The societal benefits of addressing wasteful electricity use practices through behavioural interventions are now well-established. Surprisingly, in South Africa, where the economy is highly dependent on fossil fuel (coal) for electricity generation, this subject remains little studied and understood. The residential sector is a major electricity consumer, and high-income households, in particular, use a substantial proportion of total electricity with serious adverse impacts on grid stability and the environment, which can disproportionately affect the poor. Using a field-based experiment, this study examines the impact of behavioural interventions on household electricity savings and the determinants of success among high-income households in Johannesburg, South Africa. Over the intervention period, households exposed to a combination of electricity-saving information, frequent reminders and feedback on monthly electricity-saving performance showed mean electricity savings of about 1.5%, ranging from 2% to 4% of electricity, while households in the control group showed increased electricity consumption by approximately 11%. Out of all the demographic and personal value factors considered, age, achievement and benevolence promoted electricity savings, while household size, number of rooms, baseline electricity consumption and security inhibited savings. The findings empirically validate the impact of behavioural interventions on, and the positive influence of, personal values in promoting participation in electricity-saving actions within households.
IsaacMVan VuurenDP. Modelling global residential sector energy demand for heating and air conditioning in the context of climate change. Energy Policy2009; 37: 507–521.
2.
HeHZKuaHW. Lessons for integrated household energy conservation policy from Singapore’s southwest Eco- living program. Energy Policy2013; 55: 105–116.
3.
ThondhlanaGKuaHW. Promoting household energy conservation in low-income households through tailored interventions in Grahamstown, South Africa. J Cleaner Prod2016; 131: 327–340.
DietzTGardnerGTGilliganJ, et al.Household actions can provide a behavioural wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2009; 106: 18452–18456.
6.
IvanovaDStadlerKSteen-OlsenK, et al.Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. J Ind Ecol2016; 20: 526–536.
7.
HarrisTCollinsonMWittenbergM. Aiming for a moving target: the dynamics of household electricity connections in a developing context. World Dev2017; 97: 14–26.
8.
DOE. Post-2015 National energy efficiency strategy of the Republic of South Africa. Department of Energy (DOE), Pretoria, South Africa, 2016.
9.
AbrahamseWStegLVlekC, et al.The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy- related behaviours, and behavioural antecedents. J Environ Psychol2007; 27: 265–276.
10.
OrnaghiCCostanzaEKittley-DaviesJ, et al.The effect of behavioural interventions on energy conservation in naturally ventilated offices. Energy Econ2018; 74: 582–591.
11.
Delloitte 2017. An overview of electricity consumption and pricing in South Africa. 7EcoOverview of Electricity in SA082017Submitted.pdf (nersa.org.za).
LangevinJGurianPLWenJ. Reducing energy consumption in low income public housing: interviewing residents about energy behaviors. Appl Energy2013; 102: 1358–1370.
14.
MutumbiUThondhlanaGRuwanzaS. Household electricity use behaviour and interventions in South Africa: A scoping review, forthcoming.
15.
WolpePReddyY. The contribution of low-carbon cities to South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals: briefing on urban energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, https://www.eldis.org/document/A100565. (2015, accessed 11 February 2021).
16.
TaitLWinklerH. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions associated with achieving universal access to electricity for all households in South Africa. J Energy South Afr2012; 23: 8–17.
17.
HuangWH. The determinants of household electricity consumption in Taiwan: evidence from quantile regression. Energy2015; 87: 120–133.
18.
BarrS. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviours: a UK case study of household waste management. Environ Behav2007; 39: 435–473.
19.
KollmussAAgyemanJ. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environ Educ Res2002; 8: 239–260.
20.
KuaHWWongSE. Lessons for integrated household energy conservation policies from an intervention study in Singapore. Energy Policy2012; 47: 49–56.
21.
AydinEBrounenDKokN. Information provision and energy consumption: evidence from a field experiment. Energy Econ2018; 71: 403–410.
22.
FrederiksERStennerKHobmanEV. The socio-demographic and psychological predictors of residential energy consumption: a comprehensive review. Energies2015; 8: 573–609.
23.
AbrahamseWStegL. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings?J Econ Psychol2009; 30: 711–720.
24.
SternPC. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. J Soc Issues2000; 56: 407–424.
25.
PoortingaWStegLVlekC. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behaviour: a study into household energy use. Environ Behav2004; 36: 70–93.
26.
SchwartzSH. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?J Soc Issues1994; 50: 19–45.
27.
De GrootJIMStegL. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J Cross Cult-Psychol2007; 38: 318–332.
28.
ThondhlanaGHlatshwayoTN. Pro-environmental behaviour in Rhodes University residences, South Africa. Sustainability2018; 10: 2746.
29.
SternPCDietzTAbelT, et al.A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev1999; 6: 81–97.
30.
HanyuKKishinoHYamashitaH, et al.Linkage between recycling and consumption: a case of toilet paper in Japan. Resour Conserv Recycl2000; 30: 177–199.
31.
BlokVWesselinkRStudynkaO, et al.Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: a survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. J Cleaner Prod2015; 106: 55–67.
32.
StegLVlekC. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol2009; 29: 309–317.
33.
WilliamsSPThondhlanaGKuaHW. Electricity use behaviour in a high-income neighbourhood in Johannesburg, South Africa. Sustainability2020; 12: 4571.
MalterudKSiersmaVDGuassoraAD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res2016; 26: 1753–1760.
38.
BinuVSMayyaSSDharM. Some basic aspects of statistical methods and sample size determination in health science research. Int Q J Res Ayurveda2014; 35: 119–123.
39.
MarshallMN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract1996; 13: 522–525.
40.
TIBCO Software Inc. Statistica (data analysis software system), version 14.0, http://tibco.com(2019, accessed 19 January 2021).
41.
McCullochCESearleSRNeuhausJM. Generalized, linear and mixed models. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2008, p. 424.
42.
KenwardMGRogerJH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics1997; 53: 983–997.
43.
GrønhøjAThøgersenJ. Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain. J Environ Psychol2009; 29: 414–421.
44.
BulungaAALThondhlanaG. Action for increasing energy saving behaviour in student residences at Rhodes University, South Africa. Int J Sustainability High Educ2018; 19: 773–789.
45.
DelmasMAFischleinMAsensioOI. Information strategies and energy conservation behaviour: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy2013; 61: 729–739.
46.
AmboleAMusangoJKBuyangaK, et al.Mediating household energy through co-design in urban Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. J Energy Res Soc Sci2019; 55: 208–217.
47.
KleinSJCoffeyK. Building a sustainable energy future, one community at a time. Renew Sust Energy Revol2016; 60: 867–880.
48.
NevensFFrantzeskakiNGorissenL, et al.Urban transition labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J Cleaner Prod2013; 50: 111–122.
49.
ThondhlanaGMubayaCPMcClureA, et al. Facilitating urban sustainability through transdisciplinary (TD) research: lessons from Ghana, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Sustainability2021; 13: 6205.
50.
KohlerM. Differential electricity pricing and energy efficiency in South Africa. Energy2014; 64: 524–532.
51.
YeYYKochSF. Measuring energy poverty in South Africa based on household required energy consumption. Economic Research Southern Africa.Working Paper No. 843, 2020.
52.
MvondoJM. Impact of access to freebasic electricity on households’ poverty in Buffalo city municipality in the Eastern Cape. Master thesis, South Africa: University of Fort Hare, 2010.
53.
WijayaMETezukaT. A comparative study of households’ electricity consumption characteristics in Indonesia: a techno-socioeconomic analysis. Energy Sustain Dev2013; 17: 596–604.
54.
AliSSSRazmanMRAwangA, et al.Critical determinants of household electricity consumption in a rapidly growing city. Sustainability2021; 13: 4441.
55.
DelinaLL. A rural energy collaboratory: co-production in Thailand’s community energy experiments. J Environ Stud Sci2020; 10: 83–90.
56.
SmithPGMorrowRHRossDA (eds). Chapter 11, Randomization, blinding, and coding. In: Field trials of health interventions: a toolbox. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: OUP Oxford, 2015, pp. 183–197.
