Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsus20
Customer perspectives on demand response
in Europe: a systematic review and thematic
synthesis
Petteri Siitonen, Samuli Honkapuro, Salla Annala & Annika Wolff
To cite this article: Petteri Siitonen, Samuli Honkapuro, Salla Annala & Annika Wolff
(2023) Customer perspectives on demand response in Europe: a systematic review
and thematic synthesis, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 19:1, 14-32, DOI:
10.1080/15487733.2022.2154986
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2154986
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 26 Dec 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsus20
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
2023, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 14–32
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2154986
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Customer perspectives on demand response in Europe: a systematic
review and thematic synthesis
Petteri Siitonena, Samuli Honkapuroa, Salla Annalaa and Annika Wolffb
a
School of Energy Systems, LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland; bSchool of Engineering Science, LUT University,
Lappeenranta, Finland
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Residential demand response is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool to increase
power-system flexibility and to improve integration of renewable energy sources in the sustainable energy transition. However, low customer participation and engagement is one of
the barriers hindering widespread implementation of residential demand response. To
improve understanding of the factors influencing customer engagement in residential
demand-response programs, this article investigates associated customer experiences and
attitudes. This study is based on a systematic review and thematic synthesis of findings from
past demand response-pilot projects. By synthesizing findings from multiple sources, the article provides insights into the customer perspective to inform the development of customeroriented demand-response services and products. The results indicate that customer engagement in demand-response programs is influenced by multiple factors, including motivation,
interaction and communication, and feedback. Particularly highlighted is the value of social
interaction and support as well as the importance of customer education and easily interpretable information. To promote customer engagement, the electric utility industry should
place more focus on building customer relationships and integrating customer perspectives
into the design of demand-response programs.
Received 26 January 2022
Accepted 30 November 2022
Introduction
As a part of the 2030 Climate Target Plan, the
European Commission has proposed a European
Union (EU)-wide goal to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions (GHG) by at least 55% below 1990 levels
by 2030 (European Commission 2020). To reach
these ambitious environmental goals, large amounts
of renewable energy are going to have to be integrated into electrical grids (IPCC 2018). Indeed,
according to the International Energy Agency (IEA),
renewable energy sources are expected to meet 99%
of the globally forecast electricity-demand increase
during 2020–2025 (IEA 2020). The combined
installed capacity of wind and solar power is projected to double in the same period, surpassing both
natural gas and coal by 2024 (IEA 2020). This transition toward a more renewable-based energy portfolio is going to create a greater need for flexibility
(i.e., the capability to maintain the balance between
generation and consumption) in power systems
(Riesz and Milligan 2015).
Demand response (DR) is an environmentally
friendly and cost-effective alternative to traditional
supply-side measures to provide flexibility and
CONTACT Petteri Siitonen
Lappeenranta, Finland
petteri.siitonen@student.lut.fi
KEYWORDS
Demand response; demandside management; smart
grid; smart meter; customer
engagement; customer
perspective
improve the integration of renewable energy sources
(Siano 2014). DR can be used as a balancing
resource to replace fossil fuel-fired generation capacity. By adding stability to the system, DR can
reduce the need to use coal and gas-fired generation
reserves and lessen the need for local network
investments (European Commission 2016; USDOE
2006). DR may also indirectly provide overall
energy-conservation effects by increasing customerenergy awareness (USDOE 2006). DR offers an
effective way to mitigate GHGs and, consequently,
the European Commission expects DR to play an
important role in fostering the development of sustainable power systems (European Commission
2013, 2021). DR delivers its benefits by providing
customers with control signals or financial incentives to adjust their consumption at strategic times
and can be divided into implicit and explicit strategies (European Commission 2016; SEDC 2017). In
implicit DR, consumers react to dynamic market or
network-pricing signals while in explicit DR consumers receive direct payments to change their
energy consumption upon request. The European
Commission considers DR as a subset of demand-
School of Energy Systems, LUT University, Yliopistonkatu 34, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851
ß 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
side management (DSM) which, in addition to DR,
encompasses other measures and strategies to
change energy consumption, such as energy efficiency and conservation (European Commission
2017, 2021). Traditionally, only large industrial consumers have participated in DR but researchers have
increasingly recognized residential and small commercial consumers as an important source of
demand-side flexibility (Bartusch and Alvehag 2014;
Kessels et al. 2016; Siano 2014; Torriti, Hassan, and
Leach 2010).
In the last two decades, numerous smart grid
pilot projects have investigated the concept of residential DR yet coordinated DR programs and policies have been slow to develop (Torriti, Hassan, and
Leach 2010; USDOE 2013). There are multiple challenges hindering the development of commercially
viable DR programs including regulatory, technological, and economic barriers. Among these challenges are also social and behavioral aspects
associated with customer participation in DR.
Previous initiatives have shown that persuading customers to enroll in DR programs and keeping them
actively engaged can be difficult (European
Commission 2011). As a result, voluntary customer
participation in DR programs is often low (Hobman
et al. 2016; Kim and Shcherbakova 2011; Nicolson,
Fell, and Huebner 2018).
There are many reasons for low customer
engagement in DR. There is a lack of effective promotion and education about DR programs and their
benefits, and customers are unlikely to actively seek
out this information (D€
utschke and Paetz 2013).
Moreover, the customer benefits of DR are often
framed from the perspective of the rational consumer whose actions are predominantly driven by
financial incentives (Nicolson, Fell, and Huebner
2018; Strengers 2014). However, when adopting new
smart home technologies or energy services, customers assess more than just the economic factors.
Considerations such as the potential impacts on lifestyle and comfort, data security, and privacy, as well
as environmental values, play a role in customers’
decision-making processes (Gyamfi and Krumdieck
2011; Paetz, D€
utschke, and Fichtner 2012; Stenner
et al. 2017). If participation in DR is too inconvenient and disruptive to daily routines and habits, they
are unlikely to sign up and actively participate
(Heylen et al. 2020; Safdar, Hussain, and Lehtonen
2019). Moreover, due to distrust in utility companies and automation, customers are often reluctant
to relinquish control of their electrical appliances
(Balta-Ozkan et al. 2013; Karjalainen 2013; Lopes
et al. 2016). Therefore, it is important that novel
energy services and technologies are compatible
with customers’ values and easily integrated into
15
their daily lives (Juntunen 2014; Palm and
Tengvard 2011).
Consequently, the focus of DR projects has been
moving toward understanding customer engagement
(European Commission 2011) and the subject has
received increased attention in the academic literature in recent years. Previous studies have investigated the barriers and facilitators to customer
engagement in DR and the use of related smart
technologies (Ali et al. 2021; Li et al. 2021;
Marikyan, Papagiannidis, and Alamanos 2019; Mela
et al. 2018; Parrish et al. 2020), the social dimensions of customer engagement (Darby and
McKenna 2012; Hafner et al. 2020; Moreno-Munoz
et al. 2016), and customer segmentation (Gouveia,
Seixas, and Long 2018; Sanguinetti, Karlin, and Ford
2018; Srivastava, Van Passel, and Laes 2018; ToddBlick et al. 2020). However, understanding and
incorporating customer perspectives in the design of
DR programs has received less attention both in
research and practice (Christensen et al. 2020;
Strengers 2014). To promote growth in residential
DR, the associated programs should be developed
such that they correspond with customer preferences and values. To this end, information about how
customers perceive different aspects of DR programs
is of utmost importance. This article attempts to
improve understanding of the underlying reasons
affecting customer engagement by investigating customers’ experiences and attitudes toward participation in DR. The three research questions of this
study are:
1.
2.
3.
Which factors motivate customers to participate
in DR programs?
How do social interactions and different communication channels influence customer
engagement?
What is the role of feedback information in customer engagement?
This study is based on a systematic review and
thematic synthesis of evidence from past DR programs. Thematic synthesis draws upon the techniques of thematic analysis to aggregate, compare, and
integrate the findings of multiple studies. A synthesis of findings from multiple sources can provide a
more comprehensive understanding of the subject
than a single empirical study (Thomas and Harden
2008). Sorrell (2007) and Warren (2014) have proposed that the use of systematic reviews can
improve the quality of evidence in the field of
energy policy and practice and that qualitative
research in particular can help explain why certain
energy policies and programs succeed or fail. To
our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to
16
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
focus exclusively on customer experiences and attitudes toward DR. By conducting a systematic investigation of customer perspectives, we aim to support
the development of customer-oriented DR and to
provide insights for smart grid policy.
Method
The study was conducted by following the
Enhancing Transparency of Reporting the Synthesis
of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) framework
(Tong et al. 2012).
Search strategy and selection criteria
We focused on the collection of grey literature, that
is material produced and published by organizations
outside traditional academic publishing and distribution channels. Grey literature can be an extensive
and valuable source of information that includes
various policy- and research-relevant documents,
such as clinical practice guidelines, research reports,
program-evaluation studies, and legislation (Godin
et al. 2015). These materials can promote and support evidence-based practice and policy in many
ways and they often contain findings that may not
get published in academic literature. For instance,
negative or null findings are less likely to be published in academic journals compared to positive or
confirmatory findings (Decullier, Lheritier, and
Chapuis 2005; Dwan et al. 2008) and, as such, grey
literature can act as a vehicle for disseminating findings that otherwise might never be publicly disclosed (Bellefontaine and Lee 2014). Furthermore,
many practitioners might not be motivated to or
have the means to publish their work in peerreviewed journals (Haddaway and Bayliss 2015;
Mahood, Van Eerd, and Irvin 2014). As a result,
grey literature can promote a more comprehensive
and balanced view of the available evidence
(Paez 2017).
In addition to expanding the scope of available
evidence, grey literature can also help to bridge the
gap between research and practice. Grey literature is
typically produced by practitioners to inform public
policy and to translate knowledge for public use,
and consequently these materials are heavily used
and highly valued in policy and practice work
(Lawrence et al. 2014). In the same vein, grey literature can provide information with high ecological
validity to academic research that seeks to inform
policy and practice. The materials can be of particular importance for syntheses exploring the effectiveness of certain interventions and initiatives, as such
syntheses often require data that is practical and
applied (Haddaway and Bayliss 2015). Therefore,
reviews focused on grey literature can complement
work focused on academic research (PiggottMcKellar et al. 2019), ultimately helping to form a
holistic view of the subject. There is a scarcity of
systematic reviews of grey literature regarding DR,
which is why this review explores these kinds of
materials
pertaining
to
relevant
customer
perspectives.
The focus of the study is on projects included in
the European Commission’s Joint Research Center
(JRC) database of smart grid projects (European
Commission 2017). We screened the JRC database
for initiatives between 2000 and 2020 that incorporated DR. To be included, the project had to incorporate DR and report on customer perspectives
toward DR (i.e., thoughts, feelings, experiences, attitudes, or preferences toward any aspect of DR programs or their implementation). Furthermore,
project findings had to be available in English. No
study-design restrictions were applied. After limiting
the database-search results to include only projects
that started between 2000 and 2020 and incorporated DSM (including DR and other DSM interventions), we conducted a search for the
documentation of those projects.
Our search strategy was based on a protocol outlined by Garcıa-Holgado, Marcos-Pablos, and
Garcıa-Pe~
nalvo (2020) for locating research-project
documentation. First, we attempted to identify the
official project websites and to locate published content on the website. In cases where the project website was unavailable, or where the documentation
was not accessible on the website, we conducted
additional searches using the Google and Google
Scholar search engines. Search terms included the
project acronym and full name as exact terms as
well as keywords such as “smart grid,” “demand
response,” and “tariff” when the results had to be
narrowed down. The searches were restricted to
include only portable-document format (PDF) files.
After locating the project documentation, we
excluded all materials and projects that did not
incorporate DR, report on customer perspectives, or
convey their findings in English.
Quality assessment and data extraction
We evaluated the quality of the project documents
with a quality-assessment scale for use in systematic
reviews in the field of energy policy. Warren (2014)
argues that due to the heterogeneity of methods and
regional contexts, quality assessment of DSM interventions should focus more on the transparency of
their implementation and evaluation. The qualityassessment scale contains six items: (1) implementation; (2) evaluation; (2) peer review; (4) copyright,
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
regulatory compliance, and conflicts of interest; (5)
publishing organization; and (6) data reporting. One
researcher assessed the quality of each project. The
projects were not weighted based on the quality assessment.
The following data were extracted from the project documents: project name, participating countries, project period, number of participants, project
objectives as reported by the authors, type of DR
studied, data-collection methods, and the project’s
main findings. The data extracted for analysis
included direct quotes from the participants, results
of questionnaires and the authors’ conclusions, and
interpretations of the results.
Data synthesis
We adopted a three-stage thematic synthesis as
described by Thomas and Harden (2008). No
restrictions were set as to where data were extracted
from the project documents. Following multiple
Figure 1. Flowchart of search process and project selection.
17
readings of the materials, the project findings were
manually extracted and coded line-by-line by one
researcher to create descriptions of the data. We
took a theory-driven approach to the coding, in that
the objective was to identify features related to the
study aims (Braun and Clarke 2006). The codes
were then grouped into descriptive themes that captured something important about the data in relation to the research questions. Based on the
descriptive themes, we developed the main analytical
themes and their subthemes.
Results
A flowchart of the search process and project selection is shown in Figure 1. The JRC database
included a total of 950 projects. Three projects were
excluded due to their starting year and 604 projects
were excluded for not incorporating DSM. After
removing one duplicate, 342 projects remained. A
search for the documentation of the remaining
18
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
projects was then conducted. We excluded a total of
264 projects due to unavailability of documentation.
Each title and abstract of all available documents
(786 in total) of the remaining 78 projects were
screened by one researcher. We excluded sixteen
projects due to language and a further 50 were eliminated for not incorporating DR or reporting on
customer perspectives toward DR. Of the initial 950
projects listed in the JRC database, 12 projects, comprising a total of 26 documents, were included in
the analysis. Characteristics of all of these projects
are reported in Table 1. Thematic synthesis resulted
in three main analytical themes and 10 subthemes
(Figure 2). The main themes included: motivational
factors, interaction with customers, and feedback
information. Table 2 illustrates each theme and subtheme by providing a selection of quotes from project participants and authors.
Motivational factors
Financial incentives
Financial incentives were the most frequently
reported factor influencing customers’ decisionmaking regarding participation in DR projects. In
10 of the 12 projects, many participants cited this
factor as either an explicit reason for engaging in
the
project
(CLNR
2014;
FLEXICIENCY
Consortium 2019a; UK Power Networks 2019a;
WPD 2013; WPD&RSW 2017) or as an expected
benefit of energy-saving behavior (CLNR 2014; Ebalance Consortium 2017; NOBEL 2012; SSEN
2018a, 2018b; SMART-UP Consortium 2018b; UK
Power Networks 2019c; UPGRID Consortium 2017).
While most customers expressed interest in receiving financial incentives in the form of savings on
electricity bills or direct payments (CLNR 2014; Ebalance
Consortium
2017;
FLEXICIENCY
Consortium 2019a; NOBEL 2012; SSEN 2018a;
SMART-UP Consortium 2018b; UK Power
Networks 2019a; UPGRID Consortium 2017; WPD
2013; WPD&RSW 2017), some were willing to participate in DR projects in exchange for devices, such
as smart meters, in-home energy displays or other
appliances (CLNR 2013; Flex4Grid Consortium
2018; UK Power Networks 2019a). Although financial incentives were the most frequently cited reason
for participation, there were many customers who
valued other aspects to a greater degree: four projects reported that financial incentives were not
always the main driver for customer participation
(AnyPLACE
Consortium
2018b;
Flex4Grid
Consortium 2018; FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2018;
WPD&RSW 2017). Most notably, money was the
main motivator for only 28% of the German participants of the Flex4Grid project (Flex4Grid
Consortium 2018). Using money as the sole driver
can limit customer participation, as those who are
well off may not be prompted by the prospect of
savings (SSEN 2019). Moreover, some daily household routines and habits, cooking in particular, are
largely fixed and customers are unlikely to reschedule these activities in response to monetary incentives (SSEN 2019; CLNR 2014). However, even
though financial incentives may not be enough to
motivate all customers, the lack of monetary incentives will likely hinder participation. Two projects
reported that the inability to offer sufficient financial incentives to customers made recruitment for
the project difficult (AnyPLACE Consortium 2018a;
WPD&RSW 2017).
Environmental issues
Nine of the 12 projects identified environmental
reasons as an important factor influencing the decision to adopt energy-saving behaviors (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018b; E-balance Consortium 2017;
Flex4Grid Consortium 2018; FLEXICIENCY
Consortium 2018, 2019a; NOBEL 2012; SSEN
2018b, 2019; SMART-UP Consortium 2018b, 2018d;
UPGRID Consortium 2017; WPD 2013). Many customers felt a sense of responsibility toward the
environment and expressed that everyone should do
their part in environmental protection (E-balance
Consortium 2017; Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2018, 2019a; NOBEL
2012; SMART-UP Consortium 2018d). By contrast,
feeling responsible for such big and complex issues
can lead to a feeling of disempowerment and cause
disengagement (SSEN 2019). In addition to this
sense of personal responsibility, there was a sentiment among participants that environmental issues
are a collective responsibility. In four projects, customers emphasized the importance of collective
action and the project’s impact on their local community (AnyPLACE Consortium 2018b; E-balance
Consortium 2017; FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2018,
2019a; SSEN 2018b, 2019). There was some evidence
suggesting that interest in environmental issues may
be a stronger driver of active participation and
behavior change compared to financial incentives.
In the Italian demonstration of the FLEXICIENCY
project, it was found that compared to passive participants, active participants were more likely to cite
environmental issues as the reason for their engagement (FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2019a).
Novelty
Seven projects reported novelty (i.e., the desire of
customers to learn or experience something new as
a motivator for participation) (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018a; Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
Austria, Belgium, Finland,
France, Germany, Italy, UK,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden
France, Italy, Malta, Spain, UK
UK
France, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK
UK
UK
UK
Germany, Greece,
Spain, Sweden
Germany, Slovenia, Slovakia
Germany, Netherlands,
Portugal, Poland, Spain
UK
FLEXICIENCY
Sunshine Tariff
UPGRID
SAVE
Energywise
CLNR
NOBEL
Flex4Grid
e-balance
Smart Hooky
SMART-UP
Participating countries
Austria, Belgium,
Germany, Portugal
Project name
AnyPLACE
2011–2013
2013–2017
2015–2018
2010–2012
2011–2014
2014–2018
2014–2019
2015–2017
2014–2017
2015–2018
2015–2019
Project period
2015–2018
Table 1. Characteristics of projects included in the review.
Explore customers’ willingness to engage in
energy-savings campaigns and their ability to
benefit from time-of-use tariffs. Identify
challenges and opportunities of
customer engagement.
Determine to what extent customers are flexible
with their energy consumption. Understand the
social dimensions of customers’
energy practices.
Develop and evaluate tools which allow customers
to monitor their energy consumption and
participate in energy markets.
Develop secure energy-management systems to
allow households to monitor and manage their
energy consumption.
Research on the economic and social aspects of
the energy efficiency obtained by distributed
and decentralized energy control
and management.
Develop and explore customer engagement and
incentive programs. Provide the community
with information of the energy consumption of
their village.
Encourage changes in energy-consumption habits
via active use of smart meters and in-home
displays. Enable customers to seize
opportunities offered by DR services.
Understand how customers change their energyconsumption patterns in response to a time-ofuse tariff.
Achieve peak shaving and energy saving using
real-time price signals, time-of-use tariffs, and
energy-monitoring and control services.
Identify effective methods of customer
engagement and evaluate the effectiveness of
dynamic pricing.
Project objectives
Enhance interaction between customers and
service providers. Enable energy monitoring to
allow customers to participate in DR.
Encourage more energy efficient behavior with
energy monitoring and control services.
1) 1280 customers
2) 15 customers and 8
project staff
members
1) 85 customers
2) 10 customers
1) Surveys (n ¼ 2)
2) semi-structured
interviews (n ¼ 2)
1) Online surveys (n ¼ 2)
2) structured
telephone interviews
Surveys (n ¼ 3)
1) Surveys (n ¼ 7)
2) personal interviews
3) focus groups (n ¼ 4)
Implicit
Implicit
Implicit
and explicit
1) 1284 customers
2) 130 customers
Not disclosed
335 customers
1) 9784 customers
2) 7 customers
20 customers
1) Surveys (n ¼ 3)
2) interviews
3) focus groups (n ¼ 8)
1) Online surveys (n ¼ 2)
2) interviews
Online surveys (n ¼ 2)
Email surveys (n ¼ 3)
1) Online surveys (n ¼ 2)
2) individual indepth interviews
Focus groups (n ¼ 2)
Implicit
and explicit
Explicit
Explicit
Implicit
and explicit
Implicit
Implicit
and explicit
1) 12,048 customers
2) 25 customers
3) 57 customers and 2
local organizers
1) 727 customers
2) 77 customers
3) 63 customers
Implicit
290 customers
3043 customers
Surveys (n ¼ 7)
Implicit
and explicit
Participants
1) 20 households
2) 77 customers
Data collection methods
1) Survey
2) Focus groups (n ¼ 4)
DR type
Implicit
(WPD 2013)
(E-balance
Consortium 2017)
(Flex4Grid
Consortium 2018)
(NOBEL 2011, 2012)
(CLNR 2013, 2014)
(UK Power Networks
2019a, 2019b, 2019c)
(SSEN 2018a,
2018b, 2019)
(UPGRID
Consortium 2017)
(WPD&RSW 2016, 2017)
(SMART-UP Consortium
2018a, 2018b,
2018c, 2018d)
(FLEXICIENCY Consortium
2018, 2019a, 2019b)
References
(AnyPLACE Consortium
2018a, 2018b, 2018c)
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
19
20
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
Figure 2. Thematic synthesis of positive (þ) and negative (-) customer perceptions toward demand response.
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2018; UK Power
Networks 2019a; UPGRID Consortium 2017; WPD
2013; WPD&RSW 2017). In many cases, customers
were interested in technology and data related to
the project. For example, four projects identified
customers’ desire to learn more about their energy
consumption as one of the main motivating factors
for their participation (Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
FLEXICIENCY
Consortium
2018;
UPGRID
Consortium 2017; WPD 2013). Furthermore, the
novel technologies associated with DR were attractive to some customers: two projects identified customers’ interest in new technologies as an important
reason
for
their
participation
(Flex4Grid
Consortium 2018; FLEXICIENCY Consortium
2018). Participants in these demonstrations were
predominantly male (Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2018), which may
explain the high interest in technology, as it has
been shown that males tend to have more favorable
attitudes toward technology use than females (Cai,
Fan, and Du 2017; Whitley 1997). Some customers
did not expect to receive any benefits from DR and
chose to participate in the project for its own sake.
These individuals participated to challenge themselves or simply to be involved in something
innovative (AnyPLACE Consortium 2018a; UK
Power Networks 2019a; WPD&RSW 2017).
Interaction with customers
Community focus
Eight projects reported experiences of focusing on community engagement (AnyPLACE Consortium 2018a;
NOBEL 2012; SSEN 2018a, 2018b, 2019; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018a, 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a;
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
21
Table 2. Quotations from project participants and authors to illustrate each theme.
Themes and subthemes
Motivational factors
Financial incentives
Environmental issues
Novelty
Interaction with customers
Community focus
Face-to-face contact
Text-based communication
Mobile communication
Feedback information
Types of information
Monitoring systems
Data security and privacy
Illustrative quotations
Italicized text ¼ quote from project participant
Non-italicized text ¼ quote from authors
“It’s not all about the right timing. It’s also about saving money. Who doesn’t want to save money? You time
yourself you make sure you have that time at the off-peak periods and then you do what you have to do” (UK
Power Networks 2019c).
“The financial aspect is paramount for a great part of households, but it is not the only motivating factor. There
may be an environmental motivation, a desire to respond to a new social norm, that of participating in a
collective effort for the common good” (SMART-UP Consortium 2018a).
“The most important motivation to install an EMS [energy management system] is environmental: reduction of
orentrup (altruistic value);
CO2 [carbon dioxide] emission (biospheric value) and carbon footprint reduction of D€
this appears to be more important than the economic benefit (egoistic value) of energy-bill reduction”
(AnyPLACE Consortium 2018b).
“Although this [save the planet] a fairly well known and understood global message the challenge of ‘what can
I do on my own’ to make a difference to such a big and complex issue leaves many people disempowered
and disengaged … The need for a cultural, rather than individual, behavior change shift is recognized’
(SSEN 2019)
“Yes it was, I had never seen it before, no other company does it so I thought yeah” (UK Power Networks 2019a).
‘The main motivator for taking part in the project seems to have been the wish to know their (devices or
household) consumption (75%) and the wish to know new technologies (75%) … Given our project is
introducing new technologies, this is an expected distribution’ (Flex4Grid Consortium 2018).
“The SAVE Project has totally transformed Shirley Warren – it has been the catalyst for action – bringing together
local people to deliver positive change in their own community as well as achieve reductions in peak demand. A
real win/win. We’re so glad we got involved” (SSEN 2019).
“I enjoyed every part of it, the community, coming and speaking with others … knowing their views that matches
up with our views. It was really nice, having that kind of family where faces become familiar” (UK Power
Networks 2019c).
“The involvement of the ADAM association strongly established in the district largely contributed to make this
project a district project and consequently reinforced the adhesion of the inhabitants. The strong
implementation of local partners is essential to gain the confidence of households and get their involvement
in the project” (SMART-UP Consortium 2018c).
“The guy was brilliant, we were talking and laughing; he was lovely, understandable, understood my concerns, took
on board my issues” (UK Power Networks 2019a).
“This is the first time someone has come to see us for explanations and advice, usually no one ever comes to the
neighbourhood” (SMART-UP Consortium 2018c).
“The most successful communication channels (question 23) were the house visits and the workshops, because
the participants favored the personal contact with consortium members of the project” (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018c).
“I wouldn’t have chosen to take part just on the letter; I needed to speak to someone too” (UK Power Networks
2019a).
“In contrast, e-mails used to communicate with customers, about the free smart-enabled washing machines on
offer to trial customers, were not successful. It would seem that this was because customers did not trust the
medium and possibly perceived the email as a ‘scam’” (CLNR 2013).
“Few people remembered the specifics of a message just that they received something to do with saving
energy; some people did comment on how the message was common sense, they’ve heard it before or it
doesn’t get through enough” (SSEN 2018b).
“The aftercare telephone service was felt to have been useful by participants, though they were perceived as
being less effective as the enhanced advice visit. Nevertheless, they offered households security in terms of
being able to clarify points with advisors and request further information (hence ensuring they were able to
continue to engage with and use their smart meter and IHD)” (SMART-UP Consortium 2018c).
“Some aspects of the project have proved quite difficult to communicate over the telephone or in written
communications. Feedback from the organizations involved in recruiting the customers onto the new tariffs
suggested that in some cases it may be difficult to effectively communicate the new offer over the phone or
in written communications, particularly when this requires a longer interaction” (UK Power Networks 2019a).
“Must admit that I just go by the colors. If I haven’t got me glasses on I can’t see the rest of it. If the red comes on
the alarm bells go … ” (CLNR 2014).
“Once residents understood peak demand they just wanted to know what simple and easy changes they could
undertake that would make a difference” (SSEN 2019).
“While the IHD itself is easy to read and understand in the main, with the vast majority of participants choosing
to use the price based readings (rather than units of energy or CO2), many commented that it caused them
confusion because the readings were hard to explain in reference to their own activities.” (CLNR 2014).
“Yes, big time. Seeing how much I was spending amazed me. Seeing how much the microwave and oven use, has
made me much more aware. Me and my son (who’s five) turn off all of the lights now. We never did that
before” (UK Power Networks 2019a).
“It’s not caused any bother … I am aware of it because it’s in the pantry. I know if I’ve left something on so I can
go back and then the light will go off. So it reminds you that you left something on that shouldn’t be on”
(CLNR 2014).
“While it is obvious that time-of-use data is critical to offer tailored advice and remote diagnostics, the cohort is
highly distrusting of such probes and remain guarded toward attempts to grant permissions for access to
personal data” (SMART-UP Consortium 2018c).
“Privacy threats are not taken into account during the decision-making process. However, the issue of privacy
turns out to be important when the users become aware of it. Very often they started to think of it only
when such an interview question came up” (E-balance Consortium 2017).
22
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
UPGRID Consortium 2017; WPD 2013; WPD&RSW
2016, 2017). Community-engagement efforts included
emphasizing the local impacts of the project and
involving local stakeholders in its implementation.
Designing DR programs so that they fit the local
agenda and benefit the community as a whole can help
promote them and foster active customer participation
by building a sense of working together toward a common goal. Many customers liked the idea of engaging
with their community (NOBEL 2012) and framing DR
as a local effort made the project more appealing to
customers (AnyPLACE Consortium 2018a; SSEN 2019;
WPD 2013). Involving communities in the design of
DR programs and inviting community members to
take part in field trials engaged customers and demonstrated that the program was a collaborative effort
between the community and the service provider
(AnyPLACE Consortium 2018a; SSEN 2019). Social
events and community gatherings facilitated conversations around energy issues and promoted communities
to develop and share their own ideas and solutions to
address these issues (SSEN 2019; WPD 2013). This
kind of bottom-up approach where the DR program
was designed together with the local community
ensured that customers did not perceive DR as something that was imposed on them (SSEN 2019).
Approaching the topics of energy use and DR from the
perspective of their relevance to the local community,
instead of treating them as a separate issue, made customers more open and willing to discuss such topics
(SSEN 2019; SMART-UP Consortium 2018a).
Consequently, focusing DR programs on close-knit
communities can significantly improve customer
engagement, as such communities show enthusiasm
toward initiatives affecting their well-being (SSEN 2019;
WPD 2013). The involvement of local stakeholders in
the recruitment and support of customers gave a DR
program credibility in the eyes of customers and
improved customer engagement. Customers tend to
trust local stakeholders, such as regional authorities,
community members, businesses, and local media.
Such stakeholders can act as an intermediary between
customers and the service provider (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018a; UK Power Networks 2019a; WPD
2013; WPD&RSW 2016).
Face-to-face contact
Six projects examined customers’ perception of faceto-face contact with the service providers
(AnyPLACE Consortium 2018c; SSEN 2018a;
SMART-UP Consortium 2018a, 2018c; UK Power
Networks 2019a, 2019b; UPGRID Consortium 2017;
WPD 2013). Face-to-face contact included interaction with the customers both individually and in
groups. Overall, customers’ attitudes toward face-toface contact were positive and this form of
interaction proved to be a valuable tool for recruiting and supporting customers, and ultimately in
building the customer-service provider relationship.
Door-to-door recruitment was commonly used in
the initial recruitment of participants (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018c; SMART-UP Consortium 2018a;
UK Power Networks 2019a; WPD 2013). This
approach was effective in helping customers understand the nature of the DR project, as it allowed
them to ask questions and to voice their concerns
before committing to the project (UK Power
Networks 2019a; WPD 2013). However, customers’
reservations toward unfamiliar organizations may be
a barrier to the use of this approach: customers
might not be receptive to door-to-door recruitment
if it is undertaken by parties not previously known
to them (SMART-UP Consortium 2018a). By contrast, when carried out by an organization the customers are already familiar with, door-to-door
recruitment can be highly successful (SMART-UP
Consortium 2018a; UK Power Networks 2019a).
Maintaining contact with customers serves an
important role in ensuring that they stay engaged
with the program. For example, some customers
prefer to receive technical support related to the use
of DR technologies on a face-to-face basis rather
than by telephone or online (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018c; SMART-UP Consortium 2018c).
Furthermore, face-to-face interaction can instill a
sense of being supported and it can help reassure
customers that they have not been abandoned
(SMART-UP Consortium 2018c). Supporting the
customers and providing them with an opportunity
to share their experiences can make them more confident in managing their energy consumption
(SMART-UP
Consortium
2018c;
UPGRID
Consortium 2017) and may reduce dropout rates
(UK Power Networks 2019a). Professional support
can be combined with peer support in social events
such as workshops, customer panels, and other
informational events (SSEN 2018a; UK Power
Networks 2019a; UPGRID Consortium 2017). These
occasions allow customers to give feedback and to
discuss the project in a more social environment.
Events themed around household activities, such as
cooking, can be an effective way to discuss how
everyday habits and practices relate to energy consumption (SSEN 2018a).
Text-based communication
Six projects reported on customers’ views on textbased communication such as letters and e-mails
(AnyPLACE Consortium 2018c; CLNR 2013; SSEN
2018b; SMART-UP Consortium 2018c; UK Power
Networks 2019a; WPD 2013). The use of text-based
communication was met with mixed responses from
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
customers. While some customers saw value in letters and e-mails as a source of information and education, unidirectional messaging does not allow for
interaction between customers and the service provider and is unlikely to lead to true customer
engagement when used alone.
Customers tended to regard text-based materials
such as newsletters and informational letters as useful introductory material that helped to familiarize
them with the project’s aims and the technology
(AnyPLACE Consortium 2018c; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a;
WPD 2013). Written information was found to
work best when combined with face-to-face interaction (SMART-UP Consortium 2018c; WPD 2013).
When used alone, letters and e-mails can be easily
ignored or forgotten. When asked about such messages, many customers could not recall the contents
of the messages, or even remember receiving the
communications (SSEN 2018b; UK Power Networks
2019a). Moreover, messaging that is too frequent or
overly repetitive may be detrimental to customer
engagement. For instance, in the SAVE project,
some customers noted that repeatedly receiving
similar information made the communications of
the service provider feel annoying and redundant
(SSEN 2018b). Letters or e-mails can also be misidentified and some customers may be suspicious of
these communication media. In the Energywise project, some customers mistakenly thought the recruitment letter was about switching energy providers
and discarded it (UK Power Networks 2019a). The
CLNR project was unable to enlist any customers
via a recruitment email, likely because customers
thought that these messages were fraudulent
(CLNR 2013).
Mobile communication
Four projects reported experiences of engaging with
customers via telephone calls or mobile instant messaging (AnyPLACE Consortium 2018c; CLNR 2013;
SMART-UP Consortium 2018c; UK Power
Networks 2019a). This means of communication
offers some of the same benefits as face-to-face contact in that it allows delivery of in-depth explanations and provides customers with an opportunity
to ask questions and raise concerns (SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a).
Telephone calls can also allow the service provider
to easily follow-up on customers and make sure
they are able to participate effectively in the project
(UK Power Networks 2019a). Furthermore, customer support via a mobile instant messaging application was positively received by customers as it
allowed for asynchronous communication with an
identifiable person (SMART-UP Consortium 2018c).
23
However, many customers perceived telephone
advice to be less effective than face-to-face consultation, and tended to choose face-to-face contact
over telephone calls when in need of support
(AnyPLACE Consortium 2018c; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a). For
instance, elderly customers and those with disabilities may require more extensive support (SMARTUP Consortium 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a).
Moreover, reaching customers and effectively communicating about the project by telephone often
proved to be difficult (CLNR 2013; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a). As
such, it is important that the service provider offers
various modes of support and engagement.
Feedback information
Types of information
Eleven projects reported customers’ views on the
feedback information generated by the service providers. In ten projects, customers were provided
with information of their past and current total
energy consumption (AnyPLACE Consortium
2018c; CLNR 2014; E-balance Consortium 2017;
Flex4Grid Consortium 2018; FLEXICIENCY
Consortium 2019b; NOBEL 2011; SSEN 2018b;
SMART-UP Consortium 2018c; UK Power
Networks 2019a; UPGRID Consortium 2017).
Additional information provided to the customers
included information about energy consumption of
specific devices in six projects (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018c; CLNR 2014; E-balance
Consortium 2017; Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2019b; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c) and current electricity prices in
three projects (CLNR 2014; NOBEL 2011; UK
Power Networks 2019a). Due to technical difficulties, one project was unable to deliver any feedback
information (WPD&RSW 2017).
In the projects reviewed here, feedback information provided to customers focused almost exclusively on energy-consumption data. However, data
without context can be meaningless: in addition to
information on energy consumption, customers also
need guidance on how to interpret and act on it.
They understand the purpose of energy-consumption feedback, but often struggle to make use of it
simply due to not knowing how to save energy
(CLNR 2014; E-balance Consortium 2017; Flex4Grid
Consortium 2018; SSEN 2018b). Many customers
found energy-consumption information to be too
complicated, unclear, or difficult to understand
(CLNR 2014; Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2019a; SSEN 2018b;
SMART-UP
Consortium
2018c;
UPGRID
24
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
Consortium 2017). Moreover, some customers
expressed the need for more practical information
such as tips, suggestions, and examples of concrete
measures to reduce energy consumption (SSEN
2018b; SMART-UP Consortium 2018c; UPGRID
Consortium 2017; WPD&RSW 2017). Making
energy-consumption information easy to interpret
can enhance active participation. For instance, the
CLNR project found positive customer reactions to
the use of a simple “traffic light” feature where current energy-consumption level or price was indicated by color. This feature was found to be
intuitive to use and was the most relied upon feature of the feedback system (CLNR 2014).
Monitoring systems
Nine projects investigated customers’ attitudes and
experiences toward the use of different monitoring
systems for delivering feedback information. These
systems included in-home displays (IHDs) and
digital platforms (i.e., mobile applications and websites). Monitoring systems can play a valuable role
in allowing customers to participate in DR, but their
potential may be undermined by the lack of education offered by service providers.
Five projects reported customers’ responses to the
use of IHDs (AnyPLACE Consortium 2018c; CLNR
2014; E-balance Consortium 2017; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a).
Generally speaking, customers positively perceived
IHDs and both regarded them as useful and understood the value they can provide (CLNR 2014; Ebalance Consortium 2017; SMART-UP Consortium
2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a). Perceived benefits of IHDs are mostly related to being able to
monitor and manage energy consumption (CLNR
2014; E-balance Consortium 2017; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a).
The physical presence of the display has an important role in promoting behavior change and receiving
continuous feedback can help customers associate
their energy behavior with outcomes (CLNR 2014;
SMART-UP Consortium 2018c; UK Power
Networks 2019a). Furthermore, simply having the
device in a visible place can serve to remind customers to pay attention to their energy usage
(CLNR 2014; SMART-UP Consortium 2018c; UK
Power Networks 2019a). Although most customers
were able to use and benefit from IHDs (CLNR
2014; SMART-UP Consortium 2018c; UK Power
Networks 2019a), there were some who struggled to
use this technology because they might not have
had the necessary skills or confidence (SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c; UK Power Networks 2019a).
Eight projects reported customer responses to
receiving consumption feedback via digital platforms
(AnyPLACE
Consortium
2018c;
E-balance
Consortium 2017; Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2018, 2019a, 2019b;
NOBEL 2012; SSEN 2018b; SMART-UP Consortium
2018c; UPGRID Consortium 2017). From the customer’s point of view, digital platforms can fill a
role similar to IHDs in that they allow for monitoring and management of energy consumption (E-balance Consortium 2017; Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2018, 2019a). However,
five of the eight projects where digital platforms
were used for energy-consumption feedback
reported fairly low usage of these services
(FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2019b; NOBEL 2012;
SSEN 2018b; SMART-UP Consortium 2018c;
UPGRID Consortium 2017). For example, the
Spanish demonstration of the UPGRID project
reported that only 7.8% and 1.3% of customers,
respectively, reported tracking their electricity consumption using the website and the mobile application (UPGRID Consortium 2017). Moreover, in the
SMART-UP project the proportion of customers
monitoring their consumption via a mobile application declined from 40% to 5% in the span of three
months (SMART-UP Consortium 2018c). The low
usage of digital platforms may have been due to
customers’ generally low regard for the quality and
value of consumption information (UPGRID
Consortium 2017), as well as due to complications
related to the use of these platforms (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018c; Flex4Grid Consortium 2018;
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2019b; UPGRID
Consortium 2017). Indeed, many customers
reported experiencing technical problems or difficulties in understanding how to use the digital platforms (Flex4Grid Consortium 2018; FLEXICIENCY
Consortium 2019b; UPGRID Consortium 2017).
Moreover, some customers had difficulties in accessing the platform (AnyPLACE Consortium 2018c;
UPGRID Consortium 2017), and others were not
even aware that such a platform existed
(SSEN 2018b).
Data security and privacy
Seven projects investigated customers’ attitudes
toward data security and privacy issues (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018c; CLNR 2014; E-balance
Consortium 2017; NOBEL 2012; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c, 2018d; UK Power Networks
2019b; UPGRID Consortium 2017). Data security
and privacy appear to be issues that many customers may not be aware or conscious of, but are nonetheless seen as important when specifically asked
about. In open interviews, customers rarely mentioned data security and privacy issues (CLNR 2014;
E-balance Consortium 2017; UK Power Networks
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
2019b). However, in surveys, they expressed concerns along these lines and generally considered
them to be important considerations (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018c; E-balance Consortium 2017;
NOBEL 2012; UPGRID Consortium 2017). The collection of too much and too detailed data was seen
as a potential threat to privacy (E-balance
Consortium 2017; NOBEL 2012; SMART-UP
Consortium 2018c; UPGRID Consortium 2017). For
example, some customers had concerns regarding
information that may reveal their behavioral patterns (E-balance Consortium 2017; NOBEL 2012) or
socioeconomic status (UK Power Networks 2019a).
Moreover, there were issues regarding disclosure of
personal information to third parties and the possibility of unauthorized access (E-balance Consortium
2017; UPGRID Consortium 2017). Nevertheless,
many customers felt that their privacy was
adequately protected during the project (AnyPLACE
Consortium 2018c; NOBEL 2012) and some
expressed indifference toward the subject (E-balance
Consortium 2017).
There was evidence to suggest that some customers may be willing to trade some of their privacy for
monetary benefits. In the NOBEL project, around
60% of customers were willing to share more
detailed information with their service provider in
exchange for financial compensation (NOBEL 2012).
The e-balance project found that when asked to
rank attributes of an energy-management system in
order of importance, customers valued tangible
attributes such as monetary benefits and innovative
features more than data security (E-balance
Consortium 2017).
Discussion
This systematic review has investigated residential
customers’ experiences and attitudes toward DR
programs. Three main themes emerged from the
thematic synthesis: motivational factors, interaction
with customers, and feedback information. The
results show that customers’ uptake of and engagement in DR depends on their intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations; their knowledge, skills and confidence;
social interactions; and the specific technology.
The decision of customers to adopt energy-saving
behaviors is influenced by a variety of values and
motivational factors. In addition to the potential
financial benefits of DR, customers are interested in
the possibility of contributing to environmental protection, the opportunity to use smart technologies,
and the chance to participate in something innovative. Residential DR programs have typically
attempted to encourage customer participation with
financial incentives, but as the results of this review
25
show, we should not overlook the role of intrinsic
motivation. Indeed, it has been shown that customers’ readiness and intention to adopt smart and sustainable technologies is influenced by their interest
in technology and environmental awareness (Ali
et al. 2020; Choi and Johnson 2019; Marikyan,
Papagiannidis, and Alamanos 2019; Tu et al. 2021).
The results here indicate that these factors can
motivate customers to participate in DR programs,
sometimes even in the absence of financial incentives. Therefore, branding and marketing of DR
should focus not only on its financial benefits, but
also on its environmental impact and technological
innovativeness. Furthermore, we found that the
effectiveness of financial incentives is likely hindered
by the fact that many customers are apt to value
time and convenience over the financial benefits
offered by DR. This finding is in line with studies
drawing from social practice theory demonstrating
that the notion that energy-consumption behavior is
driven predominantly by economic rationality is
flawed (Christensen et al. 2020; Strengers 2014;
Verkade and H€
offken 2017). For instance, Nicholls
and Strengers (2015) found that in households with
children, energy-consumption patterns are largely
dictated by daily routines and that these households
are unlikely to change their consumption habits in
response to dynamic pricing. In order to facilitate
the participation of these customers in DR, it is
important to allow them to do so in ways that are
not too disruptive to their lifestyles and habits.
Therefore, it is important that DR programs strive
to implement flexible and versatile incentive structures. Moreover, when financial incentives are used,
they should be sufficient to both attract extrinsically
motivated customers and to prevent the crowdingout effect, that is, where the introduction of small
monetary incentives may decrease intrinsic motivation (Bolle and Otto 2010; Frey and Jegen 2001).
Previous research has shown that non-monetary
incentives tend to promote greater and longer lasting energy-conservation efforts than monetary
incentives (Handgraaf, Van Lidth de Jeude, and
Appelt 2013; Mi et al. 2021). One reason for this
outcome may be that customers become disillusioned and discouraged after learning that the actual
financial benefits of such conservation efforts are
relatively small (Bolderdijk et al. 2013).
Nevertheless, as was found in this and other studies
(Li et al. 2021; Parrish et al. 2020), financial incentives do strongly influence customer decisions to
participate in DR programs. One potential explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that the role
of financial incentives in DR is mainly to create an
initial interest after which customer engagement is
mostly driven by non-monetary incentives.
26
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
For customers to take a more active role in managing their energy use, more than incentives and
marketing will be required: an interactive relationship between service providers and customers must
be established. The findings of this review underline
the importance of social interaction when introducing new energy services and products to customers.
Customer engagement in DR programs requires
reframing the perception of electricity as a passive
purchase, and customers need support in doing so.
Personal interaction with customers, face-to-face
interaction in particular, can play an invaluable role
in promoting customer engagement. By providing
support to customers, answering their questions,
and addressing any concerns they may have, service
providers can begin to establish a trusting relationship with their customers and help to ensure that
the customers are able to effectively participate in
DR. The profound influence of trust was demonstrated particularly well in the Energywise project,
where participants in the DR trial were recruited
from a group of customers that had previously participated in an energy-saving trial and were already
familiar with the organization. The participation
rate in the Energyise DR trial was as high as 86%.
Building the customer service-provider relationship slowly and gradually can decrease customers’
perception of risk and increase their willingness to
trial energy products and services that they otherwise might not be willing to try (VaasaETT 2012).
Furthermore, many customers have a desire to
interact with their local communities regarding
energy issues. These customers expressed that
energy issues should be integrated into the local
agenda and be solved together for the benefit of
everyone. Local, community-based energy projects
can promote pro-environmental behaviors by facilitating collective action toward shared goals, aspirations, and benefits (Berka and Creamer 2018;
Braunholtz-Speight et al. 2021; Williams, Charney,
and Smith 2015). Furthermore, support from peers
can play an important role in achieving and sustaining behavior change. A study by Rajaee, Hoseini,
and Malekmohammadi (2019) found that social
influence had a significant effect on the perceived
ease of using green building technologies. There is
an opportunity for service providers to work
together with local communities to develop a trusting and mutually beneficial relationship with customers by fostering an environment that provides
both professional and peer support. As shown in
this and other studies (Broska 2021; Savelli and
Morstyn 2021), enabling communities to participate
in the design and implementation of local energy
initiatives can make such projects more relevant and
meaningful to customers and consequently improve
customer engagement. Implementing DR with this
type of bottom-up approach gives customers more
agency and responsibility while emphasizing the
importance of a partnership between customers and
service providers. Currently, utility companies tend
to see their relationships with their customers as
something driven by necessity rather than as a partnership (Honebein, Cammarano, and Boice 2011)
and some express negative attitudes toward customer-engagement
opportunities
(Stephens
et al. 2017).
The provision of feedback is essential for customers to understand and change their own energy
behaviors. The findings here indicate that customers
understand the purpose and value of this information, but often struggle to take advantage of it.
Many customers who enrolled in DR programs
lacked the necessary knowledge, skills, or confidence
to use and benefit from the technology and information associated with energy-consumption monitoring. These customers may be unable to
participate in DR despite wanting to do so. Previous
research has shown that self-efficacy and perceived
behavioral control are associated with energy-saving
behaviors (Xu, Hwang, and Lu 2021) and the intention to adopt smart grid technologies (Billanes and
Enevoldsen 2021; Perri, Giglio, and Corvello 2020;
Yun and Lee 2015). Consequently, feedback consisting solely of energy-consumption data is unlikely to
provide customers with the tools they need for
active engagement in DR. This mirrors criticism
raised by Strengers (2011, 2014) and others (Darby
2008; Verkade and H€
offken 2017) about information
that is designed first and foremost for the “Resource
Man,” the hypothetical ideal consumer who is
technologically savvy and who makes rational decisions based on the latest and best available evidence.
However, to rely solely on consumption data is to
ignore the social and cultural factors associated with
energy use (Gram-Hanssen 2009; Shove 2010). The
findings of this review suggest that for customers to
have control over their energy use, they need to
know not only what to do, but also how to do it:
energy-consumption data should be made easily
interpretable and be combined with practical guidance and concrete examples. Our results indicate
that most effective types of feedback are those that
allow customers to understand how their own routines and habits relate to their energy consumption.
Examples of such feedback could include, for
instance, simple visual cues indicating when energy
consumption is higher than usual, as well as tips
and suggestions to help customers consider how DR
activities may be incorporated into their daily lives.
To this end, customers may benefit more from
monitoring systems with a physical presence, such
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
as IHDs, which can serve to make energy consumption more immediately visible. Digital monitoring
platforms require more active effort on the part of
customers, and as such, are more suited for monitoring energy consumption retroactively. Retroactive
monitoring may be less effective in facilitating
energy-conscious behaviors since real-time monitoring tends to be more effective in improving energy
awareness (de Moura, Cavalli, and da Rocha 2019).
Delivering feedback information involves the collection of customer data, which inevitably leads to
security and privacy concerns. The findings here are
in line with previous research in that customers’
security and privacy concerns may pose a barrier to
the adoption of smart services and technologies
(Braun et al. 2018; Ehrenhard, Kijl, and
Nieuwenhuis 2014; Li et al. 2021; Tu et al. 2021). A
review paper by Vigurs et al. (2021) highlights guiding principles for addressing customer-privacy concerns relating to energy use-data sharing in smart
energy systems. The authors emphasize the importance of principles such as transparency and communication and customer autonomy, as well as the
involvement of customers in the planning and
development of data-sharing processes. Making data
policies accessible and providing customers with
control over their data can enhance trust and effectively mitigate potential feelings of betrayal (Martin,
Borah, and Palmatier 2017). Conversely, when levels
of transparency and customer control are low, trust
deteriorates and customer reactions become more
negative (Martin, Borah, and Palmatier 2017).
However, our results indicate that customers may
not consider or be aware of security and privacy
issues related to DR unless the concerns are brought
to their attention. Therefore, to ensure that customers do not end up feeling deceived, it is important
to inform them of the privacy and data-security
aspects of DR during recruitment.
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic
review to focus exclusively on customer experiences
and attitudes toward DR. Previous research has
identified and described potential barriers and facilitators to customer participation in DR programs
and to the use of related technologies (Balta-Ozkan
et al. 2013; Darby and McKenna 2012; Ellabban and
Abu-Rub 2016; Kim and Shcherbakova 2011; Li
et al. 2021; Mela et al. 2018; Moreno-Munoz et al.
2016; Parrish et al. 2020). A review by Kessels et al.
(2016) evaluated the effectiveness of dynamic tariffs
on encouraging customer engagement in DR.
Similar to our study, the findings of Kessels et al.
(2016) underline the importance of customer-oriented approaches to DR, including customer education and support, ensuring compatibility of DR with
customers’ lifestyles and habits, and tailoring
27
incentives to suit the customers. Furthermore, as we
have done, Kessels and colleagues focused their
search on databases containing European smart grid
projects. However, in contrast to our work, they
focused on the effects and effectiveness of dynamic
tariffs. Although our study discusses financial incentives, the different foci of the two reviews are
reflected in the encompassed projects: only one project was included in both our and Kessel et al.’s
(2016) reviews. By broadening the focus to include
customer perspectives toward various motivational
factors, social interactions, and feedback information, we submit that our work complements the
findings of this prior investigation and offers new
insights into customer perspectives.
The current study contributes to research and
practice by synthesizing results from 12 European
DR research projects and providing a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence customers’ acceptance of and engagement in DR
programs. However, our review has some limitations. First, we were limited to European DR projects and, as such, our results may not be
generalizable to other global regions. Second, documentation of many projects indexed in the JRC
database were unavailable and some relevant projects may not have been indexed in this source.
Therefore, it is possible that we did not include certain important initiatives in this review. Third, there
was significant heterogeneity in the methodology of
these research projects as well as in their participant
demographics and regional contexts. There were
also differences in their goals. It is possible that
these factors may have affected the prevalence of the
themes. Finally, this systematic review focused on
evidence from European DR projects, and our thematic synthesis drew particularly on evidence from
UK projects. This was due to the greater focus on
customer perspectives in the UK projects, which
may be due to the relatively advanced DR markets
in the UK compared to most other European countries (European Commission 2016). This is noteworthy given that there are some concerns about
the generalizability of qualitative data and that associated modes of synthesis may detach findings from
their original context (Britten et al. 2002).
Notwithstanding these limitations, this review provides new insights for the development of customeroriented DR and other smart grid services.
Conclusion
This systematic review and thematic synthesis of
customers’ experiences and attitudes toward DR
identified three main themes and 10 subthemes
related to the uptake of and participation in DR
28
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
programs. The results highlight the value of social
interaction and support as well as the importance of
customer education and easily interpretable information. These findings have some potentially
important implications for the development and
implementation of DR programs. For customers to
become active participants within their networks,
the electric utility industry must re-evaluate the
traditional idea of customer relationships. A relationship based on purely top-down management
strategies and unidirectional communication is
unlikely to foster customer engagement and promote meaningful behavior change. Instead, more
focus should be placed on building a partnershiplike relationship and integrating customer perspectives into DR. Ultimately, it is the actions of the
customers that will determine the success of DR and
focusing on factors that enable their participation
will therefore help to create a successful program
and allow for greater co-creation of value. To this
end, it is up the service providers to equip customers with the necessary knowledge, skills, and technologies to participate in DR, as well as to
incentivize them to do so.
The results of our review offer insights into how
these needs may be met, but the findings reported
here are by no means exhaustive, nor are they
necessarily generalizable to all contexts. Therefore,
more research investigating customer attitudes
toward DR in various cultural and socioeconomic
contexts is needed. It is particularly important to
identify and understand the needs and challenges of
low-income households and those at the greatest
risk of energy poverty, as these households may face
disproportionate barriers and challenges preventing
them from accessing and benefitting from DR.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Peter Jones and the anonymous
reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of
this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
Funding
This study was funded by a personal grant to PS from the
Fortum and Neste Foundation.
References
Ali, F., M. Ashfaq, S. Begum, and A. Ali. 2020. “How
‘Green’ Thinking and Altruism Translate into
Purchasing Intentions for Electronics Products: The
Intrinsic-extrinsic Motivation Mechanism.” Sustainable
Production and Consumption 24: 281–291. doi:10.1016/
j.spc.2020.07.013.
Ali, M., K. Prakash, M. Hossain, and H. Pota. 2021.
“Intelligent
Energy
Management:
Evolving
Developments, Current Challenges, and Research
Directions for Sustainable Future.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 314: 127904. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.
127904.
AnyPLACE Consortium 2018a. Environmental and
Societal Impacts Assessment: Deliverable 2.2. Brussels:
European Union Publications Office. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646580/results.
AnyPLACE Consortium 2018b. Field Trial: Deliverable
8.2. Brussels: European Union Publications Office.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646580/results.
AnyPLACE Consortium 2018c. Policy and Regulatory
Recommendations: Deliverable 1.2. Brussels: European
Union Publications Office. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646580/results.
Balta-Ozkan, N., R. Davidson, M. Bicket, and L.
Whitmarsh. 2013. “Social Barriers to the Adoption of
Smart Homes.” Energy Policy 63: 363–374. doi:10.1016/
j.enpol.2013.08.043.
Bartusch, C., and K. Alvehag. 2014. “Further Exploring
the Potential of Residential Demand Response
Programs in Electricity Distribution.” Applied Energy
125: 39–59. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.054.
Bellefontaine, S., and C. Lee. 2014. “Between Black and
White: Examining Grey Literature in Meta-analyses of
Psychological Research.” Journal of Child and Family
Studies 23 (8): 1378–1388. doi:10.1007/s10826-0139795-1.
Berka, A., and E. Creamer. 2018. “Taking Stock of the
Local Impacts of Community Owned Renewable
Energy: A Review and Research Agenda.” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82: 3400–3419. doi:10.
1016/j.rser.2017.10.050.
Billanes, J., and P. Enevoldsen. 2021. “A Critical Analysis
of Ten Influential Factors to Energy Technology
Acceptance and Adoption.” Energy Reports 7:
6899–6907. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2021.09.118.
Bolderdijk, J., L. Steg, E. Geller, P. Lehman, and T.
Postmes. 2013. “Comparing the Effectiveness of
Monetary Versus Moral Motives in Environmental
Campaigning.” Nature Climate Change 3 (4): 413–416.
doi:10.1038/nclimate1767.
Bolle, F., and P. Otto. 2010. “A Price Is a Signal: On
Intrinsic Motivation, Crowding-out, and Crowding-in.”
Kyklos 63 (1): 9–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2010.
00458.x.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis
in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3
(2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, T., B. Fung, F. Iqbal, and B. Shah. 2018. “Security
and Privacy Challenges in Smart Cities.” Sustainable
Cities and Society 39: 499–507. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.
02.039.
Braunholtz-Speight, T., C. McLachlan, S. Mander, M.
Hannon, J. Hardy, I. Cairns, M. Sharmina, and E.
Manderson. 2021. “The Long Term Future for
Community Energy in Great Britain: A Co-created
Vision of a Thriving Sector and Steps Towards
Realising It.” Energy Research & Social Science 78:
102044. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102044.
Britten, N., R. Campbell, C. Pope, J. Donovan, M.
Morgan, and R. Pill. 2002. “Using Meta Ethnography
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
to Synthesise Qualitative Research: A Worked
Example.” Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
7 (4): 209–215. doi:10.1258/135581902320432732.
Broska, L. 2021. “It’s All About Community: On the
Interplay of Social Capital, Social Needs, and
Environmental Concern in Sustainable Community
Action.” Energy Research & Social Science 79: 102165.
doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102165.
Cai, Z., X. Fan, and J. Du. 2017. “Gender and Attitudes
Toward Technology Use: A Meta-analysis.” Computers
& Education 105: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.
003.
Choi, D., and K. Johnson. 2019. “Influences of
Environmental and Hedonic Motivations on Intention
to Purchase Green Products: An Extension of the
Theory of Planned Behavior.” Sustainable Production
and Consumption 18: 145–155. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2019.
02.001.
Christensen, T., F. Friis, S. Bettin, W. Throndsen, M.
Ornetzeder, T. Skjølsvold, and M. Ryghaug. 2020. “The
Role of Competences, Engagement, and Devices in
Configuring the Impact of Prices in Energy Demand
Response: Findings from Three Smart Energy Pilots
with Households.” Energy Policy 137: 111142. doi:10.
1016/j.enpol.2019.111142.
Customer-Led Network Revolution (CLNR). 2013. Project
Lessons Learned from Trial Recruitment: Customer Led
Network Revolution Trials. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne:
CLNR. http://www.networkrevolution.co.uk/resources/
project-library.
Customer-Led Network Revolution (CLNR). 2014.
Durham University Social Science Research: March 2014
Report. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: CLNR. http://www.networkrevolution.co.uk/resources/project-library.
Darby, S. 2008. “Energy Feedback in Buildings:
Improving the Infrastructure for Demand Reduction.”
Building Research & Information 36 (5): 499–508. doi:
10.1080/09613210802028428.
Darby, S., and E. McKenna. 2012. “Social Implications of
Residential Demand Response in Cool Temperate
Climates.” Energy Policy 49: 759–769. doi:10.1016/j.
enpol.2012.07.026.
Decullier, E., V. Lheritier, and F. Chapuis. 2005. “Fate of
Biomedical Research Protocols and Publication Bias in
France: Retrospective Cohort Study.” The BMJ 331
(7507): 19–22. doi:10.1136/bmj.38488.385995.8F.
de Moura, P., C. Cavalli, and C. da Rocha. 2019.
“Interface Design for In-home Displays.” Sustainable
Production and Consumption 18: 130–144. doi:10.1016/
j.spc.2018.11.003.
D€
utschke, E., and A. Paetz. 2013. “Dynamic Electricity
Pricing: Which Programs Do Consumers Prefer?”
Energy Policy 59: 226–234. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.
025.
Dwan, K., D. Altman, J. Arnaiz, J. Bloom, A.-W. Chan, E.
Cronin, E. Decullier, et al. 2008. “Systematic Review of
the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and
Outcome Reporting Bias.” PLoS One 3 (8): e3081. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.
E-balance Consortium. 2017. Validation of the Proposed
Use Cases and Business Models: Deliverable 2.5.
Frankfurt: E-balance Consortium. http://ebalance-project.eu/deliverables.
Ehrenhard, M., B. Kijl, and L. Nieuwenhuis. 2014.
“Market Adoption Barriers of Multi-stakeholder
Technology: Smart Homes for the Aging Population.”
29
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 89:
306–315. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.002.
Ellabban, O., and H. Abu-Rub. 2016. “Smart Grid
Customers’ Acceptance and Engagement: An
Overview.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
65: 1285–1298. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.021.
European Commission 2011. Smart Grid Projects in
Europe: Lessons Learned and Current Developments.
Brussels: European Commission. https://publications.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC65215.
European Commission 2013. Communication from the
Commission: Delivering the Internal Electricity Market
and Making the Most of Public Intervention. Brussels:
European Commission. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/
delivering-internal-electricity-market-and-making-mostpublic-intervention-com2013-7243-0_en.
European Commission 2016. Demand Response Status in
EU Member States. Brussels: European Commission.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/
JRC101191.
European Commission 2017. Smart Grid Projects Outlook.
Brussels: European Commission. https://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/smart-grids-observatory.
European Commission 2020. 2030 Climate Target Plan.
Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/
clima/policies/eu-climate-action/2030_ctp_en.
European Commission 2021. Annex to the Commission
Recommendation on Energy Efficiency First: From
Principles to Practice – Guidelines and Examples for Its
Implementation in Decision-making in the Energy Sector
and Beyond. Brussels: European Commission. https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2021/1749/oj.
Flex4Grid Consortium 2018. Validation of Second Pilot:
Deliverable 6.6. Brussels: European Union Publications
Office.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646428/
results.
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2018. Results Achieved in the
Swedish Demonstration: Deliverable 8.2. Brussels:
European Union Publications Office. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646482/results.
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2019a. Cross-case Analysis of
the Results from the Demonstrations: Deliverable 3.2.
Brussels: European Union Publications Office. https://
cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646482/results.
FLEXICIENCY Consortium 2019b. Report on the Results
Achieved in the Italian Demonstrations: Deliverable 5.2.
Brussels: European Union Publications Office. https://
cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646482/results.
Frey, B., and R. Jegen. 2001. “Motivation Crowding
Theory.” Journal of Economic Surveys 15 (5): 589–611.
doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00150.
Garcıa-Holgado, A., S. Marcos-Pablos, and F. GarcıaPe~
nalvo. 2020. “Guidelines for Performing Systematic
Research Projects Reviews.” International Journal of
Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 6 (2):
9–144. doi:10.9781/ijimai.2020.05.005.
Godin, K., J. Stapleton, S. Kirkpatrick, R. Hanning, and S.
Leatherdale. 2015. “Applying Systematic Review Search
Methods to the Grey Literature: A Case Study
Examining Guidelines for School-based Breakfast
Programs in Canada.” Systematic Reviews 4 (1): 138.
doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0.
Gouveia, J., J. Seixas, and G. Long. 2018. “Mining
Households’ Energy Data to Disclose Fuel Poverty:
Lessons for Southern Europe.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 178: 534–550. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.
021.
30
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
Gram-Hanssen, K. 2009. “Standby Consumption in
Households Analyzed with a Practice Theory
Approach.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 14 (1):
150–165. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00194.x.
Gyamfi, S., and S. Krumdieck. 2011. “Price, Environment
and Security: Exploring Multi-modal Motivation in
Voluntary Residential Peak Demand Response.” Energy
Policy 39 (5): 2993–3004. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.
012.
Haddaway, N., and H. Bayliss. 2015. “Shades of Grey:
Two Forms of Grey Literature Important for Reviews
in Conservation.” Biological Conservation 191: 827–829.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.018.
Hafner, R., S. Pahl, R. Jones, and A. Fuertes. 2020.
“Energy Use in Social Housing Residents in the UK
and Recommendations for Developing Energy
Behaviour Change Interventions.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 251: 119643. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
119643.
Handgraaf, M., M. Van Lidth de Jeude, and K. Appelt.
2013. “Public Praise vs. Private Pay: Effects of Rewards
on Energy Conservation in the Workplace.” Ecological
Economics 86: 86–92. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.
008.
Heylen, E., D. Papadaskalopoulos, I. Konstantelos, and G.
Strbac. 2020. “Dynamic Modelling of Consumers’
Inconvenience Associated with Demand Flexibility
Potentials.” Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 21:
100298. doi:10.1016/j.segan.2019.100298.
Hobman, E., E. Frederiks, K. Stenner, and S. Meikle.
2016. “Uptake and Usage of Cost-reflective Electricity
Pricing: Insights from Psychology and Behavioural
Economics.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
57: 455–467. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.144.
Honebein, P., R. Cammarano, and C. Boice. 2011.
“Building a Social Roadmap for the Smart Grid.” The
Electricity Journal 24 (4): 78–85. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2011.
03.015.
International Energy Agency (IEA). 2020. Renewables
2020. Paris: IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
2018. Global Warming of 1.5 C: Summary for
Policymakers. Geneva: IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
chapter/spm.
Juntunen, J. 2014. “Domestication Pathways of Small-scale
Renewable Energy Technologies.” Sustainability:
Science, Practice, and Policy 10 (2): 4–18. doi:10.1080/
15487733.2014.11908130.
Karjalainen, S. 2013. “Should It Be Automatic or Manual:
The Occupant’s Perspective on the Design of Domestic
Control Systems.” Energy and Buildings 65: 119–126.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.043.
Kessels, K., C. Kraan, L. Karg, S. Maggiore, P. Valkering,
and E. Laes. 2016. “Fostering Residential Demand
Response Through Dynamic Pricing Schemes: A
Behavioural Review of Smart Grid Pilots in Europe.”
Sustainability 8 (9): 929. doi:10.3390/su8090929.
Kim, J., and A. Shcherbakova. 2011. “Common Failures
of Demand Response.” Energy 36 (2): 873–880. doi:10.
1016/j.energy.2010.12.027.
Lawrence, A., J. Houghton, J. Thomas, and P. Weldon.
2014. Where Is the Evidence: Realising the Value of
Grey Literature for Public Policy and Practice.
Swinburne: Swinburne Institute for Social Research.
doi:10.4225/50/5580b1e02daf9.
Li, W., T. Yigitcanlar, I. Erol, and A. Liu. 2021.
“Motivations, Barriers and Risks of Smart Home
Adoption: From Systematic Literature Review to
Conceptual Framework.” Energy Research & Social
Science 80: 102211. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102211.
Lopes, M., C. Henggeler Antunes, K. Janda, P. Peixoto,
and N. Martins. 2016. “The Potential of Energy
Behaviours in a Smart(er) Grid: Policy Implications
from a Portuguese Exploratory Study.” Energy Policy
90: 233–245. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.014.
Mahood, Q., D. Van Eerd, and E. Irvin. 2014. “Searching
for Grey Literature for Systematic Reviews: Challenges
and Benefits.” Research Synthesis Methods 5 (3):
221–234. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1106.
Marikyan, D., S. Papagiannidis, and E. Alamanos. 2019.
“A Systematic Review of the Smart Home Literature: A
User Perspective.” Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 138: 139–154. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.
015.
Martin, K., A. Borah, and R. Palmatier. 2017. “Data
Privacy: Effects on Customer and Firm Performance.”
Journal of Marketing 81 (1): 36–58. doi:10.1509/jm.15.
0497.
Mela, H., J. Peltomaa, M. Salo, K. M€akinen, and M.
Hilden. 2018. “Framing Smart Meter Feedback in
Relation to Practice Theory.” Sustainability 10 (10):
3553. doi:10.3390/su10103553.
Mi, L., X. Gan, Y. Sun, T. Lv, L. Qiao, and T. Xu. 2021.
“Effects of Monetary and Nonmonetary Interventions
on Energy Conservation: A Meta-analysis of
Experimental Studies.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 149: 111342. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.
111342.
Moreno-Munoz, A., F. Bellido-Outeirino, P. Siano, and
M. Gomez-Nieto. 2016. “Mobile Social Media for
Smart Grids Customer Engagement: Emerging Trends
and Challenges.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 53: 1611A–1616A. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.
077.
Nicholls, L., and Y. Strengers. 2015. “Peak Demand and
the ‘Family Peak’ Period in Australia: Understanding
Practice (In)Flexibility in Households with Children.”
Energy Research & Social Science 9: 116–124. doi:10.
1016/j.erss.2015.08.018.
Nicolson, M., M. Fell, and G. Huebner. 2018. “Consumer
Demand for Time of Use Electricity Tariffs: A
Systematized Review of the Empirical Evidence.”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 97: 276–289.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.040.
Neighbourhood Oriented Brokerage ELectricity and monitoring system (NOBEL). 2011. Evaluation Plan:
Deliverable 7.1. Brussels: European Union Publications
Office.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/247926/
reporting.
Neighbourhood Oriented Brokerage ELectricity and monitoring system (NOBEL). 2012. Evaluation and
Assessment: Deliverable 7.3. Brussels: European Union
Publications Office. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/
247926/reporting.
Paetz, A., E. D€
utschke, and W. Fichtner. 2012. “Smart
Homes as a Means to Sustainable Energy
Consumption: A Study of Consumer Perceptions.”
Journal of Consumer Policy 35 (1): 23–41. doi:10.1007/
s10603-011-9177-2.
Paez, A. 2017. “Gray Literature: An Important Resource
in Systematic Reviews.” Journal of Evidence-Based
Medicine 10 (3): 233–240. doi:10.1111/jebm.12266.
SUSTAINABILITY: SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND POLICY
Palm, J., and M. Tengvard. 2011. “Motives for and
Barriers to Household Adoption of Small-scale
Production of Electricity: Examples from Sweden.”
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 7 (1): 6–15.
doi:10.1080/15487733.2011.11908061.
Parrish, B., P. Heptonstall, R. Gross, and B. Sovacool.
2020. “A Systematic Review of Motivations, Enablers
and Barriers for Consumer Engagement with
Residential Demand Response.” Energy Policy 138:
111221. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111221.
Perri, C., C. Giglio, and V. Corvello. 2020. “Smart Users
for Smart Technologies: Investigating the Intention to
Adopt Smart Energy Consumption Behaviors.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 155:
119991. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119991.
Piggott-McKellar, A., K. McNamara, P. Nunn, and J.
Watson. 2019. “What Are the Barriers to Successful
Community-based Climate Change Adaptation? A
Review of Grey Literature.” Local Environment 24 (4):
374–390. doi:10.1080/13549839.2019.1580688.
Rajaee, M., S. Hoseini, and I. Malekmohammadi. 2019.
“Proposing a Socio-Psychological Model for Adopting
Green Building Technologies: A Case Study from
Iran.” Sustainable Cities and Society 45: 657–668. doi:
10.1016/j.scs.2018.12.007.
Riesz, J., and M. Milligan. 2015. “Designing Electricity
Markets for a High Penetration of Variable
Renewables.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy
and Environment 4 (3): 279–289. doi:10.1002/wene.137.
Safdar, M., G. Hussain, and M. Lehtonen. 2019. “Costs of
Demand Response from Residential Customers’
Perspective.” Energies 12 (9): 1617. doi:10.3390/
en12091617.
Sanguinetti, A., B. Karlin, and R. Ford. 2018.
“Understanding the Path to Smart Home Adoption:
Segmenting and Describing Consumers Across the
Innovation-decision Process.” Energy Research & Social
Science 46: 274–283. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.002.
Savelli, I., and T. Morstyn. 2021. “Better Together:
Harnessing Social Relationships in Smart Energy
Communities.” Energy Research & Social Science 78:
102125. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102125.
Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN).
2018a. Solent Achieving Value from Efficiency (SAVE):
PPR June 2018. Perth: SSEN. https://save-project.co.uk/
reports-and-presentations/.
Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN).
2018b. Solent Achieving Value from Efficiency (SAVE):
SDRC 3.2 Improve Customer Engagement. Perth: SSEN.
https://save-project.co.uk/reports-and-presentations/.
Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN). 2019.
Solent Achieving Value from Efficiency (SAVE): SDRC
8.8 Community Coaching Trial Report. Perth: SSEN.
https://save-project.co.uk/reports-and-presentations/.
Smart Energy Demand Coalition (SEDC) 2017. Explicit
Demand Response in Europe: Mapping the Markets
2017. Brussels: SEDC. https://smarten.eu/explicitdemand-response-in-europe-mapping-the-markets2017.
Shove, E. 2010. “Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy
and Theories of Social Change.” Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space 42 (6): 1273–1285. doi:
10.1068/a42282.
Siano, P. 2014. “Demand Response and Smart Grids: A
Survey.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30:
461–478. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.022.
31
SMART-UP Consortium 2018a. Final Report WP6:
Deliverable 6.4. Brussels: European Union Publications
Office.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649669/
results.
SMART-UP Consortium 2018b. Final Status of Pilot
Activities: Deliverable 5.4. Brussels: European Union
Publications Office. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/
649669/results.
SMART-UP
Consortium
2018c.
Impact
Report:
Deliverable 7.8. Brussels: European Union Publications
Office.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649669/
results.
SMART-UP Consortium 2018d. Report on the Support to
Households: Deliverable 5.3. Brussels: European Union
Publications Office. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/
649669/results.
Sorrell, S. 2007. “Improving the Evidence Base for Energy
Policy: The Role of Systematic Reviews.” Energy Policy
35 (3): 1858–1871. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.06.008.
Srivastava, A., S. Van Passel, and E. Laes. 2018.
“Assessing the Success of Electricity Demand Response
Programs: A Meta-analysis.” Energy Research & Social
Science 40: 110–117. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.12.005.
Stenner, K., E. Frederiks, E. Hobman, and S. Cook. 2017.
“Willingness to Participate in Direct Load Control: The
Role of Consumer Distrust.” Applied Energy 189:
76–88. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.099.
Stephens, J., D. Kopin, E. Wilson, and T. Peterson. 2017.
“Framing of Customer Engagement Opportunities and
Renewable Energy Integration by Electric Utility
Representatives.” Utilities Policy 47: 69–74. doi:10.1016/
j.jup.2017.05.005.
Strengers, Y. 2014. “Smart Energy in Everyday Life: Are
You Designing for Resource Man?” Interactions 21 (4):
24–31. doi:10.1145/2621931.
Strengers, Y. 2011. “Designing Eco-feedback Systems for
Everyday Life.” In CHI ‘11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
2135–2144. New York, NY: Association for Computing
Machinery. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979252.
Thomas, J., and A. Harden. 2008. “Methods for the
Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research in
Systematic
Reviews.”
BMC
Medical
Research
Methodology 8: 45. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
Todd-Blick, A., C. Spurlock, L. Jin, P. Cappers, S.
Borgeson, D. Fredman, and J. Zuboy. 2020. “Winners
Are
Not
Keepers:
Characterizing
Household
Engagement, Gains, and Energy Patterns in Demand
Response Using Machine Learning in the United
States.” Energy Research & Social Science 70: 101595.
doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101595.
Tong, A., K. Flemming, E. McInnes, S. Oliver, and J.
Craig. 2012. “Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the
Synthesis of Qualitative Research: ENTREQ.” BMC
Medical Research Methodology 12: 181. doi:10.1186/
1471-2288-12-181.
Torriti, J., M. Hassan, and M. Leach. 2010. “Demand
Response Experience in Europe: Policies, Programmes
and Implementation.” Energy 35 (4): 1575–1583. doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2009.05.021.
Tu, G., C. Faure, J. Schleich, and M. Guetlein. 2021. “The
Heat Is Off! The Role of Technology Attributes and
Individual Attitudes in the Diffusion of Smart
Thermostats – Findings from a Multi-country Survey.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163:
120508. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120508.
32
P. SIITONEN ET AL.
UK Power Networks. 2019a. Energywise: SDRC 9.4 –
Customer Engagement. London: UK Power Networks.
https://innovation.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/projects/
energywise/.
UK Power Networks. 2019b. Energywise: SDRC 9.6 –
Energywise Knowledge Dissemination Report. London:
UK Power Networks. https://innovation.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/projects/energywise/.
UK Power Networks. 2019c. Energywise: The Final Energy
Saving Trial Report. London: UK Power Networks.
https://innovation.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/projects/
energywise/.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 2006.
Benefits of Demand Response in Electricity Markets and
Recommendations for Achieving Them – A Report to the
United States Congress: Pursuant to Section 1252 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Washington, DC: USDOE.
https://www.energy.gov/oe/downloads/benefits-demandresponse-electricity-markets-and-recommendationsachieving-them-report.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 2013.
Analysis of Customer Enrollment Patterns in Time-based
Rate Programs: Initial Results from the SGIG Consumer
Behavior Studies. Washington, DC: USDOE. https://
www.energy.gov/oe/downloads/analysis-customerenrollment-patterns-time-based-rate-programs-initialresults-sgig.
UPGRID Consortium. 2017. Report of Societal Research,
Socioeconomic Impact of Smart Grid, Report of Transfer
Replication Strategy and Communication: Deliverable:
D9.3. Brussels: European Union Publications Office.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646531/results.
VaasaETT. 2012. EMPOWER DEMAND 2. Energy
Efficiency Through Information and Communication
Technology – Best Practice Examples and Guidance.
Helsinki: VaasaETT. https://www.esmig.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/ESMIG-Empower-Demand-reportphase-II.pdf.
Verkade, N., and J. H€
offken. 2017. “Is the Resource Man
Coming Home? Engaging with an Energy Monitoring
Platform to Foster Flexible Energy Consumption in the
Netherlands.” Energy Research & Social Science 27:
36–44. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.02.015.
Vigurs, C., C. Maidment, M. Fell, and D. Shipworth.
2021. “Customer Privacy Concerns as a Barrier to
Sharing Data about Energy Use in Smart Local Energy
Systems: A Rapid Realist Review.” Energies 14 (5):
1285. doi:10.3390/en14051285.
Warren, P. 2014. “The Use of Systematic Reviews to
Analyse Demand-side Management Policy.” Energy
Efficiency 7 (3): 417–427. doi:10.1007/s12053-013-9230x.
Western Power Distribution (WPD). 2013. Smart Hooky:
Closedown Report. Castle Donington: WPD. https://
www.westernpower.co.uk/innovation/projects/smarthooky.
Western
Power
Distribution
and
Regen
SW
(WPD&RSW). 2016. Sunshine Tariff: Customer
Recruitment Learning Report. Exeter: WPD&RSW.
https://www.regen.co.uk/project/sunshine-tariff/.
Western
Power
Distribution
and
Regen
SW
(WPD&RSW). 2017. Sunshine Tariff: The Customer
Response. Exeter: WPD&RSW. https://www.regen.co.
uk/project/sunshine-tariff/.
Whitley, E. 1997. “Gender Differences in Computerrelated Attitudes and Behavior: A Meta-analysis.”
Computers in Human Behavior 13 (1): 1–22. doi:10.
1016/S0747-5632(96)00026-X.
Williams, B., M. Charney, and B. Smith. 2015. “Growing
Our Vision Together: Forming a Sustainability
Community within the American Library Association.”
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 11 (2):
57–69. doi:10.1080/15487733.2015.11908147.
Xu, Q., B. Hwang, and Y. Lu. 2021. “Exploring the
Influencing Paths of Behavior-driven Household
Energy-saving Intervention – Household Energy Saving
Option (HESO).” Sustainable Cities and Society 71:
102951. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.102951.
Yun, S., and J. Lee. 2015. “Advancing Societal Readiness
Toward Renewable Energy System Adoption with a
Socio-technical Perspective.” Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 95: 170–181. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.
2015.01.016.