4.8 Article

Creating an in-home display: Experimental evidence and guidelines for design

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 108, Issue -, Pages 448-458

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.048

Keywords

In-home displays; Electricity feedback; Consumer preferences; Learning

Funding

  1. Department of Energy [DE-OE0000300, DE-OE0000204]
  2. United States Government
  3. Climate and Energy Decision Making [SES-0949710]
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  5. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [949710] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In-home electricity displays (IUDs) are digital devices that can give near-real-time information about electricity usage in the home. These devices have the potential to provide the kind of personalized feedback necessary to effect behavioral change among residential consumers. However, for consumers to be able to act on the information provided on IHDs, they must first be able to understand it. We present an approach to in-home display design that uses research on customer preferences to determine which features to experimentally examine for customer comprehension. Additionally, we compare these preferences against experimental data to determine whether people have insight into what information best works for an increased understanding of energy saving. Using a computer-based simulated IHD, we find that the types of feedback information that consumers prefer (appliance-specific and dollar-feedback) are not as effective for learning about appliance energy use as the less-preferred aggregated kW h feedback. Moreover, it appears that a simpler more generalized format of information provision has the potential to be more effective than a personalized IHD. We discuss how consumer preferences and experimental tests can jointly be used to inform the design of feedback technologies. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available