4.4 Article

Evaluation of European energy behavioural change programmes

Journal

ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 67-82

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12053-011-9115-9

Keywords

Evaluation; Energy efficiency; Behavioural change; The BEHAVE Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article is based on the findings of the BEHAVE Project (Evaluation of Energy Behavioural Change Programmes) which was supported by the European Commission under the EU Intelligent Energy-Europe (IEE) Programme. The project started with a review of behavioural theories and their applicability in the development and evaluation of energy-related behavioural change programmes, progressed to a case study analysis and finished with a publication of guidelines for programme developers and policy makers. This paper concentrates on the results of the case study analysis and the recommendations arising from it. In the case study analysis, information was collected on almost 100 cases aiming at behavioural change in energy use from 11 European countries. More detailed information was collected on 41 cases which were subject to meta-analysis to identify success factors and weak points and to gather information on the current evaluation practices in such programmes. The meta-analysis was carried out in five phases: context (pre-planning), planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Planning and evaluation were recognised as two of the most critical phases. Many of the programmes operated with quite formal plans but were typically not based on scientific theories or evidence. In many cases, there was lack of market segmentation; the goals were not targeted and the programmes tried to offer everything to everybody. A multitude of ex-post evaluation methods for programme impacts were reported ranging from participant surveys, testing and comparison with control groups to top-down method evaluating the impact of several programmes focusing on the same target group. Process evaluation (25 cases) was slightly less common than impact evaluation (29 cases). Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the programmes was a rarity, most likely due to difficulties in quantitative impact evaluation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available