rising customer
(1999) (A) households; actual Improved bill with satisfaction, persons who before treatment immediately satisfaction and
number of usable historical comparisons. attitudes, lowered room after treatment, understanding of bill
data sets not Postal survey understanding temperature, share of another one
reported of bill, persons who report two years later
activity: increase/decrease in
lowering room consumption,
temperature average electricity
consumption
(2) 2,000 households (2) Field experiment. (2) Customer (2) Share of (2) None (2) Survey sent (1) Immediately after
in Oslo and Improved bill satisfaction, persons who out together treatment 68% rise in
Stavanger. About with normative understanding reported motivation with the feedback the number of people
25% overall return comparisons and of bill, to conserve diagrams who report to lower
ratea appliance-specific learning, room temperature at
breakdown (averages, motivation to night or when they
not individualized). conserve leave home
Postal survey 2 years after, recipients of
historical feedback seem
to have lowered overall
consumption by 4%
93
94
Table 1 (continued)
Larsen households Online tool giving consumption due to missing unavailable unavailable
(2005) (A) comparative evaluatione
feedback on
consumption and
cost, load
profile and
appliance-specific
breakdown.
Measurement of
electricity
consumption planned
Studies on attitudes
Egan 1 600 Delaware Research and model Attitudes, Inapplicable A bell curve in which
(1999) (S) residents (survey), project. Various comprehension data points were
580 customers graphic designs of bill represented
of a cooperating for normative as little houses was
utility (model feedback were judged as most
project) tested. Survey attractive,
and interviews on comprehensible and
consumers motivating with
comprehension respect to electricity
and attitudes conservation. However,
positive judgment
does not necessarily
mean comprehension
or motivation to
conserve
Sernhed 2 (1) Customers Surveys Preferences with Inapplicable Customers find bill
et al. of 3 utilities, respect to difficult to understand,
(2003) (S) 1,000 households design of wish to receive bill
each, 35% response electricity bill based upon actual
rate. (2) National consumption. They are
representative interested in a high
95
96
Table 1 (continued)
low income and low consumption. Other studies also environmental impact or energy-saving tips) turn
show that households with a previously low con- out to be best cases.
sumption do not feel encouraged to conserve if they & All designs that used an interactive element that
receive feedbackthey might even increase their engages householdsthrough computerized feed-
consumption (Bittle et al. 19791980; Brandon and back or through required activities like self-
Lewis 1999). On the one hand, there might just be no feedback or self-meter readingmade it to the
saving potential. On the other, the findings point to a best case group.
relevant precondition for feedback to work: There & All designs that provide detailed, appliance-
must be aimplicit or explicitmotivation. Without specific breakdown are best cases.
a motivation to conserve, information about how well & Three of the four designs that give feedback very
you perform in this discipline is useless. It may even often (daily or more) are in the best case
be counterproductive, for example, when comparative group.13
or historical feedback shows that your consumption is
In the second step, I compared, for each design
relatively low (or has been dropping), signaling that
variable, the performance of the cases with different
there is space for improvement on comfort.10
values of that variable.
Which types of feedback work best?
Frequency I grouped projects into those that provided
feedback less than monthly, monthly to weekly, and
In the first evaluation step, I studied the design
daily or more. It emerges that none of the less than
features of the best cases. Best cases include best
monthly, and all but one of the daily or more
groups within studies, and also best projects across
projects are among the best performing (as far as they
studies (see for details of the sample Method and
can be compared). One project with continuous
methodological problems section). Table 2 and
feedback (Mansouri and Newborough 1999) cannot
Fig. 2 give an overview.
be directly compared to the others, but suggests high
The results must be qualified, though. Some of the
savings in some cases. In the weekly to monthly
studies work with very small samples. All of the best
group, there are some well-performing but also a
cases across studies must be taken with care because
number of quite low-performing projects. This indicates
of the small sample size or the laboratory situation.11
that immediate feedback could be very helpful while
To deal with this situation, I generously split the
weekly to monthly feedback may be helpful, but is not
sample of best cases across studies in half, so that
sufficient for best performance on its own.
best cases also include studies by Wilhite and Ling
(1995) and Haakana et al. (1997). With all due care,
Duration There is no clear indication that long-term
some first deductions can be made that make
projects provide higher (initial) savings than short-term
theoretical sense.
ones. However, it seems sensible to assume that long-
& All designs12 that provide computerized feedback, term projects contribute to habit formation and can
offering multiple feedback options at the users therefore engender more persistent savings (during, but
choice (e.g., consumption over various time possibly also, after treatment).
periods, comparisons, additional information like
Content As almost all projects combine consumption
and cost information, there is no basis for separating
10
A fourth project that could not produce measurable savings the effects of both kinds of information. However,
is Garay and Lindholm (1995). The authors attribute this to one may look separately at the two projects that test
methodological problems with the composition of the groups, the effects of environmental feedback. Jensen (2003)
though.
delivers eco-information to nine housing blocks in a
11
Mosler and Gutscher (2004) themselves report that their Copenhagen working-class quarter. He reports elec-
findings are not statistically significant because the groups were
too small.
12
All designs in this section always refers to those designs 13
The exception is Sexton et al. (1987) who, for reasons
that could be included in the comparison. discussed above, differ a bit from the rest of the studies.
98 Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104
Nielsen (1993) Group 1 in Jtland Received a combination of advice, Received no change in tariffs
and Kokkedal feedback, energy audit, financing
(middle class) audit, and increased tariffs.
Group 2 in Odense Received a combination of advice, Received no change in tariffs
(working class) feedback, financing audit, and
increased tariffs (but no energy audit)
Arvola et al. (1993) Group 3 Received a combination of billing for Received no saving tips
actual use, feedback, and saving tips.
Haakana et al. (1997) Group 1 Received feedback plus video advice Received feedback only, or
feedback and written advice.
McCalley and Midden (2002) Group 1 Received feedback and had a Received feedback, but had an
self-chosen conservation goal assigned goal or no goal.
Mosler and Gutscher Groups 13 Received advice only, advice and Received advice and commitment
(2004) feedback, or advice, feedback and (goal) only
commitment (goal)
Brandon and Lewis (1999) Group 6 Computerized feedback Various combinations of different
media and content of feedback
(but no computerized)
Mansouri and Group 2 Received feedback only Received advice and feedback,
Newborough (1999); or advice only.
Wood and Newborough (2003)
14
12
10
0
Mack & H. Posttreatment Min.
Mack & H. Posttreatment Max.
Arvola Gr. 3
Arvola Gr. 2
Arvola Gr. 1
Dobson & Griffin
tricity savings in the order of 20% against baseline for A special case is the use of the bill as a medium.
three cases; but unfortunately, no figures for the Only one of the billing projects (Wilhite and Ling
remaining ones. In Brandon and Lewis (1999), there 1995) is among those yielding the highest scores.
is no significant difference between the environmental Billing projects show quite a range of savings, from
information group and other experimental groups. 0% (only one case) to 12%. However, they have other
The findings, at least, suggest that environmental advantages. They can typically be implemented with
information may be as effective as other kinds of comparatively little additional effort, and are therefore
information. Our model would suggest tailoring the worth exploring for practical reasons (see, for political
kind of information given to the potential motives and implementation, the discussion of the EU energy end-
norms of the target group. use directive in the Conclusions). Furthermore, they
can be designed as long-term approaches, forming
Breakdown Reliable data for the effectiveness of energy-conscious habits over time. One indication
appliance-specific breakdown, again, is difficult to that such a long-term perspective could work is the
find. Of the seven breakdown projects, three (Mansouri success described by Wilhite and Ling (1995). It is
and Newborough 1999; Wilhite et al. 1999; Karbo and the most long-running project, having been operative
Larsen 2005) provide no or no comparable data on for 3 years.
savings. One (Sexton et al. 1987) is unsuccessful in
promoting conservation due to its focus on load Comparisons As almost all projects use some form of
shifting. However, of the three remaining ones, two historical comparison, it is only worthwhile to look
(McCalley and Midden 2002; Ueno et al. 2005) are separately at normative comparison. It shows that
among the most successful onesa good indication of none of the twelve studies dealing with normative
the potential usefulness of detailed, appliance-specific comparison could demonstrate an effect on consump-
data.14 tion so far. A simple reason presents itself: while it
stimulates high users to conserve, it suggests low
Medium and mode of presentation We have already users that things are going not so bad and they may
seen that interactive, computerized feedback is very upgrade a little. These effects probably tend to cancel
stimulating. Interactivity and the possibility of choice out each other. A similar argument may hold for
involve customers, raise their attention and allow for historical feedback: it stimulates conservation only
tailored solutions. It is less clear, however, what when consumption has risen.
exactly the presentation must look like. Surprisingly,
very few studies have considered the relevance of Additional information and other instruments The
graphic design or formulation of text at all. Roberts theory postulates that motivating instruments (like
and Baker (2003) suggest that the presentation should goal setting, commitment, or financial incentives) and
be simple but not simplistic, that it should not involve information on how to conserve must be present in
additional paper, and that a combination of text, order to make feedback work. The empirical evi-
diagrams, and tables is more effective than single- dence, though, is less clear (see also Table 2). With
format presentations. This is a start, but there is not regard to motivation: on the one hand, Katzev and
enough detail yet. The only two comparative studies Johnson as early as 1987 highlighted the role of a
show convincingly that households reactions to commitment to save when they analyzed successful
graphical designs depend very much on the exact and unsuccessful examples of feedback. McCalley
choice of diagram or chart type, labels, scale, and Midden (2002) confirm in a laboratory experi-
symbols, and wording of the explanation. Designs ment that feedback alone does not induce savings if it
may range from the completely unintelligible to the is not combined with a savings goal. However, in
highly motivating (Egan 1999; Wilhite et al. 1999). many studies, feedback alone seems to work. One
project involving commitment delivers very small
14
savings (Mack and Hallmann 2004), and one field
It remains unclear, though, why the project by Ueno et al.
experiment that explicitly tests the additional effect of
(2006), which is a very similar project to Ueno et al. (2005),
resulted in much lesser savings. Uncertainties due to the very commitment can find no such effect (Mosler and
small sample surely play a part. Gutscher 2004). In Nielsen (1993), financial incen-
100 Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104
tives have very little effect. With regard to additional equally clear that households prefer information that
information, results are also very mixed. There are a is easy to understand, while they find their current
number of studies in which it is of no use or even electricity bills often hard to understand. Easy-to-
counterproductive (Wilhite and Ling 1995; Mansouri understand information includes (the list is not
and Newborough 1999; Brandon and Lewis 1999; exhaustive)
Mosler and Gutscher 2004) and only two in which it
& feedback based on actual consumption in a given
was explicitly helpful (Arvola et al. 1993; Haakana
period (instead of offsetting with previous periods,
et al. 1997 (only the video advice)).
prepayments, or estimates)
One methodological reason may be the small size
& clear labeling and explanation of labels, acronyms
of experimental groups. A possible substantial expli-
and technical terms
cation is that motivation and knowledge about
& clear indication of the various components of the
energy-saving possibilities is already present to some
electricity price
degree in participating households, and can be
& support by graphic presentations which are also
activated by giving feedback. In this situation,
clearly labeled. For purposes of breakdown, pie
additional information or tools may rather complicate
charts are preferred. For comparisons with previous
the situation for participants and cause an information
periods, households like vertical bar charts. And for
overload. Other reasons lie in the design of specific
comparison with other households, horizontal bars
studies (for example, a too unambitious goal rather
or lines ranging from lowest to highest consumption
discourages households from making further efforts, see
are the design of choice, with the various levels of
Mosler and Gutscher 2004) Finally, as already reported,
household consumption indicated as data points on
the usefulness of information depends strongly on how
the line.
it is presented, and whether it is specific to the needs of
the target group. Studies on billing report over and over again that
improved bills, be it with respect to frequency, graphic
design, inclusion of comparisons, or additional advice,
How would households prefer their feedback? lead to markedly rising customer satisfaction.
Some preferences, however, vary highly between
Most of the projects do not only study the quantitative nations and, probably, cultures. One instructive
effects of feedback, but also households understand- example is a comparison between Egan (1999) and
ing, preferences, and needs concerning feedback. Wilhite et al. (1999) which have tested the same four
Some (Egan 1999, one study described in Wilhite graphic designs for presenting a between-household
et al. 1999; the NUTEK 1996 study reported in comparison in Delaware, USA, and in Norway. The
Henryson et al. 2000; Sernhed et al. 2003) focus design that ranked highest in the USA was a
exclusively on these aspects. Such aspects are distribution graph with the horizontal axis spanning
important for building up customer satisfaction, but from lowest to highest consumption, and the vertical
also for laying a fertile ground for motivating house- axis showing the number of households on each level
holds to conserve electricity. of consumption. The individual data points were
One unanimous finding is that households in all represented by little houses (see Fig. 3). The same
countries approve feedback that is more detailed and design bombed completely in Norway, being charac-
more closely linked to consumption actions. It gives terized as childish on the one hand, and difficult to
them a sense of control and, if delivered with the bill, interpret on the other, because it remained unclear
of being valued and well informed by their utility. A whether the houses represented individual households
first important step is billing based on actual or aggregate data.
consumption (while electricity bills in many countries For the UK (IEA 2005, p.10) and for Sweden
come in the form of estimates). Other valued aspects (Sernhed et al. 2003), it is reported that citizens
are a higher frequency of the feedback and an exhibit an interest in comparison with their own
appliance-specific breakdown. previous consumption, but are much less interested in
Furthermore, there is usually an interest in com- comparisons with other households. On the contrary,
parisons with ones own previous consumption. It is the Finnish customers in the study conducted by
Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104 101
we have seen, much-consuming customers react Here, EU legislation will provide a window of
differently from little-consuming ones, and middle opportunity. Directive (2003/54/EC; concerning com-
class groups from working-class groups. Similar mon rules for the internal market in electricity)
considerations hold for computerized and interactive obliges suppliers to disclose certain product features
feedback: an overly complex tool requiring much (fuel mix, carbon content, nuclear waste) in the bill.
understanding and initiative from users may not be Therefore, utilities need to reconsider their bill format
the tool of choice for households with lower education, anyway. Even more important, Directive (2006/32/
lower technical interest (e.g., many elderly people) or EC) on energy end-use efficiency and energy services
less spare time. (Energy Services Directive) requires Member States
Sadly, implementation of useful feedback is lag- to introduce informative billing and other types of
ging way behind knowledge. Implementation usually feedback, including more frequent billing, historic
is not governed by scientific findings but by political and normative comparisons, and contact details for
interest, power constellations, opportunities, and obtaining further information on energy efficiency
incentives. Firstly, many variants of improved feed- (Art.13). Several Member States have already started
back hinge on technical preconditions that are not acting on the Directive. Denmark has a legal
always met. For example, continuous electronic obligation to provide an informative electricity bill
feedback requires smart, two-way metering tech- showing environmental impact as well as historic and
nology. A similar argument applies to more frequent normative comparisons. Companies are free to include
(e.g., monthly) feedback, if meter reading should not further information and to choose the mode of
become overly expensive (however, there could be presentation (IEA 2005, p.15). In Sweden, legislation
ways out of the dilemma, like self-reading of the foresees that by July 2009, all consumers will have
meter). Appliance-specific breakdowns would need monthly reading of their consumption based on actual
even more sophisticated technology which is at the use.
moment unlikely to be installed widely. Comparisons The Directive will also provide a favorable
with similar households rely on adequate data bases framework for systematic comparative large-N studies
which need to be built up. of various forms of feedback (which are expensive
Other forms of feedback, however, are less and technically challenging, so normally, there would
demanding. Comparisons to a previous period, pre- be few actors with an interest in conducting them).
sented in a graphic form, for example, should be For example, in the UK, the government has ear-
feasible as well as the inclusion of environmental marked 9.75 million for a pilot study containing
impact information or energy-saving tips. In some various trials of different sorts of feedback. A tender
countries, advanced metering technologies are cur- has been held by OFGEM and first trials have started
rently being introduced, providing a better basis for in 2007 (OFGEM 2006).
improved feedback (e.g., in Denmark, 25% of all However, the Energy Services Directive leaves
meters will be replaced by remote metering and two- ample space for Member States to define which
way communication technology by 2010. Norway is measures they deem appropriate, and how strin-
conducting pilots with smart meters. Italy has decided gently they will implement the measures. Therefore, it
to implement them widely). In general, it would be is up to national actors to push for changes, promote
advisable to rely on a little less effective form of interest in sustainable energy consumption, and
feedback that can be more easily implemented. This introduce experiments with feedback. National energy
points, for example, to the potential of improved agencies could be such actors. Where they are lacking,
electricity bills. weak or disinterested, NGOs, research institutions,
The biggest hurdle, of course, is energy utilities consumer advocacy groups, and innovative utilities
motivation. In situations of overcapacities, cheap could take up the same role. Without them doing so,
electricity available on the market, or oligopolies widespread implementation of helpful feedback will
with little competition, there is little interest in probably not stand any chance.
demand-side management. And if conservation is
not very important to customers, feedback is not the Acknowledgements The research has been conducted within
tool of choice for customer retention. the project TIPSTransformation and Innovation in Power
Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104 103
Systems. I thank the German Ministry for Education and shandelns. [How can psychologists improve their outreach
Research (BMBF) for funding TIPS within their program towards practitioners? A suggestion for a new, integrative
Socio-Ecological Research. Furthermore, I thank Ms. Anita model of environmentally sound everyday practice].
Eide, two anonymous reviewers of the ECEEE 2007 Summer Umweltpsychologie, 9(1), 6281.
Study, and two anonymous reviewers of Energy Efficiency for OFGEM (2006). Energy demand reduction pilotinvitation to
their detailed and important comments on earlier versions of bid. http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/temp/ofgem/cache/cmsattach/
this paper. 16285_155_06.pdf?wtfrom=/ofgem/work/index.jsp&
section=/areasofwork/metering.
References
Reviewed literature
General references
Abrahamse, W., Wokje, A., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter,
T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at
Birzle-Harder, B., & Gtz, K. (2001). Grner Stromeine household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental
sozialwissenschaftliche Marktanalyse. [Green Powera Psychology, 25(3), 273291.
sociological market analysis]. Frankfurt/M: Institut fr Arvola, A., Uutela, A., & Anttila, U. (1993). Billing feedback
sozial-kologische Forschung. as a means to encourage household electricity conserva-
Bittle, R. G., Valesano, R. M., & Thaler, G. M. (19791980). tion: A field experiment in Helsinki. In Proceedings of the
The effects of daily feedback on residential electricity 1993 summer study of the European Council for an energy
usage as a function of usage level and type of feedback efficient economy pp. 1121. Stockholm: ECEEE
information. Journal of Environmental Systems, 9, 275 Retrieved Feb 28th, 2008, from http://www.eceee.org/
287. conference_proceedings/eceee/1993/Panel_3/p3_2/Paper/.
Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and the Brandon, G., & Lewis, A. (1999). Reducing household energy
Council of 26 June 2003, concerning common rules for consumption: a qualitative and quantitative field study.
the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 7585.
96/92/EC. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/ Darby, S. (2001). Making it obvious: Designing feedback into
l_176/l_17620030715en00370055.pdf. energy consumption. In P. Bertoldi, A. Ricci, & A. de
Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Almeida (Eds.), Energy efficiency in household appliances
Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and and lighting (pp. 685696). Berlin: Springer.
energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/ Darby, S. (2006). The effectiveness of feedback on energy
EEC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/ consumption. A review for DEFRA of the literature on
l_114/l_11420060427en00640085.pdf. metering, billing, and direct displays. Retrieved March
DIW (Deutsches Institut fr Wirtschaftsforschung) Berlin, 22nd, 2007, from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/
Forschungszentrum Jlich, Fraunhofer ISI, ko-Institut energy/research/pdf/energyconsump-feedback.pdf.
(2005). Klimaschutz in Deutschland bis 2030. Endbericht Dobson, J. K., & Griffin, J. D. A. (1992). Conservation effect
zum Forschungsvorhaben Politikszenarien III. [Climate of immediate electricity cost feedback on residential con-
Protection in Germany up to the Year 2030. Final Report sumption behavior. In Proceedings of the ACEEE 1992
for Research Project Policy Scenarios III.] Berlin: Umwelt- Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 10 (pp.3335).
bundesamt. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/ Dnnhoff, E., & Duscha, M. (2008). Effiziente Beratungsbausteine
fpdf-l/2822.pdf. zur Minderung des Stromverbrauchs in privaten Haushalten.
DLR (Deutsches Institut fr Luft und Raumfahrt), IFEU Endbericht [Efficient building blocks for energy counseling
(Institut fr Energie und Umwelt), WI (Wuppertal Institut aimed at reducing electricity consumption in private house-
fr Klima, Umwelt, Energie) (2004). kologisch opti- holds]. Study by the ifeu (Institut fr Energie-und Umwelt-
mierter Ausbau der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien in forschung), Heidelberg (in press).
Deutschland. [Environmentally Optimized Expansion of Egan, C. (1999). Graphical displays and comparative energy
Renewable Energy Use in Germany.] Bundesministerium information: What do people understand and prefer? Paper
fr Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. http:// presented at the Summer Study of the European Council
www.dlr.de/tt/institut/abteilungen/system/publications/ for an Energy Efficient Economy, 1999, paper no. 212.
Oekologisch_optimierter_Ausbau_Langfassung.pdf. Retrieved December 3rd, 2007, from: http://www.eceee.
Enqute-Kommission (2002). Bericht der Enqute-Kommission org/conference_proceedings/eceee/1999/Panel_2/p2_12/.
des 14. Bundestags Nachhaltige Energieversorgung unter Garay, J., & Lindholm, P. (1995). Statistics on the energy bill.
den Bedingungen der Globalisierung und Liberalisierung. Better control for the customer. In Proceedings of the
[Report of the 14th Bundestags Commission of Inquiry seventh international energy program evaluation confer-
Sustainable Energy Supply Under Conditions of Global- ence: Energy program evaluation: Uses, methods, and
ization and Liberalization.] Bundestags-Drucksache 14/ results, Aug 2225, 1995, Chicago (pp. 499504).
9400, Berlin. http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/gremien/ Haakana, M., Sillanp, L., & Talsi, M. (1997). The effect of
kommissionen/archiv14/ener/schlussbericht/index.htm. feedback and focused advice on household energy
Matthies, E. (2005). Wie knnen PsychologInnen ihr Wissen consumption. Paper presented at the Summer Study of
besser an die PraktikerIn bringen? Vorschlag eines neuen, the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
integrativen Einflussschemas umweltgerechten Alltag- 1997. Retrieved March 22nd, 2007, from: http://proceedings.
104 Energy Efficiency (2008) 1:79104