IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/aicuec/v63y2016is1p89-107n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficient Use of Behavioral Tools to Reduce Electricity Demand of Domestic Consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Elbaz Shimon
  • Zaiţ Adriana

    (Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi, Romania)

Abstract

Purpose: The present study investigated the main literature on the subject of methods and policies for reducing the electricity demand of domestic consumers, in order to identify the place of behavioral tools. Methodology: We used secondary sources, performing a literature review, together with analysis and synthesis. Findings: Policy makers prefer to use tools offered by neoclassical economics, such as various forms of taxation, fines and financial incentives in order to make domestic electricity consumers save electricity, on the assumption that consumers will make rational decisions while maximizing their personal benefit. However, studies conducted in recent years in the field of behavioral economics, which are based on the assumption that consumers’ decisions are not rational and are affected by cognitive biases, showed that the use of behavioral tools, such as detailed online information (feedback),social comparison information, information on varying rates (dynamic pricing) and general information (advertising campaign), are tools that are not less appropriate than the ones the neoclassical economics offers, mainly because electricity is an invisible product and consumers are unable to assess it by normal cognitive measures. Using an interdisciplinary combination of behavioral tools that come from a variety of approaches taken from a wide variety of different academic fields, it is possible to receive efficient results in the endeavor of reducing electricity demand. Implications: Although the neoclassical economics still remains the fundamental theory used by policymakers, it is recommended to consider behavioral economics as a complementary approach to the neoclassical economics, and combine behavioral tools in the policymakers’ toolbox, especially when those tools do not require a significant financial investment, thus efficiently maximizing the reduction of electricity demand among domestic consumers. These theoretical results will be used for designing future empirical researches on the efficiency of behavioral tools in changing the pattern of electricity consumers’ behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Elbaz Shimon & Zaiţ Adriana, 2016. "Efficient Use of Behavioral Tools to Reduce Electricity Demand of Domestic Consumers," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 63(s1), pages 89-107, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:aicuec:v:63:y:2016:i:s1:p:89-107:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/saeb-2016-0137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/saeb-2016-0137
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/saeb-2016-0137?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael G. Pollitt & Irina Shaorshadze, 2013. "The role of behavioural economics in energy and climate policy," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 24, pages 523-546, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    3. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    4. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    5. Dulleck, Uwe & Kaufmann, Sylvia, 2004. "Do customer information programs reduce household electricity demand?--the Irish program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1025-1032, June.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    8. Charles Goldman & Galen Barbose & Joseph Eto, 2002. "California Customer Load Reductions during the Electricity Crisis: Did They Help to Keep the Lights On?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 113-142, June.
    9. Strbac, Goran, 2008. "Demand side management: Benefits and challenges," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4419-4426, December.
    10. Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2012. "Behavioral Economics and Environmental Policy," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 75-99, August.
    11. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    12. Steg, Linda, 2008. "Promoting household energy conservation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4449-4453, December.
    13. Benders, Rene M.J. & Kok, Rixt & Moll, Henri C. & Wiersma, Gerwin & Noorman, Klaas Jan, 2006. "New approaches for household energy conservation--In search of personal household energy budgets and energy reduction options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3612-3622, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura Abrardi, 2019. "Behavioral barriers and the energy efficiency gap: a survey of the literature," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 46(1), pages 25-43, March.
    2. Schubert, Christian, 2017. "Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-342.
    3. Andor, Mark A. & Fels, Katja M., 2018. "Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation – A Systematic Review of Non-price Interventions and Their Causal Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 178-210.
    4. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Irena Alebaite, 2020. "Climate Change Mitigation in Households between Market Failures and Psychological Barriers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, June.
    5. Damgaard, Mette Trier, 2021. "A decade of nudging: What have we learned?," Nationaløkonomisk tidsskrift, Nationaløkonomisk Forening, vol. 2021(1), pages 1-21.
    6. Ramos, A. & Gago, A. & Labandeira, X. & Linares, P., 2015. "The role of information for energy efficiency in the residential sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 17-29.
    7. Quinn Keefer & Galib Rustamov, 2018. "Limited attention in residential energy markets: a regression discontinuity approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 993-1017, November.
    8. Todd D. Gerarden & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1486-1525, December.
    9. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    10. Cristiano Codagnone & Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri & Francesco Bogliacino & Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva & George Gaskell & Andriy Ivchenko & Pietro Ortoleva & Francesco Mureddu, 2016. "Labels as nudges? An experimental study of car eco-labels," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 403-432, December.
    11. Jihyo Kim & Suhyeon Nam, 2021. "Do Household Time, Risk, and Social Preferences Affect Home Energy Retrofit Decisions in Korea?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Dominika Czyz & Karolina Safarzynska, 2023. "Catastrophic Damages and the Optimal Carbon Tax Under Loss Aversion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 303-340, June.
    13. Brülisauer, Marcel & Goette, Lorenz & Jiang, Zhengyi & Schmitz, Jan & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Appliance-specific feedback and social comparisons: Evidence from a field experiment on energy conservation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Faure, Corinne & Meissner, Thomas, 2016. "Making the implicit explicit: A look inside the implicit discount rate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 321-331.
    15. Singhal, Puja & Pahle, Michael & Kalkuhl, Matthias & Levesque, Antoine & Sommer, Stephan & Berneiser, Jessica, 2022. "Beyond good faith: Why evidence-based policy is necessary to decarbonize buildings cost-effectively in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    16. Ajzenman, Nicolas & López Bóo, Florencia, 2019. "Lessons from Behavioral Economics to Improve Treatment Adherence in Parenting Programs: An Application to SMS," IZA Discussion Papers 12808, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Rachel Croson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(3), pages 335-351, July.
    18. Ghesla, Claus & Grieder, Manuel & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    19. Spandagos, Constantine & Yarime, Masaru & Baark, Erik & Ng, Tze Ling, 2020. "“Triple Target” policy framework to influence household energy behavior: Satisfy, strengthen, include," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    20. Yue, Ting & Long, Ruyin & Chen, Hong, 2013. "Factors influencing energy-saving behavior of urban households in Jiangsu Province," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 665-675.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:aicuec:v:63:y:2016:i:s1:p:89-107:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.