Content uploaded by Myriam Fréjus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Myriam Fréjus on Sep 12, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Why Energy Consumption Feedback
Is not (Only) a Display Issue
Myriam Fréjus
1(✉)
and Dominique Martini
2
1EDF Research & Development, Paris-Saclay, France
myriam.frejus@edf.fr
2ITG, Paris, France
dmi@dmartini.fr
Abstract. This paper presents the results of a longitudinal study of the appro‐
priation of a consumption display. Our results show that feedback on household
energy consumption is contextually interpreted according to personal energy
history, other available resources for managing energy issues, including resources
for actions and human resources, and in relation with the occurring activity. We
show that feedback use is an evolving process co-determined by the actors’
preoccupations and their activity context. Consumption feedback should be
considered as part of a system of assistance designed to enhance user engagement
with energy control. To be appropriable, it must have at least three main charac‐
teristics: scalability, complementarity, and operationality.
Keywords: Sustainability · Energy consumption · Field study · Consumption
feedback · User-centered design
1 Introduction
Sustainability has become an important issue in HCI research. Displaying consumption
information is a way to make energy visible and engage people in self-reflective
processes that prompt changes in domestic practices and thereby lower consumption.
However, this “ideal path” to sustainability does not seem to correspond to observations
in smart grid experiments and user research.
The earliest work in this field sought to modify behavior and convince consumers
to change their habits. Yet the experiments designed to quantify the impact of displays
on consumption often showed contradictory results [4]. The most frequent results were
then retained in the literature to define an average range of lower consumption, thus
obscuring the wide diversity in the results [3]. The focus on cost savings was linked,
especially in the persuasive approach, to a view of the actor as a rational consumer,
sensitive to influences and willing to change behaviors in order to control energy
use [26].
The limitations of this approach were first noted by researchers in the human
“behavior” sciences: social sciences [18, 23], psychology [21] and cognitive ergo‐
nomics [8].
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
A. Marcus (Ed.): DUXU 2016, Part II, LNCS 9747, pp. 461–471, 2016.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-40355-7_44
The domination of the persuasive approach [17] has nevertheless resulted in many
studies to evaluate consumption display types (functionalities, usages) [10], and the
impact of functionalities on behaviors has guided the design of displays [1]. Yet both
the designs and the evaluation methods remain questionable.
Feedback system design necessarily focuses on functionalities linked to energy use
and cost, including consumption at various time scales, normal use compared with that
of other households, desirable behaviors (eco-gestures), or the most likely energy bill
[16]. Much of this information is too often disconnected from the contexts in which
behaviors occur and energy is consumed [27]. Many of the questions about how to
monitor and control energy depend on personal and familial contexts (domestic practices
and activities, family organization), as well as technical (material, means of action, etc.)
and social (skills, preoccupations, expectations, financial means, etc.) contexts. More‐
over, the feedback display system is often considered apart from other solutions, like
other information sources and ways of remoting appliances.
Another limitation of the experiments has been the focus on before-after behaviors.
Perhaps because of experimental or methodological constraints (before/after questions)
[25], the actual evolution in behavior has rarely been examined [15]. Yet an interpreta‐
tion at the end of the experiment can be questioned if nothing is known about the course
of the behavior over time and how it was affected by factors that obstructed or facilitated
the appropriation of feedback. Increasingly, studies now describe the actual use (or non-
use) of feedback displays over time [2, 5, 17, 20]. These studies, which evaluate the
long-term impact of energy monitoring, have shown results that differ from those of
short-term studies. Notably, they indicate that user engagement with monitoring grad‐
ually lessens or disappears [13, 22, 24].
[13], for example, noted a drop in engagement over a 12-month study, despite an
initial phase of interest. This drop was attributed to a lack of new information that might
have held consumers’ interest. Other authors have tested feedback displays with richer
functionalities and observed no drop in engagement, but rather a shift from regular use
to more occasional use [11, 17]. This has been interpreted as reflecting the shift from
novelty to utility rather than a lack of interest, or from a discovery phase to a maintenance
phase [14]. The growing competence of users who are quite aware of their energy use
(“energy literacy” [17]) suggests that the information supply should be regularly
enriched and renewed to respond to increasingly sophisticated user questions [9].
However, these user needs and their evolution have rarely been described in the litera‐
ture, especially in relation to their socio-technical context, in addition to the feedback
function. The impact of feedback displays is also a particularly complex issue because
a better understanding of energy consumption does not necessarily result in energy-
conserving actions [5] and may even limit action, with household members assuming
that their energy use falls within the norms and should therefore merely be main‐
tained [20].
Recent HCI findings have underlined the importance of enlarging the issue of energy
savings to include consumer commitment [12], evolving competence [17], the devel‐
opment of reflective processes [7] and the contextual factors of domestic [8, 23] and
familial [2, 19] activities. The above-cited studies confirm the need for in-depth analysis
of the appropriation phase of feedback to determine how it can be made a part of daily
462 M. Fréjus and D. Martini
preoccupations and domestic activities. This analysis can be accomplished by consid‐
ering feedback use at the familial scale as an evolving process co-determined by the
preoccupations of household members and their contexts of activity [9].
In this paper, we describe the first results from a study of the appropriation of an
electrical energy consumption display that takes into account its context for use and
questions anew its role in the evolution of household preoccupations and engagement
with energy control.
2 The Study
We assumed that a longitudinal study would provide a better picture of consumer
histories with feedback and energy control and help situate the use (or non-use) of feed‐
back within its context of emergence. Individual users are studied in terms of their
growing competence, understanding of energy issues, and changes in personal energy
practices.
Description of the feedback. The study is being conducted in France, where a smart
grid meter is currently being deployed. We are testing an application that can be down‐
loaded onto iOS and Android smartphones or tablets (Fig. 1). The application receives
energy-use data via Bluetooth 4 (low energy) from the smart meter, transmitted by a
flash drive in the meter’s USB slot. The application shows household customers the
fluctuations in their energy use: current power usage and consumption in euros per month
updated every 2 s; average, peak and purchased power; and standby consumption. They
can see the peak and off-peak periods, with a summary table presenting their aggregate
consumption over several time periods, as well as graphical presentations (in Wh or
euros). They can measure consumption over a set period and even measure the consump‐
tion of certain appliances (estimating consumption per second, per hour or per euro).
Fig. 1. (from left to right) Start screen showing instantaneous power and consumption, graphical
history (daily consumption), consumption information per appliance (measurement underway),
consumption results per appliance.
The application was previously tested with users to verify and improve its usability.
Why Energy Consumption Feedback Is not (Only) a Display Issue 463
Participants. The study has recruited individuals who are not currently participating
in other smart grid studies by phone or in the energy supplier boutique. At the beginning
of the study, the obstacles to technical eligibility were substantial (specific type of elec‐
tricity meter, limited number of smartphone models) and these were the main filter for
recruitment. We assumed that the willingness to participate in the experiment was the
only complementary criterion, the idea being that we would complete the sample later
with any missing profiles (type of lodging, family composition, etc.). Of the ten house‐
holds, eight include children (two adolescents), one couple has no children, and one is
a divorced man. All live in detached houses (six had them built) with electric heating
(alone or with wood burning) and areas ranging from 80 to 200 m2. Nine are home‐
owners and one is renting. All have time-of-use pricing plans for peak/off-peak hours.
The ten houses were equipped between the autumn 2013 and summer 2014. As of
December 2015, all were still participating in the study. They have all been compensated
on the basis of the length of their participation (70 euros for two visits and phone follow-
up, 100 euros for three visits, etc.).
Method. On the first visit to the households, the system is installed, application use is
explained, and an interview is conducted. An autobiographical interview provides a
history of the participants in their homes as it relates to energy use. The longitudinal
study alternates between home visits to gather in-depth information from the customers
and document past usage, and remote follow-up to determine ongoing usage. The partic‐
ipants use the application for several months, as and when they choose. They are invited
to inform us whenever they use the application (their choice of phone, email or text
message). If they do not do so (most often), we send a reminder by phone or email, based
on the remote tracking system. Display usage is reconstructed with the users to help us
to understand the context that motivated the usage, and according to the sequencing of
actions that they report. More home visits are planned for every three to six months.
Whenever possible, in situ interviews are conducted with the couples.
Modeling. The interviews are fully transcribed, as are any filmed uses. The collected
data are used to build the history of customers as they appropriate the system and to
model the course of their reflections about energy use before, during and after we intro‐
duce the system.
Any person using the application is assumed to be an actor. As thus far this has often
been only one person in the home, we initially analyzed data from his/her point of view,
but we distinguished between energy questions or decisions that were personal and those
shared with other family members. We intend to separate the evolution of each indi‐
vidual, but analysis will necessarily be partial because of differences in engagement
level. This limitation will be addressed in future studies.
Data were formalized to produce a horizontal timeline showing the sequence of
decisions, actions (or non-actions) and problems. Associated elements include material
contexts (housing type, family composition, work routines, type of heating, insulation,
electricity plans and options, electricity bills), resources used (electricity retailer,
customer advisors, advertising campaigns, feedback and functionality used), and the
underlying concerns expressed from the actor’s point of view along with any actions
464 M. Fréjus and D. Martini
taken or obstacles encountered. This formalization allows us to track questions and
problems and their overlaps and interactions. Also, every problem related to consump‐
tion or housing (building a house, cost of electric heating, etc.) is addressed specifically
to focus on how the actor dealt with it and to identify his/her needs.
3Results
Our results show that consumption feedback is part of a global context linked to the life
situation that produced the consumption, the family history about energy questions that
are a source of particular preoccupations, and the role of other available resources that
respond to energy concerns. We present our main results on the basis of our observations.
Energy consumption fits into a past or present “happening situation”. The feed‐
back gives rise to different usages according to the underlying questions and the stage
of using the application, and these usages evolve with application use. For example, the
participants sought to observe and understand their consumption. This is the first time
that users actually see the installation in real time. Although first interested in the cost,
they gradually focus on the relationship between the volume (in watts) and the cost, and
progress toward increasing attention to volume, which has the advantage of fluctuating
with the appliances being used and thus brings more information on the “life” of the
household. By gradually integrating the notion of consumption in watts, users define a
profile of their home and become able to estimate the cost of an appliance or identify a
malfunction: avoiding peaks, not going beyond certain values, or looking for values that
are too high or a peak at the start of the hot water system, for example. They then try to
figure out what is causing the consumption pattern and think back to recent activities to
find the source of the “over”-consumption. The history of consumption, especially the
curves, also helps to retrospectively associate consumption with times of activity. The
maximum power reached provides information on the adequacy of the power contracted
for and the volume of consumption. Some participants have reported conducting tests
on appliances by plugging them in or unplugging them to see their impact on consump‐
tion. These tests bolster them in their belief that the device in question uses either a lot
of energy or very little. They give information on how appliances work (wash cycles,
electric heaters, stoves, etc.). To find answers to their questions as they emerge, partic‐
ipants sometimes use different functionalities for similar objectives, seeking answers by
employing various means.
The evolution of these uses and user concerns indicate the appropriation of the data
and the application. This appropriation in itself results in a change in home behavior.
Greater understanding about their consumption leads users to want to change, sometimes
to “hunt down waste”: systematically turning off the standby function of certain appli‐
ances (coffee machine, printer, etc.) after seeing the difference in the displayed values,
identifying an appliance that has been left on (auxiliary heating) because of higher
consumption than usual, and so on. For one couple, the possibility of measuring appli‐
ance use helped them to focus on only using the washing machine at off-peak hours,
systematically turning off lights when leaving a room, and turning off standby functions,
verifying with the application that all was off before leaving for work or going to bed.
Why Energy Consumption Feedback Is not (Only) a Display Issue 465
But finding the cause of elevated use can be more complex when it is not the result of
“forgetting” but rather of a malfunction. For example, after checking the display one
morning out of curiosity, one participant observed higher consumption than “normal.”
Not finding the origin of this consumption, he then consulted the display several times
throughout the day and in the following days, until he made the connection between this
rise, taking his shower and his hot water heater. Contrary to what he thought, it was not
an off-peak heater and used full energy as soon as it was turned on. He solved the problem
by connecting the system to a timer, and took advantage to schedule limited-use periods
in order to consume as little as possible.
However, this level of appropriation is not systematic and the evolution in behaviors
is subject to conditions. Acquiring consumption data does not always mean under‐
standing the data and the causes of fluctuations. Some questions remain unanswered.
When they showed us their consumption summaries, some participants admitted that
although they could see that they had used more or less energy in a given period, they
could not always easily find the cause. These difficulties indicated functional limitations
and the need for support to certain users or on the basis of certain data.
In addition, family contingencies (especially when there are children or adolescents)
take precedence over energy conservation. This was the case, for example, of a family
with teenagers that changed its control practices as the children got older. The adoles‐
cents were more demanding and their activities less easy to control, and the parents
admitted to sometimes doing the ironing or washing during peak hours to meet a specific
need or to triggering the water heater to work outside of off-peak hours to meet a need
for more hot water. These were contextual uses that were incompatible with the prede‐
fined, anticipated and regular control actions.
Last, the most engaged households were those with financial worries (such as the
divorced man living alone with diminished financial resources in an outmoded and
poorly-insulated house, or families with young children who had just bought their home).
The need to limit spending is a key variable in user engagement and contributes as much
to the situation as the current activity.
Appropriation is thus encouraged or hindered by conditions not directly related to
the “happening situation” of domestic activities, but instead influencing them. Thus, the
happening situation is not sufficient to understand feedback use and user needs. It is
important to take into account the context, as it is marked by a history of energy questions
and problems that are more or less resolved.
Energy feedback is situated within a history of learning about energy issues.
Energy feedback is given in a preexisting situation that comprises the socio-technical
environment and personal learning and experience. All households have energy
concerns linked to past events. These concerns are more or less present (actualized)
because of financial worries and/or the experience of discomfort (rarely for environ‐
mental reasons).
For example, all the homeowners who had had their homes built had chosen electric
heaters of poor quality, uncomfortable and expensive to run. Some wanted to change
the heating system but could not afford to. They had to handle the heating problem by
seeking auxiliary solutions and by developing more competence to make decisions about
466 M. Fréjus and D. Martini
a supplementary heating mode, changing radiators, or installing an energy manager.
They sometimes consulted professionals who proved less than competent, which engen‐
dered distrust. One participant had to manage the repeated breakdown of an obsolete
and costly fuel-based heating system and an antiquated electrical installation. The most
expensive work was deferred (single-phase meter, insulation). Several households were
aware that the insulation in their homes needed improvement. Not knowing what work
was most relevant or unsure of the prospective costs, they dealt with high consumption
for heating, discomfort (low temperature or limited to certain rooms) and high bills.
These homes were also pioneers in the installation of smart electricity meters because
of their geographical location. Unfortunately, malfunctions occurred: the new meters
are more sensitive to power overloads and often caused the circuit breakers to shut off
power in one of the homes. Two other households found that the new meters had been
installed without notice or consideration. They remain wary and monitor their bills and
outages.
These issues affect the users’ engagement with energy control, their energy ques‐
tions, and their personal repertories of feasible energy management actions. The
commitment to dealing with energy issues provides the context for the appropriation of
feedback. It encourages the use of feedback and affects the expectations for specific
functionalities: knowing what costs can be reduced (standby, appliance use, off-peak
hours, consumption while out of the home), alerts for “abnormal” consumption,
responses to questions about heating systems by comparing the consumption of different
types of systems. However, the application is insufficient for this type of testing. To
avoid further unpleasant surprises on the bill, they monitor consumption over a billing
period and expect that this consumption history will prepare them for the next bill. Last,
they try to avoid tripping the circuit breaker by monitoring the maximum and average
power used.
Conversely, if the proposed functionalities do not give users a better understanding
of their actions or a new source for savings, use can become less frequent. Users on a
tight budget who are already trying to reduce consumption (systematically turning off
lights and standby systems, unplugging chargers) feel less room to maneuver with the
feedback display. Moreover, when functionalities do not actually allow the expected
calculations, users can draw erroneous conclusions. Thus, a household wanting to know
the difference in cost of running a washing machine in peak and off-peak periods based
their conclusion on a historical measure distorted by the use of other appliances running
at the same time (hot water and heating). They concluded that off-peak was more expen‐
sive and did not see the interest of doing laundry at off-peak hours. Promoting the
appropriation of feedback means providing enough functionalities to address concerns.
It also implies articulating the feedback with other modes of assistance that help users
throughout their learning and questioning.
Energy feedback is a part of a system of assistance. The design and evaluation of
feedback systems are often considered apart from other devices that consumers can use.
However, we note that feedback is part of a set of systems, as a complement, substitution
or control.
Why Energy Consumption Feedback Is not (Only) a Display Issue 467
All consumers obviously receive bills, which are often the first (or only) way to
monitor consumption. Often, the billing frequency is not considered sufficient to antic‐
ipate mistakes or excesses in consumption. Thus, a couple with young children consid‐
ered enrolling in a plan to follow consumption (with monthly paper reports) to have
more detail on their energy use. But the offer was not free (2 euros per month) and they
concluded that the solution was expensive for the expected gain. They thus remained
without a solution until the application was proposed to them free of charge. Another
household on a monthly plan (fixed payment every month based on an annual estimate,
with an adjustment made in the last month based on actual consumption) used the appli‐
cation to anticipate the amount of the adjustment bill: they knew they had consume less
than the estimate made by the energy company (by adding wood heating) and monitored
their monthly consumption to estimate the annual amount and stay within budget.
Several households also created their personal space on the site of their energy company.
They can find their past bills and the main elements of their contracts (power, peak
periods, etc.). In this case, there is additional information to that proposed by the smart‐
phone display.
Digital systems are nevertheless not sufficient to respond to users’ energy issues.
User support should be thought of as a system of support for their engagement, with the
offer of multiple resources, including human resources. In the histories of all our partic‐
ipants, we found that they have called on intermediaries for help in the past: friends,
people knowledgeable about electricity, electricians and heating specialists. Yet they
might have called their energy distributor or stopped by one of its boutiques. The man
living alone in his energy-obsolete house was well supported by a customer advisor,
first by telephone and then with a home visit, as he sought to understand the reasons for
his high bills despite behavioral changes. The need for monitoring and personalized
advice for deciding on concrete actions means that feedback displays should be seen as
part of a much broader network of assistance, wherein other components may be defi‐
cient and thus compensated by the feedback display (in detecting that the water heater
is not set for off-peak because the electrician forgot to set it, for example).
To bring about actions to control energy use, the display must be supplemented by
other technologies. Although it detects problems, solving them often requires concrete
actions such as equipment changes (heating manager, remote control outlets, power
strips, controllers, etc.). However aware users become (publicity and information
campaigns that help to improve competence and engagement), the willingness to act
still requires the means for acting and technical assistance in adapting practices. Thus,
our most active participants learned about, acquired and managed programmable outlets
and standby power controllers.
Last, we have seen that financial constraints are an obstacle to action: consumers
have to determine what they can do themselves, but they also should be able to obtain
low-cost assistance or even financial aid.
Energy feedback is a resource among others for making decisions, learning and
acting: human resources (family, personal relationships, customer advisers), informa‐
tion and advertising, financial resources and the concrete means for acting (control
systems). The households request these resources according to their evolving preoccu‐
pations, competences and experience.
468 M. Fréjus and D. Martini
4Conclusion
Our study shows that a focus on the appropriation of feedback provides insight into the
determinants of the shift to active control of energy use.
This study has limitations, one of which we identified as the need to consider all
household members in order to investigate collective appropriation. It will also be
important to study the households that themselves opted for the feedback systems, in
addition to those that were specifically recruited. We also plan to study a population that
is energy-insecure. A new version of the application that includes missing functionalities
and a complementary application for budget monitoring are also under development.
Analysis of the appropriation process shows that feedback use is determined by
specific questions that vary over time and according to evolving user competence. This
explains why the device was used differently over time. A consumption display cannot
be the only way for consumers to engage with energy control because engagement
depends on many factors that feedback alone cannot address. Changing behavior cannot
be reduced to influence or persuasion; it must be seen as depending on a response to
concerns through technical and cognitive resources, of which feedback is clearly one.
Consumption feedback is contextually interpreted and must be designed to fit into
the user’s context. The context must be defined from the user’s point of view and
considered as distributed over time: in connection with ongoing activities and question‐
ings already experienced, resolved or persisting, all of which have needed diverse
resources in the past. It therefore must take into account user development and the
acquisition of new competences.
This means that consumption feedback must have at least three main characteristics
to be appropriable: scalability, complementarity and operability. Thus, it must be func‐
tionally rich (to respond to evolving needs and capacities): the link to activity makes
information essential ‒ in real time, historically and per appliance. Effective feedback
should contain multiple feedback options, not limited to a value unit (e.g., money), a
timescale or a type of measure. The structure of feedback should allow for more in-depth
uses as new questions and needs emerge. It must also be complementary with other
forms of assistance: feedback cannot meet all consumer needs. It is important to differ‐
entiate the needs for assistance that can be met by a display from those needs best met
by other resources, with the ultimate objective being the design of global support for
user engagement. Last, it should allow for action: information alone is not sufficient.
Feedback must allow the prediction of the impact of an action. Comparisons between
situations and simulations of “what if” scenarios are needed. These should be extendable
with the means for acting.
These contextual and operational constraints broaden the issue beyond the display.
It will be important to design aids for a process in construction using diverse resources
from the perspective of complementarity as users evolve and grow in commitment.
References
1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., Rothengatter, T.: A review of intervention studies aimed
at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 273–291 (2005)
Why Energy Consumption Feedback Is not (Only) a Display Issue 469
2. Barreto, M., Karapanos, E., Nunes, N.: Why don’t families get along with eco-feedback
technologies? a longitudina l inquiry. In: Proceedings of the Biannual Conference of the Italian
Chapter of SIGCHI (CHItaly 2013). ACM, New York (2013)
3. Darby, S.: The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption: A Review for Defra of
the Literature on Metering Billing and Direct Displays. Environmental Change Institute,
University of Oxford, Oxford (2006)
4. Electric Power Research Institute: Residential Electricity Use Feedback: A Research
Synthesis and Economic Framework. Palo Alto, CA (2009)
5. Erickson, T., Li, M., Kim, Y., Deshpande, A., Sahu, S., Chao, T., Sukaviriya, P., Naphade,
M.: The dubuque electricity portal: evaluation of a city-scale residential electricity
consumption feedback system. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2013. ACM Press, Paris (2013)
6. Fischer, C.: Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energy
Effi. 1, 79–104 (2008)
7. Fréjus, M., Cahour, B.: Reflection processes in energy regulation situations assisted with
reflective tools. In: MobileHCI 2015 Adjunct, August 25–28, Copenhagen, Denmark (2015)
8. Fréjus, M., Guibourdenche, J.: Analysing domestic activity to reduce household energy
consumption. Work 41, 539–548 (2012)
9. Fréjus, M., Martini, D.: Taking into account user appropriation and development to design
energy consumption feedback. In: CHI 2015 Extended Abstracts, April 18–23, Seoul (2015)
10. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., Landay, J.: The design of eco-feedback technology. In:
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI
2010). ACM, New York (2010)
11. Grønhøj, A., Thøgersen, J.: Feedback on household electricity consumption: learning and
social influence processes. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 35(2), 138–145 (2011)
12. Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., Burgess, J.: Making energy visible: a qualitative field study of how
householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy 38, 6111–
6119 (2010)
13. Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., Burgess, J.: Keeping energy visible: exploring how householders
interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term. Energy Policy 52, 126–
134 (2013)
14. Li, I., Dey, D.K., Forlizzi, J.: Understanding my data, myself: supporting self-reflection with
ubicomp technologies. In: Proceedings UbiComp 2011, Beijing, China (2011)
15. Pierce, J., Fan, C., Lomas, D., Marcu, G., Paulos, E.: Some considerations on the
(in)effectiveness of residential energy feedback systems. In: Proceedings DIS 2010 (2010)
16. Pierce, J., Odom, W., Blev is, E.: Energy aware dwelling: a critical survey of i nteraction design
for eco-visualizations. In: Proceedings of OZCHI 2008 (2008)
17. Schwartz, T., Denef, S., Stevens, G., Ramirez, L., Wulf, V.: Cultivating energy literacy -
results from a longitudinal living lab study of a home energy management system. In:
Proceedings CHI 2013, Paris (2013)
18. Shove, E., Lutzenhiser, L., Guy, S., Hackett, B., Wilhite, H.: Energy and social systems. In:
Rayner, S., Malone, E. (eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change. Battelle Press, Columbus,
OH (1998)
19. Snow, S., Brereton, M.: When an eco-feedback system joins the family. Pers. Ubiquitous
Comput. 19(5), 929–940 (2015)
20. Snow S., Buys L., Roe P., Brereton, M.: Curiosity to cupboard: self-reported disengagement
with energy use feedback over time. In: Proceedings of the OzCHI 2013. ACM Press, pp.
245–254 (2013)
21. Stern, P.C.: What psychology knows about energy conservation. Am. Psychol. 47(10), 1224–
1232 (1992)
470 M. Fréjus and D. Martini
22. Strengers, Y.: Beyond demand management: co-managing energy and water practices with
australian households. Policy Stud. 32(1), 35–58 (2011)
23. Strengers, Y.: Smart energy in everyday life: are you designing for resource man? Interactions
21, 24–31 (2014)
24. Van Dam, S., Bakker, C.A., van Hal, J.D.M.: Home energy monitors: impact over the
medium-term. Build. Res. Inf. 38, 458–469 (2010)
25. Wallenborn, G., Orsini, M., Vanhaverbeke, J.: Household appropriation of electricity
monitors. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 35(2), 146–152 (2011)
26. Wilhite, H., Ling, R.: Measured energy savings from a more informative energy bill. Energy
Buildings 22, 145–155 (1995)
27. Wilhite, H., Shove, E.: Twenty years of energy demand management: we know more about
individual behavior but how much do we really know about demand. In: Proceedings.
ACEEE, pp. 435–453 (2000)
Why Energy Consumption Feedback Is not (Only) a Display Issue 471
