4.4 Article

Dishwashing behaviour of European consumers with regard to the acceptance of long programme cycles

Journal

ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages 1627-1640

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12053-017-9539-y

Keywords

Consumer behaviour; Online survey; Automatic dishwashing; Energy-saving programmes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since the introduction of the energy label for household dishwashers in the EU, manufacturers have been incentivised to reduce resource consumption and increase the energy efficiency of their appliances. Technological progress has led to very efficient programmes with cleaning cycles of 3 to 4h or longer. The European Commission recently initiated a revision of the energy label and Ecodesign requirements, leading to their adjustment to the state of the art and to actual usage patterns. The University of Bonn was tasked with investigating dishwashing habits in Europe. An online survey was conducted in 11 countries of the EU with more than 5000 participants. The survey focused on the choice of programme, attitudes towards energy-saving programmes and practices and the willingness to apply them. It appears that consumers are willing to apply energy-saving practices and to use energy-saving programmes, but the acceptance of long cycles that take more than 2h is low, which stands in contradiction to the fact that 19% of all dishwashing cycles are run in the Eco programme, which takes more than 2h in most cases. The percentage of people who understand that long cycles can be energy-efficient is smaller than the percentage of those who do not believe this. The statements of the participants are contradictory regarding the importance of saving energy and of programme duration. The results of the survey point out the importance of better consumer education and better communication by manufacturers, consumer organisations and legislation.

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