Promoting household energy conservation$
Linda Steg Ã
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o
Available online 18 October 2008
Keywords:
Household energy use
Behavioural change
Energy information
a b s t r a c t
It is commonly assumed that households must change their behaviour to reduce the problems caused
by increasing levels of fossil energy use. Strategies for behaviour change will be more effective if they
target the most important causes of the behaviour in question. Therefore, this paper first discusses the
factors influencing household energy use. Three barriers to fossil fuel energy conservation are
discussed: insufficient knowledge of effective ways to reduce household energy use, the low priority
and high costs of energy savings, and the lack of feasible alternatives. Next, the paper elaborates on the
effectiveness and acceptability of strategies aimed to promote household energy savings. Informational
strategies aimed at changing individuals’ knowledge, perceptions, cognitions, motivations and norms, as
well as structural strategies aimed at changing the context in which decisions are made, are discussed.
This paper focuses on the psychological literature on household energy conservation, which mostly
examined the effects of informational strategies. Finally, this paper lists important topics for future
research.
& 2008 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. The current state of science
1.1. Household energy use
In the search for behaviour changes to reduce fossil energy use,
households are an important target group because they are
responsible for approximately 15–20% of total energy requirements
in OECD countries (OECD, 2001). Households use energy in
a direct and in an indirect way (e.g. Vringer and Blok, 1995). Direct
energy use is the use of electricity, natural gas and other fossil
fuels. Indirect energy use refers to the energy used in the
production, transportation and disposal of goods and services. In
European countries, about half of total household energy use
can be defined as direct energy use, and in the UK about 40%
(Kok et al., 2003; Reinders et al., 2003). Studies typically focus on
direct energy use, while indirect energy use has been addressed in
only a few studies (Abrahamse et al., 2007; Gatersleben et al.,
2002).
Households use energy for many different purposes and
different household activities vary widely in the amount of
energy they use. In 2005, in the UK, about 53% of domestic
energy use was related to space heating, 20% to water heating, 16%
to the use of household appliances, 6% to lighting and 5% to
cooking (Maslin et al., 2007). These data can help practitioners
decide which sort of household energy conservation would be
most worthwhile.
1.2. Factors influencing household energy use and energy
conservation
Many factors influence household energy conservation. Firstly,
individuals need to be aware of the need for and possible ways to
reduce household energy use. Secondly, they need to be motivated
to conserve energy. Thirdly, they should be able to adopt the
relevant behaviours. Each of these factors will be discussed briefly
below.
1.2.1. Knowledge
In general, people are well aware of the problems related to
household energy use, and are concerned about these problems
(Abrahamse, 2007), although there is still confusion about the
causal processes involved (e.g. Bord et al., 2000). For example,
many people think global warming is caused by the depleting
of ozone in the upper atmosphere (which is not true), while only
a limited number of people think global warming is caused
by heating and cooling homes (which is true; Bord et al., 2000).
As climate change communication has intensified in the last few
years, public understanding may have improved. However, given
the complex processes involved, some confusion is still likely.
Moreover, people know little about the energy use related to their
behaviour. For example, when assessing the energy use of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Energy Policy
0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2008 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.027
$
While the Government Office for Science commissioned this review, the views
are those of the author(s), are independent of Government, and do not constitute
Government policy.
à Tel.: +3150 363 6482.
E-mail address: e.m.steg@rug.nl
Energy Policy 36 (2008) 4449–4453
appliances, people tend to rely on a simple heuristic: they think
that energy use is related to the size of appliances. The larger the
appliance, the more energy it is believed to use (Baird and Brier,
1981; Schuitema and Steg, 2005b). Obviously, this heuristic is not
always accurate. Moreover, people underestimate the energy use
involved in heating water, which suggests that people are not well
aware of the fact that energy sources are needed to do this
(Schuitema and Steg, 2005b).
1.2.2. Motivations for energy conservation
In many Western countries concern with environmental and
energy problems is generally high (Abrahamse, 2007; Poortinga
et al., 2002; Schultz and Zelezny, 1999). Yet people often do not act
in line with their concerns, and total household energy use is still
rising. As well as lacking knowledge of the energy use related
to various behaviours (see above), many people attach only a
low priority to saving energy. Energy use is not only driven by
concerns about environmental and energy problems. Many other
factors play a role, such as status, comfort and effort (Stern, 2000).
People are less likely to reduce their energy use when saving
energy involves high behavioural costs in terms of money, effort
or convenience. People are far more likely to carry out proenvironment
activities such as recycling, which has a low cost in
money and effort, than others such as reducing car use which have
higher financial and lifestyle costs (see Lindenberg and Steg, 2007,
for a review). This does not imply that environmental and
normative concerns do not affect high-cost behaviour. Some
people do reduce their energy use even at the cost of personal
disadvantage.
Normative and environmental concerns are important in
promoting energy conservation, because they provide the most
solid basis for it (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007). If people only
conserve energy for hedonic or cost reasons, they will stop doing
so as soon as the behaviour is no longer attractive or costeffective.
When energy conservation results from normative
concerns, it is more robust against such changes.
Normative and environmental concerns also play an important
role in the acceptability of energy saving policies. Energy policies
are more acceptable when individuals value the environment,
are aware of the problems resulting from energy use and feel
responsible for it, and when they feel morally obliged to do their
bit to help reduce these problems (De Groot and Steg, 2008; Steg
et al., 2005). Other important factors increasing the acceptability
of energy policies are their perceived fairness and the extent to
which these policies are expected to actually reduce energy
problems (Bamberg and Ro¨lle, 2003; Jakobsson et al., 2000;
Rienstra et al., 1999; Schuitema and Steg, 2005a). The acceptability
of energy policies also depends on their characteristics. In
general, policies are more acceptable when they increase rather
than restrict freedom of choice, when they target efficiency
behaviour rather than curtailment behaviour (e.g. when they
stress purchasing energy-efficient appliances rather than showering
less or turning down the thermostat), and when they are
aimed at reducing energy use at home rather than for transport
(Poortinga et al., 2003; Steg et al., 2006).
1.2.3. Ability to engage in energy conservation
In some cases, people indicate that they are not able to reduce
their energy use. Energy-efficient equipment may not be available,
it may be very expensive, or feasible alternatives may be lacking.
This ability is highly dependent on contextual factors, such as the
availability of products and services, the available infrastructure,
cultural norms and economic factors. When these factors strongly
inhibit or facilitate pro-environmental actions, psychological
motivations are relatively unimportant (Guagnano et al., 1995).
These contextual factors are beyond the scope of the present
paper.
1.3. Strategies to promote household energy conservation
On the basis of the barriers to fossil energy conservation
discussed in the previous section, it may be suggested that energy
conservation can be promoted via increasing people’s knowledge,
strengthening their concern with energy problems, or facilitating
behaviour changes by contextual changes. This section discusses
possible strategies to promote household energy conservation,
targeting these factors.
In general, two types of strategies may be employed to
promote household energy conservation. Psychological strategies
are aimed at changing people’s knowledge, perceptions, motivation,
cognitions and norms related to energy use and conservation.
The assumption is that such changes will be followed by
changes in behaviour, and, consequently, by energy savings.
Examples are the provision of information, education and
modelling. Structural strategies are aimed at changing the context
in which decisions are made so as to make energy conservation
more attractive. Examples are new or better products and
services, changes in infrastructure, pricing policies and legal
measures.
Most studies in the psychology of energy use have focused on
the effectiveness of informational strategies (see Abrahamse et al.,
2005, for a review). Generally, information campaigns result in
only modest behavioural changes. But there are some informational
strategies that appear to be successful in promoting
household energy conservation. They include prompts (Luyben,
1982), individualised social marketing approaches in which
information is tailored to the needs, wants and perceived barriers
of individual segments of consumers (e.g. Abrahamse et al.,
2007; Daamen et al., 2001; Thøgersen, 2007), commitment
strategies (Katzev and Johnson, 1983, 1984), eliciting implementation
intentions in which people indicate how they plan to reduce
their energy use (e.g. Bamberg, 2002; Jakobsson et al., 2002), and
modelling and providing information about the behaviour
of others (Schultz et al., 2007; see also Abrahamse et al.,
2005). Informational strategies are especially effective when proenvironmental
behaviour is relatively convenient and not very
costly in terms of money, time, effort or social disapproval, and
when individuals do not face severe constraints on behaviour.
Besides, informational strategies may be an important element in
the implementation of structural strategies intended to force
individuals to change their behaviour.
Structural strategies have been studied less frequently in
psychology. Typically, the study is confined to the perceived
effectiveness of such strategies, and most focus on the effects
of transport pricing (see Steg and Schuitema, 2007, for a review).
These studies reveal that people generally think transport pricing
will not be very effective in reducing car use (e.g. Jakobsson et al.,
2000) or the problems of car use (e.g. Schlag and Teubel, 1997;
Schuitema and Steg, 2005a), especially because they think car use
reductions are hardly feasible (Jakobsson et al., 2002). But studies
of the actual effect of transport pricing policies revealed
that transport pricing may have substantial effects on car use.
Prominent examples are the Singapore area licence scheme and
the London congestion charge (see Santos, 2004; Santos et al.,
2004; Verhoef et al., 2004). This suggests that pricing strategies
may be effective in reducing household energy use and that the
effects can be larger than initially expected.
One obvious way to reduce household energy use is to promote
the adoption of energy-efficient appliances. Various psychological
factors are important in this respect (see Midden et al., 2007, for a
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Steg / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 4449–44534450
review). Energy-efficient appliances will be more readily adopted
when they meet important needs, wants and preferences. It is
important to consider possible side effects of energy-efficient
appliances as rebound effects may occur. This happens when
people use efficient appliances more often, because they are
energy efficient (Hertwich, 2005). Midden and colleagues illustrate
that technology and behaviour are closely interwoven in
many respects, and indicate various ways in which technological
and behavioural factors can be integrated in interactive approaches
to effectively promote energy conservation.
Politicians are often reluctant to implement stringent policies,
because they believe that these policies can threaten individual
quality of life. Tough policies such as substantial price increases
for energy may reduce individual quality of life in some respects
(e.g. less freedom, money). But they may also increase individual
quality of life in other respects (e.g. improved environmental
quality and health), and overall quality of life may not be harmed
much (De Groot and Steg, 2008; see Steg and Gifford, 2005, for a
review).
2. Future advances to 2050 and beyond
It is clear that some important questions have been effectively
addressed in various psychological studies on household energy
use and conservation. However, various issues need to be further
addressed. Some important topics for future research are listed
below.
2.1. Indirect energy use
As indicated earlier, most studies consider direct energy use
only. This is regrettable, as about half of total household energy
use involves indirect energy. It is important to consider indirect
energy use and ways to reduce it more systematically. Indirect
energy use may be reduced by changing the behaviour and
decisions of producers and distributors, but also by changing
consumer behaviour. This might be done by promoting the
purchase of energy-efficient products and services, and by
reducing the amount of household waste. Quantifying the energy
requirements of different products is a substantial challenge and
requires interdisciplinary research.
2.2. Individual and contextual factors
When studying energy use, personal factors such as attitudes,
values, norms and habits should be considered alongside
contextual factors. These can include the physical infrastructure,
technical facilities, the availability (or not) of products, special
product characteristics, advertising and shared socio-cultural
objectives such as income and material growth. These latter
may have a substantial impact on behaviour. Individual and
contextual factors should be studied in combination, as they are
likely to interact. This implies that interdisciplinary approaches
are needed to get a full understanding of energy use, the factors
influencing it and ways to reduce it. Most studies to date have
followed a monodisciplinary approach, and provide a limited view
at most as they consider only a selective set of factors influencing
energy use and energy conservation.
2.3. Provision of tailored information
Tailored information is more effective in changing behaviour
than general information targeting a broad public. However, little
is known about how information can best be tailored to the needs,
circumstances and behaviour of specific populations. Information
can be tailored on the basis of different criteria, such as current
behaviour (e.g. one could provide information on energy saving
options that are relevant to a particular person or household),
motivations (e.g. stress the environmental benefits when people
value the environment more, and focus on cost savings when
people are more worried about money), or stages of change (e.g.
one could stress the need for energy conservation for those who
have not yet considered the need to reduce their energy use, but
focus on actual ways to reduce household energy use when people
are willing and planning to conserve energy).
2.4. Psychological and structural strategies for behaviour change
Thus far, most psychological studies have examined the effects
of informational strategies on behaviour and energy conservation.
Structural strategies have received much less attention. Studies
examining the effects of structural strategies mostly examine
intentions to change behaviour, not actual behavioural changes.
2.5. Acceptability and adoption of sustainable energy sources
Various alternatives to fossil energy sources are being developed,
including renewable energy sources and decentralised
energy. Effective ways to introduce these alternatives are an
important topic for future research. We need to examine the
factors that affect the acceptability and adoption of such
alternatives. This is not an easy task to accomplish, because many
people know little about alternative energy sources. Asking for
people’s opinions on sustainable energy sources ‘out of the blue’
will reveal knowledge deficits and misperceptions, but does not
provide a stable basis for policy making. The findings of such
studies will depend on descriptions provided by the researchers
and on what people have learned from the media. Public
perceptions and preferences will be more robust when detailed
information is provided about the merits and possible drawbacks
of such energy sources.
2.6. Feedback on energy use
People generally know little about how much energy their
behaviours use. They usually find out about their household
energy use from meter readings, and even these are not always
possible, for example in master-metered apartments. In any case,
meter readings reflect total gas or electricity use only. The recently
introduced smart meters provide interesting opportunities to
provide detailed feedback about energy use. As yet, little is known
about effects of smart metering on knowledge and behaviour, but
some field trials are being conducted in the UK that will give
initial insights into the possible effects. How to enhance the use
and effectiveness of this technology is another important topic for
future research.
Recently, environmental scientists have developed sophisticated
tools to provide people with detailed information about the
energy use associated with specific behaviours (Benders et al.,
2006). These tools can be used to provide people with tailored
advice about ways to reduce their energy use, and feedback about
the extent to which behaviour changes resulted in actual energy
savings (see Abrahamse et al., 2007). Such instruments are an
important tool to educate people about energy use. However, as
of yet, little is known about the extent to which people are willing
to use such tools, and change their behaviour based on the advice
given.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Steg / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 4449–4453 4451
2.7. Systematic evaluation of intervention programmes
Many interesting projects have been implemented to support
energy conservation. Unfortunately, these are not always systematically
evaluated, and consequently no firm conclusions can
be drawn on how successful they have been. Clear theories and
sophisticated research designs are needed to allow firm conclusions
about the effects of interventions, especially when testing
interventions for the first time. Ideally, clear theoretical predictions
should be made. Moreover, the target behaviour, its
antecedents and its associated energy use should be measured
before and after an intervention has been implemented, and the
effects of the ‘treatment’ should be compared to those in a control
group which has not been exposed to the intervention. This makes
it possible to conclude whether the behaviour and the factors
influencing it changed in the expected way, and to what extent
these changes are due to the intervention, and not to some
naturally occurring event. For example, this approach makes it
possible to determine whether households that did not participate
in the project also reduced their energy use, perhaps because of
price increases or higher temperatures. Systematic evaluations
not only reveal to what extent an intervention has been successful
in changing behaviour and reducing energy use, but also why it
succeeded or failed, how an intervention might be adapted to
increase its effects and how theories should be adapted to better
understand and predict household energy use.
2.8. Interdisciplinary research
This paper has discussed many factors influencing household
energy use. They encompass a range of disciplines. Moreover,
various strategies can be applied to reduce household energy
use, and these, again, are studied by researchers with various
disciplinary backgrounds. This implies that any single discipline
will provide a limited view of the topic at most. Interdisciplinary
studies allow us to get a broader and more comprehensive view of
the issues involved and of successful ways to reduce household
energy use.
References
Abrahamse, W., 2007. Energy conservation through behavioral change: examining
the effectiveness of a tailor-made approach. PhD thesis, University of
Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, Ch., Rothengatter, J.A., 2005. A review of intervention
studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 25, 273–291.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, Ch., Rothengatter, J.A., 2007. The effect of tailored
information, goal setting and tailored feedback on household energy use,
energy-related behaviors and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 27, 265–276.
Baird, J.C., Brier, J.M., 1981. Perceptual awareness of energy requirements of
familiar objects. Journal of Applied Psychology 66, 90–96.
Bamberg, S., 2002. Effects of implementation intentions on the actual performance
of new environmentally friendly behaviours—results of two field experiments.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 22 (4), 399–411.
Bamberg, S., Ro¨lle, D., 2003. Determinants of people’s acceptability of pricing
measures—replication and extension of a causal model. In: Schade, J., Schlag,
B. (Eds.), Acceptability of Transport Pricing Strategies. Elsevier Science, Oxford,
pp. 235–248.
Benders, R.M.J., Kok, R., Moll, H.C., Wiersma, G., 2006. New approaches for
household energy conservation—in search of personal household energy
budgets and energy reduction options. Energy Policy 34, 3612–3622.
Bord, R.J., O’Connor, R.E., Fischer, A., 2000. In what sense does the public need to
understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science 9,
205–218.
Daamen, D.L., Staats, H., Wilke, H., Engelen, M., 2001. Improving environmental
behavior in companies: the effectiveness of tailored versus nontailored
interventions. Environment and Behavior 33 (2), 229–248.
De Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L., 2008. Morality and prosocial behaviour: the role of
awareness, responsibility and norms in the norm activation model. Journal of
Social Psychology, in press.
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2002. Measurement and determinants of
environmentally significant consumer behaviour. Environment and Behavior
34 (3), 335–362.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1995. Contextualizing attitude—behavior
relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and
Behavior 27, 699–718.
Hertwich, E.G., 2005. Consumption and the rebound effect: an industrial ecology
perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9, 85–98.
Jakobsson, C., Fujii, S., Ga¨rling, T., 2000. Determinants of private car users’
acceptance of road pricing. Transport Policy 7, 153–158.
Jakobsson, C., Fujii, S., Ga¨rling, T., 2002. Effects of economic disincentives on private
car use. Transportation 29 (4), 349–370.
Katzev, R.D., Johnson, T.R., 1983. A social—psychological analysis of residential
electricity consumption: the impact of minimal justification techniques.
Journal of Economic Psychology 3, 267–284.
Katzev, R.D., Johnson, T.R., 1984. Comparing the effects of monetary incentives and
foot-in-the-door strategies in promoting residential electricity conservation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 14 (1), 12–27.
Kok, R., Falkena, H.J., Benders, R., Moll, H.C., Noorman, K.J., 2003. Household
metabolism in European countries and cities: comparing and evaluating the
results of the cities Fredrikstad (Norway), Groningen (The Netherlands),
Guildford (UK), and Stockholm (Sweden). Integration Report of WP2 (Toolsust
Deliverable No. 9), Groningen, The Netherlands: IVEM, University of Groningen
/http://www.toolsust.org/documents/D-9%20European%20report.pdfS (accessed
at 10 October 2007).
Lindenberg, S., Steg, L., 2007. Normative, gain and hedonic goal-frames guiding
environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues 63 (1), 117–137.
Luyben, P.D., 1982. Prompting thermostat setting behavior: public response
to a presidential appeal for conservation. Environment and Behavior 14 (1),
113–128.
Maslin, M., Austin, P., Dickson, A., Murlis, J., Owen, M., Panizzo, V., 2007. UK
Greenhouse Emissions: Are We on Target? University College London,
Environment Institute, London.
Midden, C., Kaiser, F., McCalley, T., 2007. Technology’s four roles in understanding
individuals’ conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues 63 (1),
155–174.
OECD, 2001. Environmental Outlook. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Paris.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2002. Environmental risk concern and preferences
for energy-saving measures. Environment and Behavior 34 (4), 455–478.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., Wiersma, G., 2003. Household preferences for
energy-saving measures. A conjoint analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology
24 (1), 49–64.
Reinders, A.H.M.E., Vringer, K., Blok, K., 2003. The direct and indirect energy
requirement of households in the European Union. Energy Policy 31,
139–153.
Rienstra, S.A., Rietveld, P., Verhoef, E.T., 1999. The social support for policy
measures in passenger transport. A statistical analysis for the Netherlands.
Transportation Research D 4 (3), 181–200.
Santos, G., 2004. Urban road pricing in the UK. In: Santos, G. (Ed.), Road Pricing:
Theory and Evidence. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 251–282.
Santos, G., Li, W.W., Koh, T.H., 2004. Transport policies in Singapore. In: Santos, G.
(Ed.), Road Pricing: Theory and Evidence. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 251–282.
Schlag, B., Teubel, U., 1997. Public acceptability of transport pricing. IATSS Research
21 (2), 134–142.
Schuitema, G., Steg, L., 2005a. Factors that affect the acceptability of pricing
policies in transport. Paper presented at the 7th Nordic Environmental Social
Science (NESS) Research Conference, Go¨teborg, Sweden, 15–17 June 2005.
Schuitema, G., Steg, L., 2005b. Percepties van energieverbruik van huishoudelijke
apparaten (Perception of energy use of domestic appliances). In: Bronner, A.E.,
Dekker, P., de Leeuw, E., de Ruyter, K., Smidts, A., Wieringa, J.E. (Eds.),
Ontwikkelingen in het marktonderzoek. Jaarboek 2005 (Developments in
Marketing Research. Yearbook 2005). De Vrieseborch, Haarlem, The Netherlands,
pp. 165–180.
Schultz, P.W., Zelezny, L., 1999. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:
evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 19 (3), 255–265.
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., Griskevicius, V., 2007. The
constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological
Science 18 (5), 429–434.
Steg, L., Gifford, R., 2005. Sustainable transport and quality of life. Journal of
Transport Geography 13 (1), 59–69.
Steg, L., Schuitema, G., 2007. Behavioural responses to transport pricing: a
theoretical analysis. In: Ga¨rling, T., Steg, L. (Eds.), Threats to the Quality
of Urban Life from Car Traffic: Problems, Causes, and Solutions. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 347–366.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of
energy policies: testing VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25
(4), 415–425.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., 2006. Why are energy policies acceptable
and effective? Environment and Behavior 38 (1), 92–111.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 407–424.
Thøgersen, J., 2007. Social marketing of alternative transportation modes. In:
Ga¨rling, T., Steg, L. (Eds.), Threats to the Quality of Urban Life from Car Traffic:
Problems, Causes, and Solutions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 367–381.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Steg / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 4449–44534452
Verhoef, E., Koopmans, C., Bliemer, M., Bovy, P., Steg, L., Van Wee, B., 2004.
Vormgeving en effecten van prijsbeleid op de weg. Effectiviteit, efficie¨ntie en
acceptatie vanuit een multidisciplinair perspectief (Design and Effects of Road
Pricing. Effectiveness, Efficiency and Acceptability from a Multidisciplinary
Perspective). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/SEO, Technische Universiteit Delft,
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands (in Dutch).
Vringer, K., Blok, K., 1995. The direct and indirect energy requirements of
households in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 23 (10), 893–910.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Steg / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 4449–4453 4453