Twenty Years of Energy Demand Management: We Know More About Individual Behavior But How Much Do We Really Know About DemancP

Panel: Panel 8. Consumer Behavior and Non-Energy Effects

Authors:
Harold Wilhite, University of Oslo
Elizabeth Shove, University of Lancaster
Loren Lutzenhiser, Washington State University
Willett Kempton, University of Delaware

Abstract

DSM replaced energy conservation in the mid-1980’s as the umbrella term for measures intended to change the ways in which energy is consumed. For the majority of the energy community ofresearchers, policy makers and practitioners, DSM has meant getting efficient technologies out there and into use. Frustrations with DSM programs which had not lived up to expectations in the years after the oil shocks led to the acknowledgment that homes, offices and businesses, were inhabited by people, and if anything were to be accomplished these “end-users” had to be aware that more efficient technologies existed, had to be interested in purchasing them and had to use them as they were intended. Hence, the invention ofthe domain of research and policy termed “energy behavior” and the invitation of social scientists to join the energy debate in order to explain why people were not behaving as they were supposed to. At the ACEEE meetings, a “behavior” panel was created in the early 1980’s. Though “behavior” was dropped at the end ofthe 1980’s, reference to behavior has been brought back a decade later. In this paper, the authors will discuss how the focus on individual behavior, both at the conference and in the energy world in general, has limited the role of social science in contributing to an understanding of demand. Little attention has been given to the contribution of other actors, institutions and non-energy related policies which contribute to the structuring of choice, including commercial organizations, advertising, media, and the plethora of government policies which influence consumption. The principal concern has been to increase technical efficiency, leaving unattended the evolution of notions of comfort and convenience and their considerable implications for the demand for energy services. We recommend a new approach which recasts the demand for energy, and the things which use energy, as a social demand, dependent not just on prices and degree ofconsumer awareness, but also on social norms and a network of social institutions. We also challenge energy research and policy to seriously address escalating demand for energy services.