It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background. Policy makers and program managers need to better understand consumers’ perceptions of their energy use and savings to design effective strategies for promoting energy savings. Methods. We reviewed 14 studies from the emerging interdisciplinary literature examining consumers’ perceptions electricity use by specific appliances, and potential savings. Results. We find that: (1) electricity use is often overestimated for low-energy consuming appliances, and underestimated for high-energy consuming appliances; (2) curtailment strategies are typically preferred over energy efficiency strategies; (3) consumers lack information about how much electricity can be saved through specific strategies; (4) consumers use heuristics for assessing the electricity use of specific appliances, with some indication that more accurate judgments are made among consumers with higher numeracy and stronger pro-environmental attitudes. However, design differences between studies, such as variations in reference points, reporting units and assessed time periods, may affect consumers’ reported perceptions. Moreover, studies differ with regard to whether accuracy of perceptions was evaluated through comparisons with general estimates of actual use, self-reported use, household-level meter readings, or real-time smart meter readings. Conclusion. Although emerging findings are promising, systematic variations in the measurement of perceived and actual electricity use are potential cause for concern. We propose avenues for future research, so as to better understand, and possibly inform, consumers’ perceptions of their electricity use. Ultimately, this literature will have implications for the design of effective electricity feedback for consumers, and related policies.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Davis, Matthew C 3 ; Krishnamurti, Tamar 4 ; Azevedo, Inês M L 5
1 Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
2 Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom; Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America
3 Socio-Technical Centre,Leeds University Business School, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
4 Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America
5 Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America; Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.




