Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: A Field Experiment on Lifetime Energy Costs and Household Appliances

  • Steffen Kallbekken
  • Håkon Sælen
  • Erlend A. T. Hermansen
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Providing consumers with information that can lead to more energy-efficient choices can help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions while reducing costs to consumers. A natural field experiment is conducted in collaboration with an electrical retailer to test strategies for influencing sales of household appliances. The experiment involves two product categories, fridge-freezers and tumble driers. Information on lifetime energy cost of appliances is provided through a label and training of sales staff. For fridge-freezers, the authors find no significant effects. For tumble driers, the combined treatment and training treatment reduce average energy use of tumble driers sold by 4.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The effect is strongest initially, over 12% on average for the first 3 months for the combined treatment but declines over time. The effect is significant at the 5% level for the combined treatment while not significant for sales staff training.

Keywords

Energy efficiency Field experiment Cost disclosure Household appliances 

References

  1. Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93(1), 112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie, A., Diamnond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allcott, H., & Mullainathan, S. (2010). Behavior and energy policy. Science, 327, 1204–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allcott, H., & Wozny, N. (2010). Gasoline prices, fuel economy, and the energy paradox. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. MIT Energy Initiative and Sloan School of Management.Google Scholar
  5. Allcott, H., Mullainathan, S., & Taubinsky, D. (2011). Externalizing the internality. New York University Working Paper.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, C. D., & Claxton, J. D. (1982). Barriers to consumer choice of energy efficient products. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., & Bruin, W. B. d. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(37), 16054–16059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cropper, M. L., & Oates, W. E. (1992). Environmental economics: A survey. Journal of Economics Literature, 30(2), 675–740.Google Scholar
  9. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deutsch, M. (2010a). The effect of life-cycle cost disclosure on consumer behavior: Evidence from a field experiment with cooling appliances. Energy Efficiency, 3(4), 303–315. doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9076-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deutsch, M. (2010b). Life cycle cost disclosure, consumer behavior, and business implications. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 103–120. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00201.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Council. (1992). Council directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992. Official Journal of the European Communities 13.10.92: European Council.Google Scholar
  13. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401. doi:10.1257/002205102320161311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene, D. L., Patterson, P. D., Singh, M., & Li, J. (2005). Feebates, rebates and gas-guzzler taxes: A study of incentives for increased fuel economy. Energy Policy, 33(6), 757–775. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heinzle, S. (2012). Disclosure of energy operating cost information: A silver bullet for overcoming the energy-efficiency gap? Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 43–64. doi:10.1007/s10603-012-9189-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heinzle, S. L., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2012). Dynamic adjustment of eco-labeling schemes and consumer choice—The revision of the EU energy label as a missed opportunity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(1), 60–70. doi:10.1002/bse.722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutton, R. B., & Wilkie, W. L. (1980). Life cycle cost: A new form of consumer information. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1994). The energy efficiency gap—What does it mean? Energy Policy, 22(10), 804–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaenzig, J., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). The effect of life cycle cost information on consumer investment decisions regarding eco-innovation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 121–136. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00195.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Growth from Knowledge. (2007) Forbrukerdagbøker [consumer diaries] 2007. Oslo.Google Scholar
  22. Korhonen, A., Roos, I., Throne-Holst, H., Jensen, H. M., Ahlkvist-Johansson, H., & Rosen, G. (2007). Impact of energy labelling on household appliances TemaNord (vol. 605): Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  23. Krewitt, W. (2002). External costs of energy—Do the answers match the questions?: Looking back at 10 years of ExternE. Energy Policy, 30(10), 839–848. doi:10.1016/s0301-4215(01)00140-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. List, J., & Gallet, C. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNeill, D. L., & Wilkie, W. L. (1979). Public policy and consumer information: Impact of the new energy labels. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. A. (2007). Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Shen, J., & Saijo, T. (2009). Does an energy efficiency label alter consumers’ purchasing decisions? A latent class approach based on a stated choice experiment in Shanghai. [research support, non-U.S. Gov’t]. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11), 3561–3573. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stern, N. (2007): The economics of climate change - The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Thøgersen, J. (2007). Social marketing of alternative transportation modes. In T. Gärling & L. Steg (Eds.), Threats from car traffic to the quality of urban life (pp. 367–381). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Thorne, J., & Egan, C. (2002). An evaluation of the federal trade commission’s energy guide appliance label: Final report and recommendations. Washington D.C: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  31. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003a). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003b). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Kallbekken
    • 1
  • Håkon Sælen
    • 1
  • Erlend A. T. Hermansen
    • 1
  1. 1.CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research–OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations