No 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.

In this study, the role of values in the field of household energy use is investigated by using the concept of quality of life (QOL). Importance judgments on 22 QOL aspects could be summarized into seven clearly interpretable value dimensions. The seven value dimensions and general and specific environmental concern contributed significantly to the explanation of policy support for government regulation and for market strategies aimed at managing environmental problems as well as to the explanation of the acceptability of specific home and transport energy-saving measures. In line with earlier research, home and transport energy use were especially related to sociodemographic variables like income and household size. These results show that it is relevant to distinguish between different measures of environmental impact and different types of environmental intent. Moreover, the results suggest that using only attitudinal variables, such as values, may be too limited to explain all types of environmental behavior.

Measures of proenvironmental behavior in psychological studies do not always reflect the actual environmental impact of a person or household. Therefore, the results of these studies provide little insight into variables that could be helpful in reducing household environmental impact. In this article, an environmentally significant measure of household consumer behavior (i.e., combined direct and indirect energy use) is presented and compared with a common social science measure of proenvironmental behavior (based on popular notions of environmentally significant behavior). Two large-scale field studies were conducted among representative samples of Dutch households. The results showed respondents who indicate they behave more proenvironmentally do not necessarily use less energy. Also, proenvironmental behavior is more strongly related to attitudinal variables, whereas household energy use is primarily related to variables such as income and household size. More multidisciplinary research seems necessary to identify variables that influence the actual environmental impact of household consumer behavior.

In this multidisciplinary study, an Internet-based tool was used to encourage households (N ¼ 189) to reduce their direct (gas, electricity and fuel) and indirect energy use (embedded in the production, transportation and disposal of consumer goods). A combination of tailored information, goal setting (5%), and tailored feedback was used. The purpose of this study was to examine whether this combination of interventions would result in (i) changes in direct and indirect energy use, (ii) changes in energy-related behaviors, and (iii) changes in behavioral antecedents (i.e. knowledge). After 5 months, households exposed to the combination of interventions saved 5.1%, while households in the control group used 0.7% more energy. Households exposed to the interventions saved significantly more direct energy than households in the control group did. No difference in indirect energy savings emerged. Households exposed to the interventions adopted a number of energy-saving behaviors during the course of the study, whereas households in the control group did so to a lesser extent. Households exposed to the interventions had significantly higher knowledge levels of energy conservation than the control group had. It is argued that if the aim is to effectively encourage household energy conservation, it is necessary to examine changes in energy use, energy-related behaviors and behavioral antecedents.