RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION: DO FOLLOWUP PROGRAMS MAKE A DIFFERENCE? (TASK-ORIENTATION, ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, LONGITUDINAL, WORKSHOP

Energy efficiency in the residential sector is an important goal. Unfortunately, the market force of increases in the cost of residential utilities, especially for natural gas heating, have not been sufficiently motivating. Research has demonstrated that the public can save on heating costs by taking actions such as insulating attics but they lack clear, concise information on what must be done to their residence to reduce usage of natural gas for heating. It is argued that they also need the relevant information and personal experience to be adequately prepared to take the necessary energy-saving actions.;This research used a quasi-experimental design to test the relative effectiveness of several approaches to prompting energy conservation. Outcomes were measured in terms of three criteria: natural gas (heating) usage, electricity usage, and self-reported conservation actions. Significant treatment effects were expected for natural gas usage and self-reported conservation actions, but not for electricity usage.;Four conditions were compared; the first three conditions saw heat loss pictures (thermograms) of their respective homes and were given information on how to remedy the heat loss problems through relevant conservation actions. Two of the conditions received a followup treatment designed to further prompt actions: a hands-on home weatherization workshop was offered in one condition (C1) and a dispatch of mailed information was provided the other condition (C2). A fourth group, composed of nonparticipants, was assembled as a control condition. The resulting group treatments were Thermogram + Workshop (C1), Thermogram + Mailed Information (C2), Thermogram Only (C3), and No Thermogram (no treatment, C4).;Comparison of PreTreatment and PostTreatment usage of natural gas and electricity showed no significant differences between groups, however the findings demonstrated the predicted order of effects for natural gas usage. Comparison of self-reported conservation actions showed that the conditions which received followup treatments (C1 and C2) reported significantly more conservation actions and planned actions. The findings suggested that the followup treatments were effective in prompting some conservation action but stronger treatments may be required for significant savings of natural gas. Several recommendations are offered for improvements in followup treatment approaches.