1981
DOI: 10.1016/0360-5442(81)90017-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Review of utility home energy audit programs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

1986
1986
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The typical result of using only information as a policy tool is that behaviour does not change (see e.g. Hirst et al 1981, Ester and Winett 1982, McDougall et al 1983 or the change is only modest (see e.g. Becker 1978, Craig and McCann 1978, Seligman et al 1981, Pardini and Katzev 1984, Cialdini et al1991.…”
Section: Energy Consumption and Behaviourmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The typical result of using only information as a policy tool is that behaviour does not change (see e.g. Hirst et al 1981, Ester and Winett 1982, McDougall et al 1983 or the change is only modest (see e.g. Becker 1978, Craig and McCann 1978, Seligman et al 1981, Pardini and Katzev 1984, Cialdini et al1991.…”
Section: Energy Consumption and Behaviourmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In some communities, homeowners were also offered zero-or low-interest loans and were provided a list of local contractors. The program led to the installation of basic energy efficiency measures by less than 3% of the eligible households, reducing participating household energy use by only 2-3% (Hirst et al 1981;. Low participation rates have not been uncommon over the years; one study found that many energy efficiency financing programs reached less than 0.1% of their eligible customers each year (Fuller 2008).…”
Section: Lessons From Past Programsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In an early effort to encourage energy efficiency in the USA in 1978, the Residential Conservation Service (RCS) instructed utilities to provide their customers with free home energy audits. This led to energy efficiency changes by less than 3 % of the households and average energy use per household fell by only 2-3 % (Hirst et al 1981). The low participation rates and low energy reduction were explained by a US National Research Council report which stated that the RCS overlooked 'the rich mixture of cultural practices, social interactions, and human feelings that influence the behavior of individuals, social groups and institutions' (Stern et al 1984).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%