Energy Efficiency

, Volume 11, Issue 7, pp 1811–1824 | Cite as

Marketing energy efficiency: perceived benefits and barriers to home energy efficiency

  • Jennifer C. ColeEmail author
  • Jessica B. McDonald
  • Xinyuan Wen
  • Randall A. Kramer
Original Article


Energy efficiency contributes significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the associated mitigation of climate change. The uptake of energy efficiency measures in the residential sector requires significant effort on the part of homeowners or residents. Past research has revealed that cost savings and social interaction motivate energy efficiency behavior. This study expands on this research by examining the hypothesis that there are regional differences in what motivates individuals to implement home energy efficiency upgrades. Two surveys (N = 320 and N = 423) examine the perceived benefits of and barriers to undertaking home energy efficiency improvements in varying geographic regions across the USA and test marketing materials that target these benefits and barriers. The hypothesis that there are regional differences in perceptions of energy efficiency was confirmed. Cost savings were found to be the most important benefit to individuals across the country. Energy efficiency being a good investment is either the second or third most important benefit across all regions. Increased comfort is the last of the top three most important benefits to those in the South and Midwest, while those in the Northeast demonstrated interest in the increase in home retail value associated with energy efficiency, and those in the West found the environmental benefits to be important. High costs of energy efficiency improvements were found to be the most commonly perceived barrier. Reported likelihood to enroll in a home energy efficiency program offered by one’s employer was predicted by perceived likelihood that coworkers would enroll, income level, and personal opinions about the importance of energy efficiency.


Energy efficiency Behavioral energy efficiency Home energy efficiency Social marketing 



The authors would like to thank Jason Elliott of the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative for his input and support in this research. This research was completed as the capstone master’s project for the Master of Environmental Management degree for the first three authors.

Funding information

This research is supported by funding from the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative at Duke University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aravena, C., Riquelme, A., & Denny, E. (2016). Money, comfort or environment? Priorities and determinants of energy efficiency investments in Irish households. Journal of consumer policy, 39(2), 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asensio, O., & Delmas, M. (2015). Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(6), E510–E515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attari, S., Dekay, M., Davidson, C., & Bruin, W. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(39), 16054–16059. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(03), 351–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fort, K., Adda, G., & Bretonnel Cohen, K. (2011). Amazon Mechanical Turk: Gold mine or coal mine? Computational Linguistics, 37(2), 413–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guerin, D. A., Yust, B. L., & Coopet, J. G. (2009). Occupant predictors of household energy behavior and consumption change as found in energy studies since 1975. Family and Consumer Science Research, 29(1), 48–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Palmer, K., Walls, M., Gordon, H., & Gerarden, T. (2011). Assessing the energy-efficiency information gap: Results from a survey of home energy auditors. Energy Efficiency, 6(2), 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pohlert, T. (2014). The pairwise multiple comparison of mean ranks package (PMCMR). R package.
  13. Sheehan, K. B., & Pittman, M. (Eds.). (2016). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for academics: The HIT handbook for social science research. Irvine: Melvin and Leigh.Google Scholar
  14. Smalley, R. (2005). Future global energy prosperity: the Terawatt challenge. Materials Research Society Bulletin, 30(06), 412–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Southwell, B. G., & Murphy, J. (2014). Weatherization behavior and social context: the influences of factual knowledge and social interaction. Energy Research and Social Science, 2, 59–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Southwell, B. G., Doran, E. M. B., & Richman, L. S. (Eds.). (2016). Innovations in home energy use: a sourcebook for behavior change. Research Triangle Park: RTI Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sovacool, B. K. (2014). What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research and Social Science, 1, 1–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010. Retrieved from
  19. U.S. Census Bureau. (2015a). Educational Attainment: 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from
  20. U.S. Census Bureau. (2015b). Selected economic characteristics: 2011–2015 American community survey 5-Year estimates. Retrieved from
  21. U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Retrieved from
  22. U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.) Census bureau regions and divisions with state FIPS codes. Retrieved from
  23. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2015). Better buildings challenge: overview. Retrieved from Buildings Challenge Overview.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer C. Cole
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jessica B. McDonald
    • 1
  • Xinyuan Wen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Randall A. Kramer
    • 1
  1. 1.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and NeuroscienceUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  3. 3.National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International CooperationBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations