Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Exploring reasons behind careful-use, energy-saving behaviours in

residential sector based on the theory of planned behaviour: Evidence
from Changchun, China
ronique Vasseur b, Ying Fan c, *, Jinhua Xu d
Hongguang Nie a, Ve
a
School of Economics and Management, Changchun University of Science and Technology, Changchun, China
b
International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (ICIS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
c
School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing, China
d
Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Energy-saving behaviours possess great potential for reducing residential energy consumption, which
Received 3 December 2018 are influenced by various determinants. In this study, we classify the residential energy-saving behav-
Received in revised form iours into three categories: investment behaviours, control behaviours, and careful-use behaviours. Then,
8 May 2019
we further investigate the careful-use behaviours within the framework of the theory of planned
Accepted 10 May 2019
Available online 10 May 2019
behaviour (TPB) based on the survey data collected in Changchun, China. Structural equation modelling
is used to analyse the careful-use behaviours, which emphasise the effect of careful intentions on careful-
use behaviours and are further influenced by three driving factors, including attitude, subjective norm,
Keywords:
Energy-saving behaviour
and perceived behaviour control (PBC). The outstanding finding of this study is that, in the case of
Careful-use behaviour careful-use behaviours, subjective norm is the most important effect, as it differs significantly from
Theory of planned behaviour previous studies concerning investment behaviours or other types of energy-saving behaviours. Policy
Structural equation modelling implications for improving careful-use behaviours from the subjective norm perspective are provided
China accordingly. Widely implemented energy knowledge diffusion and energy information publicity are
suggested, and a pro-environmental attitude should be improved through education.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction these studies attribute the increase of residential energy con-

Residential energy consumption accounted for 12.4% of the total
energy consumption in China in 2016 (Fig. 1). Although the per-
centage is not as high as that in European countries (Vassileva et al.,
2012; Lopes et al., 2012), residential energy consumption has
increased dramatically, from 364.70 million tonne of coal equiva-
lent (TCE) in 2010 to 542.09 million TCE in 2016. The percentage of
residential energy consumption in the total energy consumption
has also increased recently (see Fig. 1), which indicates that the
analysis of residential energy consumption is becoming increas-
ingly important (DESNBS, 2017). Various recent studies have
focused on the investigation of changes in residential energy con-
sumption (Zhao et al., 2012; Zhang and Guo, 2013; Nie and Kemp,
2014; Zhang et al., 2016). Moreover, the results from most of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nhguang@126.com (H. Nie), yfan1123@buaa.edu.cn (Y. Fan).
sumption to driving factors such as population, income, floor space,
and energy mix.
Aside from the driving factors stated above, energy-saving
behaviour is one of the most important factors that greatly influ-
ence residential energy consumption and is relatively easily
affected by energy policy (Verhallen and Van Raaij, 1981;
Abrahamse and Steg, 2009; Manjunath et al., 2014). For example,
demographic factors do affect residential energy consumption, but
normally it is difficult to reduce residential energy consumption by
changing demographic factors. However, it is obviously easier to
reduce residential energy consumption by changing residents'
behaviour. In addition, a significant energy-saving potential based
on behaviours exists in the residential sector (Owens and Wilhite,
1988; Ouyang and Hokao, 2009; Allcott and Mullainathan, 2012;
Vassileva et al., 2012). Therefore, analysing energy-saving behav-
iours in the residential sector and investigating the influencing
factors behind these behaviours may produce valuable results.
Interestingly, residential energy-saving behaviours have been

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.101
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
30 H. Nie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37

60000 14.00 conducted which was specifically designed for careful-use behav-

Residential energy consumption share

Residential energy consumption

12.00
iours and their influencing factors. Second, focusing on careful-use
50000
behaviours, we examined the influencing factors of residents'
10.00 energy-saving behaviours. Third, we put forward policy implica-
40000
(10, 000 TCE)

8.00 tions especially for promoting careful-use behaviours based on

30000 results of the empirical model.

(%)
6.00 The rest of the study is arranged as follows: Section 2 reviews
20000 the literature of residential energy-saving behaviours, Section 3
4.00
presents the conceptual framework of energy behaviour theories,
10000 2.00 Section 4 describes the survey design, Section 5 discusses the re-
0 0.00 sults of the analysis, and the conclusion is given in the final section.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2. Literature review
Residen al energy consump on REC share in total energy consump on

Fig. 1. REC and REC share in total energy consumption from 2010 to 2016. Due to the realisation of the importance of energy-saving be-
Data sources: China Energy Statistical Yearbooks (2017). haviours in residential energy consumption, researchers are
Note: REC refers to residential energy consumption. focusing more and more closely on determinants of energy-saving
behaviours. Some researchers investigated the determinants of
energy-saving behaviours from the perspective of housing char-
proven to be diverse and are influenced by various determinants,
acteristics. Yu et al. (2012) analysed the relationship between res-
including economic benefits, social norms, and perceived discom-
idential location choice and household energy-saving behaviours
fort, among others (Wang et al., 2011; Lopes et al., 2012; Hori et al.,
and found that, aside from technological improvement and eco-
2013). Because each energy-saving behaviour possesses its own
nomic control tools, land-use policy contributed greatly toward the
characteristics, energy-saving behaviours should not be studied as
changing of residents' energy-consuming behaviours. The study
a whole. In this study, we classify the residential energy-saving
also demonstrated that, by recreating facilities and changing bus
behaviours into three categories based on the perceived cost
lines in neighbourhoods, residents' energy-saving behaviours can
behind the behaviours: (1) investment behaviours in which the
be significantly promoted. Allen et al. (2015) investigated the de-
perceived costs are greatest because people have to pay for the
terminants of households’ energy-saving behaviours and found
initial investment, such as purchasing an efficient household
that the house size, number of household residents, and climate
appliance to save electricity or improving the insulation of a house
type all influence the performance of energy-saving behaviours. In
to save heat (Feng et al., 2010; Cayla et al., 2011; Gaspar and
addition, self-reported behaviours and intentions influence actual
Antunes, 2011; Banfi et al., 2008); (2) control behaviours in which
energy-saving behaviours, but do not represent actual energy-
the perceived costs are relatively modest due to the experienced
saving behaviours. Noonan et al. (2015) emphasised the effects of
discomfort behind the behaviours, such as controlling the tem-
house and neighbourhood characteristics on energy-saving be-
perature in the room at an ideal level to save heat (Wang et al.,
haviours based on the investigation conducted in the US.
2011); (3) careful-use behaviours in which the perceived costs are
From the perspective of financial factors, Feng et al. (2010)
basically zero, such as turning off lights in an empty room or
conducted a survey study on energy-saving behaviours in the
shutting down the television instead of leaving it on standby
Liaoning province and investigated the barriers to energy effi-
(Thogersen and Gronhoj, 2010). These investment behaviours have
ciency. The barriers to energy efficiency include the low expendi-
been investigated by several scholars in previous studies (e.g., Feng
ture on electricity and the high prices of energy-efficient
et al., 2010; Cayla et al., 2011). The incomes, energy prices, and
appliances. Most subsidies' policies worked on appliance
appliance prices are considered as the most important de-
manufacturing companies, which contributed negligibly to resi-
terminants behind these behaviours (Panzone, 2013; Cayla et al.,
dents’ purchasing decisions. Cayla et al. (2011) investigated the
2011; Banfi et al., 2008). In addition, demographic and cognitive
impact of income on household energy consumption in a residen-
psychological factors have been analysed by some scholars in pre-
tial sector in France. The results indicated that income played an
vious studies (Kastner and Stern, 2015; Mills and Schleich, 2012).
important role in the consideration of energy efficiency investment.
On the other hand, the control behaviours have been studied by a
The households whose budget of energy service accounted for
limited number of scholars. Demographics and consumers’ atti-
15e25% of household expenditures faced a strong capital constraint
tudes have direct effects on control behaviours, such as in heating
for equipment purchases. Mizobuchi and Takeuchi (2013) exam-
or cooling of homes, although the feeling of discomfort curbs such
ined the influences of financial and non-financial factors on elec-
behaviours (Wang et al., 2011; Brounen et al., 2013).
tricity conservation behaviours based on survey data collected in
However, the careful-use behaviours have been rarely investi-
Japan. The study confirmed a significant response from households
gated by previous scholars despite having been proven to inflict
for financial incentives and an inconclusive response for non-
obvious effects on energy saving merely by changing people's
financial incentives.
habits (Fujimi et al., 2016). In this study, the careful-use behaviours
The effects of information feedback and knowledge are also
are analysed using the model of Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
analysed as influencing factors behind energy-saving behaviours.
based on the survey data in Changchun, a large-scale city in Jilin
By focusing on information found on websites for governments and
province in Northeast China. The main goals of this study are to
energy companies, Gyberg and Palm (2009) concluded that
explore whether the careful-use behaviours are significantly
knowledge and information are the most important factors that
influenced by the variables of TPB including attitudes, subjective
influence individuals’ choices regarding energy-saving behaviours.
norms and perceived behavioural controls (PBC), to illustrate which
In addition, the knowledge influencing energy-saving behaviours
variables are more powerful in influencing careful-use behaviours,
may affect both economical and environmental aspects, including
and to distinguish careful-use behaviours and investment behav-
lower energy costs, a reduced impact on the environment, and, in
iours analysed in previous studies. This study has several contri-
some cases, improvements in health. An experiment conducted by
butions to the current literature. First, a questionnaire survey was
Ayers et al. (2009) demonstrated that providing feedback to
 H. Nie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37
consumers regarding their energy consumption may substantially
improve energy-saving behaviours.
Additional researchers explained energy-saving behaviours
along the framework of cognitive psychology. Grob (1995) inves-
tigated the reasons for practicing environmental behaviours using
structural equation modelling and indicated that the strongest ef-
fect on pro-environmental behaviours originated from
personalephilosophical values and emotions, followed by envi-
ronmental awareness. Thogersen and Gronhoj (2010) pointed out
that household electricity-saving behaviours were influenced by
social norms, social expectations, and others' behaviours with the
help of structural equation modelling. Stephenson et al. (2010)
proposed a framework of energy culture that could be used to
understand energy behaviours in households. The energy culture
framework indicated that energy-consuming behaviours could be
understood by examining the interactions between cognitive
norms, material cultures, and energy practices. The three core
concepts could be explained as follows: the material culture of a
household can be understood as a technical system; energy prac-
tices can be understood as the interactions between individual,
social, and institutional behaviours; and cognitive norms can be
understood as attitudes, values, or belief systems. Sweeney et al.
(2013) extended energy culture framework, as proposed by
Stephenson et al. (2010), and argued that consideration of moti-
vations, support, and barriers is critical for understanding energy-
saving behaviours. In this study, the energy cultures, including
material cultures, cognitive norms, and energy practices are in the
outer ring of influence on individual energy-saving behaviours. On
the other hand, the individual is at the core and is driven by mo-
tivations to save energy. Gadenne et al. (2011) established a con-
ceptual framework of consumers' environmental behaviours and
examined the relationship between the beliefs, norms, attitudes,
and behaviours based on survey data from 218 respondents. The
results indicated that environmental beliefs affected norms and
further affected environmental attitudes as a main driver of energy-
saving behaviours. However, owing to cost barriers, policies or
subsidies that contributed to environmental attitudes cannot
effectively lead to energy-saving behaviours. Brounen et al. (2013)
investigated energy-saving behaviours within households in the
Netherlands based on a survey with 1,721 samples. In their study,
Brounen et al. (2013) examined awareness, literacy, and behaviour
within households in the Netherlands, which indicated that energy
literacy and awareness among respondents was low: only 56% of
the respondents were aware of their monthly charges for energy
consumption. Hori et al. (2013) conducted a survey on energy-
saving behaviours in five Asian cities with the intention to ach-
ieve an understanding of the influencing factors behind different
energy-saving behaviours. The study indicated that consciousness
of global warming, environmental behaviours, and social in-
teractions influenced energy-saving behaviours significantly, while
demographic factors such as income and age had weakly positive
effects on energy-saving behaviours. Sapci and Considine (2014)
analysed the relationship between environmental attitudes and
energy-consuming behaviours based on a survey's data of 612
households in the US. The research suggested that pro-
environmental attitudes are associated with energy-saving be-
haviours and emphasised that the link between household envi-
ronmental attitudes and patterns of energy consumption is
relatively strong.
Recently, energy-saving behaviours are investigated in some
more studies based on TPB (Wang et al., 2016; Park and Kwon, 2017;
Gao et al., 2017). Wang et al. (2016) predicted the customers'
intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), using an
extended model of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) based on
a sample of 433 respondents in China. The empirical results
31
confirmed the appropriateness of the TPB model and proved the
significant effects of attitude, PBC and subjective norm. Based on
data of 1050 consumers in South Korea, Park and Kwon (2017)
showed that consumers' perceived value of energy-saving prod-
ucts is mainly determined by perceived benefits, which are
enhanced by social responsibility and weakened by environmental
knowledge. Gao et al. (2017) explored the determinants of in-
dividual's energy saving behaviour in workplaces using an
extended model of TPB based on survey data in China, and
emphasised the effects of attitude and PBC on energy-saving
intention.
According to the review of the abovementioned studies, energy-
saving behaviours are treated as a whole in the vast majority of the
literature, which is unable to embody the characteristics of
different types of energy-saving behaviours. Energy-saving be-
haviours, in most studies, indicate investment behaviours, which
require initial investment (Feng et al., 2010; Cayla et al., 2011;
Gaspar and Antunes, 2011; Banfi et al., 2008). Control behaviours
are also included in some studies, which require sacrificing comfort
(Wang et al., 2011). However, the factors influencing behaviours are
expected to vary across situations and across different behaviours
(Ajzen, 1991). In the case of residential energy-saving behaviours in
most previous studies, attitude has been emphasised and proven to
be the biggest driver of behaviour (Gadenne et al., 2011; Brounen
et al., 2013; Sapci and Considine, 2014), whereas PBC indicating
the ability to achieve a behaviour has been proven to be the most
important driver behind investment behaviour due to the
requirement of initial investment (Banfi et al., 2008; Cayla et al.,
2011; Panzone, 2013). However, due to slight resistance, careful-
use behaviours are assumed to be different from other types of
energy-saving behaviours and have been rarely analysed in previ-
ous studies (Thogersen and Gronhoj, 2010).
3. Theory and conceptual model
3.1. Theoretical foundation
In this study, we intend to investigate careful-use energy-saving
behaviours that are not sensitive to certain economics factors such
as income or price relative to the other two types of energy-saving
behaviours (Feng et al., 2010). Because the behaviours are driven by
cognitive psychological factors (Grob, 1995; Thogersen and
Gronhoj, 2010), we will investigate the careful-use behaviours in
the framework of cognitive psychology based on TPB.
TPB was established by Ajzen in the early 1990s to explore and
predict human social behaviours. A central factor of TPB is the in-
dividual's intention to perform a given behaviour. The theory as-
serts that behaviour is a direct function of behavioural intention,
which is an outcome of attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC to-
wards the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). These, in turn, are based on an
individual's beliefs regarding the potential outcomes of the
behaviour, normative beliefs regarding the expectations of others,
and beliefs regarding factors that potentially constrain the behav-
iour (Ajzen, 1991).
3.2. Conceptual model and constructs definition
TPB has been one of the most popular of the reasoned action
models and has been applied toward understanding and predicting
a wide array of human behaviours ranging from the health, edu-
cation, and information technology (IT) sectors (e.g.,Godin and Kok,
1996; Hardeman et al., 2002; Chan and Bishop, 2013). In the field of
pro-environmental behaviours related to energy, TPB has been
found to accurately predict behaviour. The theory has been used to
study energy conservation behaviours (Harland et al., 1999),
32 H. Nie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37
willingness to take up household energy conservation in-
terventions (Scott et al., 2014), and intentions to purchase envi-
ronmentally friendly products (Kalafatis et al., 1999). More relevant
to this study, Kalafatis et al. (1999) examined the appropriateness of
TPB in testing consumers’ intentions to purchase environmentally
friendly products. The researchers found that TPB proved useful in
identifying cross-market commonalities and differences across two
samples, which is a very important feature for the current study.
Based on TPB, we established a careful-use behaviour model
(Fig. 2) and assumed that the same relationships exist between
each construct.
The ‘attitude’ construct refers to the degree to which a person
provides a favourable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the
careful-use behaviour in question. The cognitive foundations of the
attitude construct in TPB stem from both an individual's belief that
performing a certain behaviour will lead to certain outcomes and
the evaluation of these outcomes (Ajzen, 2012). We assume that
attitudes toward careful-use behaviours influence careful-use in-
tentions together with subjective norms and PBC. In particular,
attitude in this model is measured by some questions (see Table 1)
related to the cognitive consequences of waste or careful-use
energy.
The ‘subjective norm’ construct refers to the degree to which an
individual perceives that important relevant individuals or groups
will approve of the careful-use behaviour in question. Following
TPB, we assume the beliefs regarding different referees combine to
produce a comprehensively perceived social pressure to perform
careful-use behaviours (Ajzen, 2012). Moreover, we argue that
subjective norms are independent from attitudes, as an individual
may hold an unfavourable attitude towards careful-use behaviours
yet engage in the behaviours owing to the social pressure, which
shows that although subjective norms cannot change one's atti-
tude, they can change one's behavioural motivation. Subjective
norms can be divided into injunctive and descriptive norms, where
the former accounts for other people's approval and the latter
considers what others would do (Thogersen, 2006). In addition, the
subjective norm construct is not always a reliable predictor of
intention for performing certain behaviours because subjective
norms are not always relevant to the behaviour in question. In this
study, the subjective norm construct is measured by some ques-
tions concerning influences from social pressure and others'
careful-use behaviours (see Table 1).
The ‘perceived behavioural control’ (PBC) construct is the extent
to which individuals believe they can perform careful-use behav-
iours if they are inclined to do so, which is associated with in-
dividuals' beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control. The
cognitive foundations of PBC are assumed to follow from beliefs
about recourses and obstacles that can facilitate or interfere with
Careful-use
Perceived
behavioural
control
Fig. 2. Careful-use behaviour model, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).
the performance of careful-use behaviours. Following TPB (Ajzen,
2012), we assume PBC plays two major roles; first, it affects
behaviour directly by influencing perseverance; second, PBC indi-
rectly influences behaviour as a third determinant of behavioural
intention. The PBC construct in this study is measured by some
questions that were administered to determine to what extent in-
dividuals experience resistance when they perform careful-use
behaviours (see Table 1).
The ‘careful-use intention’ construct is the core of this model
and is the direct driving force of careful-use behaviours, influenced
by attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC. In this study, we measure
the careful-use intention construct with questions such as, ‘Are you
inclined to contribute to saving energy by practicing careful-use
behaviours?’ (see Table 1).
The ‘careful-use behaviour’ construct is driven by careful-use
intentions and PBC. The construct of careful-use behaviour is
measured by some questions related to energy-saving activities
from the perspective of careful use of household energy (see
Table 1).
4. Method
4.1. Sample
A representative sample was randomly selected from the resi-
dents in Changchun, China, and an online survey on careful-use
behaviours was carried out within households in 2016. The ques-
tionnaire was specifically designed for analysing care-use behav-
iours, which included 62 items and divided into three parts. The
first part was the demographic factors and basic information on
household energy consumption. The second part was the adoption
of careful use behaviours in the household sector. The third part
inquiry into the motivational aspects behind careful-use behav-
iours. Sample selection followed a strategy of stratification based
on income, age-group. The reasons for selecting Changchun as the
location within which to conduct our study are as follows. First,
Changchun is a representative city of energy consumption in China
and has similar energy-consuming characteristics as China. In
detail, the per capita energy consumption in Changchun in 2015
was 2.96 TCE, which is quite close to the number 2.93 TCE in China
(CESYs, 2016). Second, due to cold winters, space heating is an
important energy-consuming activity in Changchun, which was
significantly affected by careful-use behaviours. Of the 1,200 online
questionnaires that were administered, 612 questionnaires were
returned at a return rate of 51.7%. However, some returned ques-
tionnaires contained considerably missing data and were excluded
from the study. Finally, there were 396 samples remaining that
provided complete, usable data. The age of the respondents in the
Careful-use
behaviour
 H. Nie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37 33

Table 1
Description of constructs and items with corresponding statistical characteristics.

Constructs Items N Mean Std. deviation

Careful use behaviour How often do you do the following behaviours?

Shutdown appliances instead of standby?(B1) 396 3.89 1.174
Turn off lights in the empty room? (B2) 396 4.29 1.025
Walk or cycle instead of driving in a short distance?(B3) 396 3.85 1.214
Careful use intension Are you inclined to contribute to the following activities?
Saving energy by reducing unnecessary energy use at home (I1) 396 3.86 0.984
Saving energy by reducing unnecessary energy use on the road (I2) 396 3.75 0.915
Attitude To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Humans' energy waste activity will lead to disastrous consequence.(A1) 396 4.21 0.991
Significant energy savings could be achieved by careful use energy.(A2) 396 3.78 1.077
Careful use behaviour is as important as energy-saving technology.(A3) 396 4.22 0.959
Subjective norm To what extent do you agree with the following statement?
When people care of careful use energy, I should do the same thing. (S1) 396 3.86 0.984
My colleagues often conduct careful use behaviours. (S2) 396 3.66 1.020
My families often conduct careful use behaviours. (S3) 396 3.96 0.923
Perceived behavioural control Do you feel any resistance to do the following activities?
Close the window when the heating works (P1) 396 4.00 1.035
Walk in a short distance (P2) 396 3.86 1.027
Turn off light in an empty room (P3) 396 4.08 1.046
Shut down the TV instead of standby (P4) 396 4.01 1.040
Cycle in a short distance (P5) 396 3.92 0.992

online survey ranged from 21 to 60 years, and the majority of re- Table 2
spondents were between the ages of 25 and 55 years. Concerning Description of demographic information of the survey samples.

gender, 159 respondents were male and 237 were female, all of Variables n ¼ 396 Percentage
whom were living in the urban areas of Changchun City. Among the Gender
respondents, 92 did not possess a bachelor's degree, 209 possessed Male 159 40.2%
a bachelor's degree, and 95 possessed a master's degree or higher. Female 237 59.8%
Based on data collected from the Jilin statistical yearbook, the Age
25 and younger 41 10.4%
sample was somewhat more educated than the average residents
26e35 139 35.1%
living in the Jilin province. The description of the demographic 36e45 140 35.4%
information of the survey samples was shown in Table 2. 46e55 67 16.9%
56 and older 9 2.3%
Education degree
4.2. Measured variables Primary school 4 1.0%
Junior high school 31 7.8%
TPB was utilised to analyse careful-use behaviours through a High school 57 14.4%
variety of questions, which are mentioned below. To test the scale's University 209 52.8%
Master and above 95 24.0%
reliability, we calculated the subscales' Cronbach's Alpha coefficient
Income
with the help of SPSS 22.0. Furthermore, we conducted an explor- 20000 Yuan and less per year 33 8.3%
atory factor analysis to test the validity of the measured variables. 20000-50000 Yuan per year 110 27.8%
Careful-use behaviours: we measured the careful-use behav- 50000-100000 Yuan per year 142 35.9%
iours with three items:(1) How often do you shut down appliances 100000-200000 Yuan per year 86 21.7%
200000 Yuan and more per year 25 6.3%
instead of placing them on standby? (2) How often do you turn off Families number
lights in empty rooms? (3) How often do you walk or cycle instead 1 14 3.5%
of drive in a short distance? We used a 5-point scale to represent 2 59 14.9%
the frequency of respondents' careful-use behaviours, categorised 3 195 49.2%
4 72 18.2%
by ‘never’, ‘rarely’, ‘half the time’, ‘often’, or ‘always’ (never ¼ 1,
5 and more 56 14.1%
rarely ¼ 2, half the time ¼ 3, often ¼ 4, and always ¼ 5). Addition- Include children below 6 years old
ally, the construct posed an acceptable composite reliability Yes 107 27.0%
(CRB ¼ 0.75). No 289 73.0%
Careful-use intentions: the intentions or goals with regard to Include elders beyond 60 years old
Yes 131 33.1%
careful use were measured with two items: (1) Are you inclined to
No 265 66.9%
contribute toward saving energy by reducing unnecessary energy Floor space of dwelling
use at home? (2) Are you inclined toward saving energy by 60 m2 and less 50 12.6%
reducing unnecessary energy use on the road? The responses were 61e90 m2 112 28.3%
91e120 m2 161 40.7%
measured using a 5-point scale ranging from (1) ‘absolutely no’ to
120e150 m2 52 13.1%
(5) ‘absolutely yes’. Here, the construct posed an acceptable com- 151 m2 and more 21 5.3%
posite reliability (CRI ¼ 0.66).
Attitudes toward careful use: the respondents' attitudes toward
careful-use energy in this study were an influencing factor of
important as energy-saving technologies. The responses were
careful-use intentions, which were measured with three items: (1)
measured using a 5-point scale ranging from (1) ‘totally disagree’ to
humans' energy waste activity will lead to disastrous conse-
(5) ‘totally agree’. Here, the construct posed an acceptable com-
quences; (2) significant energy savings could be achieved by
posite reliability (CRA ¼ 0.73).
careful-use energy; (3) careful-use behaviours are equally as
34 H. Nie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37
Subjective norms: the respondents' subjective norms were
another influencing factor of careful-use intentions, which were
measured with three items: (1) when people care about careful-use
energy, I should also care; (2) my colleagues often conduct careful-
use behaviours; (3) my family members often conduct careful-use
behaviours. The responses were measured using a 5-point scale
ranging from (1) ‘totally disagree’ to (5) ‘totally agree’. Here, the
construct posed an acceptable composite reliability (CRS ¼ 0.71).
Perceived behaviour control (PBC): the PBC in this study influ-
enced careful-use behaviours directly, on one hand, while it influ-
enced careful-use behaviours indirectly through the careful-use
intention construct, on the other hand. The construct of PBC was
measured with five items: (1) I feel resistance toward keeping the
windows closed when the heating is turned on; (2) I feel resistance
toward walking instead of driving short distances; (3) I feel resis-
tance toward turning off lights in empty rooms; (4) I feel resistance
toward shutting down the TV instead of leaving it on standby; (5) I
feel resistance toward cycling instead of driving short distances.
The responses were measured using a 5-point scale ranging from
(1) ‘totally agree’ to (5) ‘totally disagree’. Here, the construct posed
an acceptable composite reliability (CRP ¼ 0.90).
We used structural equation modelling to test the proposed
model, as was illustrated in Fig. 2. With the help of the program
AMOS 17, we tested the measurement of each construct as well as
the significance of the structural parts of the model. The empirical
model of TPB was depicted in Fig. 3. There were sixteen indicator
variables and five latent variables. All 21 inter-correlations were
significant at p < 0.05, nineteen of which were significant at
p < 0.001. Thus, we were sure that all constructs were accurately
measured and highly related within the framework of this study.
Finally, the c2 statistic and its p-value were used to measure the
probability of the model's fit.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Results
According to the statistical results of each construct (see
Table 1), the means of the three items for careful-use behaviours
were, respectively, 3.89, 4.29, and 3.85, which indicated the re-
spondents preferred to conduct careful-use behaviours. The mean
0.17**
0.77***
0.12*
Perceived behaviour
control
Fig. 3. Estimate results of structural equation modelling.
Note: The Chi-square is 284.800, the degrees of freedom is 99, and the ratio of Chi-square and degrees of freedom is 2.877. The Goodness of Fit Index of the empirical model is 0.919,
and the root mean squared error of approximation is 0.069. And * indicates p < 0.05; ** indicates p < 0.01; *** indicates p < 0.001.
of the two items for careful-use intentions was also greater than 3,
indicating relatively strong careful-use intentions, which was the
main determinant for careful-use behaviours. In addition, the
relatively large mean of the items for attitudes, subjective norms,
and PBC indicate that most respondents in this study realised the
importance of careful-use energy, felt social pressure toward saving
energy, and felt little resistance toward exercising careful-use
energy.
The results of the scale reliability illustrated that all subscales'
Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were greater than 0.7 (see Table 3),
and the total Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was 0.814, which indi-
cated a solid reliability of the scale in this study.
The results of the exploratory factor analysis achieved a Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.811 (>0.7) and a score of p < 0.001
through Bartlett's spherical inspection, indicating a solid result
from the exploratory factor analysis. In addition, the factor loadings
of measured variables on their latent variable were greater than 0.5,
indicating a good convergent validity. The factor loadings of
measured variables on their other latent variable were less than 0.5,
indicating good discriminant validity.
As mentioned above, there were sixteen indicator variables and
five latent variables. The coefficient estimates of the model pa-
rameters between the five constructs and their items were illus-
trated in Table 4. All 21 inter-correlations were significant at
p < 0.05, nineteen of which were significant at p < 0.001. We could
conclude that all constructs were accurately measured and highly
related within the framework of this study.
The c2 was not statistically significant (p-value>0.05), which
meant we cannot reject the null hypothesis claiming the model was
accurate. However, if the number of samples was relatively large
(>200) and the model was complex, it was common to achieve a
Table 3
The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of each subscale.
Constructs Behaviour Intention Attitude SN PBC TOT
Cronbach's a 0.75 0.721 0.724 0.763 0.901 0.814
Note: the Behaviour, Intention, Attitude, SN, and PBC represent the subscale for
measuring careful-use behaviours, careful-use intentions, attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behaviour controls. And TOT indicates the total Cronbach's
Alpha coefficient.
Age Children
0.05 -0.08 -0.05
0.28***
Careful-use Careful-use
behavioiur
0.15*
 H. Nie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37 35

Table 4 whether intention could be transformed into behaviour was also

Coefficient estimates of model parameters. affected by control variables such as age, education level, and
Estimate S.E. C.R. P number of children in the household. The coefficient of age
Intention <— Attitude .110 .037 2.974 .003
(b ¼ 0.05) indicated that elderly people were 5% more likely to
Intention <— PBC .080 .034 2.341 .019 undertake careful-use behaviours, whereas the coefficients of ed-
Intention <— SN .576 .073 7.893 *** ucation (b ¼ 0.08) and children (b ¼ 0.05) indicated that people
Behaviour <— Intention .460 .113 4.061 *** with high education levels and more children were less likely to
Behaviour <— PBC .157 .064 2.465 .014
conduct careful-use behaviours.
B1 <— Behaviour 1.000
B2 <— Behaviour .928 .089 10.419 ***
B3 <— Behaviour .849 .086 9.838 *** 5.2. Discussion
P1 <— PBC 1.000
P2 <— PBC 1.121 .059 18.848 ***
We have provided further evidence of TPB in the field of careful-
P3 <— PBC 1.185 .059 20.197 ***
P4 <— PBC .858 .059 14.489 ***
use energy-saving behaviours based on the survey data collected in
Changchun, China. According to the results of the conceptual
P5 <— PBC .971 .061 15.974 ***
model, it was evident that the most significant effect on careful-use
I1 <— Intention 1.000
I2 <— Intention 1.444 .159 9.079 *** behaviours originated directly from intention, whereas PBC also
A1 <— Attitude 1.000 influenced careful-use behaviours to a relatively small extent.
A2 <— Attitude .877 .098 8.965 *** Careful-use intentions were further influenced by three effects,
A3 <— Attitude .671 .080 8.389 *** consisting of subjective norms with regard to careful-use behav-
S1 <— SN 1.000
S2 <— SN .949 .083 11.430 ***
iours, attitudes toward careful-use behaviours, and PBC towards
S3 <— SN 1.055 .090 11.675 *** careful-use behaviours. Different from previous studies regarding
Behaviour <— education -.076 .058 1.314 .189 investment behaviours, which mostly pointed out that attitude or
Behaviour <— age .046 .053 .865 .387 PBC effects were the most important influencing factor on intention
Behaviour <— Children -.043 .048 -.881 .378
(Ajzen, 1991), we argued that, in the case of careful-use behaviours,
Note: PBC indicates perceived behaviour control, SN indicates subjective norm; B1, the subjective norm parameter had the most significant effect on
B2 and B3 are three items of careful-use behaviour construct; P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 intention regarding relative behaviour, followed by attitude and
are five items of perceived behaviour control construct; I1, I2 are two items of
careful-use intention construct; A1, A2, and A3 are three items of attitude construct;
PBC. By further analysing the results of the empirical model for
S1, S2, and S3 are items of subjective norm construct. And *** indicates p < 0.001. careful-use behaviours, we obtain the findings as follows.
First, people generally possess scarce inhibition toward per-
forming careful-use behaviours relative to the other categories of
smaller p-value of the c2 statistic (<0.01), therefore, was not energy-saving behaviours. People tend to not worry about the
necessary to reject the hypothesis that the model was accurate. In ability of conducting the behaviour, which is the reason why the
addition, the ‘degrees of freedom’ parameter (99) was calculated as influence of PBC on careful-use intentions is the least significant.
the number of distinct sample moments (136) minus the number of Second, attitude toward behaviour is always one of the most
distinct sample parameters (37) to be calculated, and therefore important determinants of intention. However, in the case of
measured the degree to which the model was over-calculated. The careful-use behaviours, the spread of propaganda ensures that
c2 was influenced by the number of samples, and the ‘degrees of more and more people in China realise the importance of saving
freedom’ parameter was influenced by the estimated parameters of energy, which will not necessarily, however, lead to careful-use
the model. Thus, it was common to test the fit of the model with the intentions because the participants could not establish links be-
ratio of c2 statistic and the ‘degrees of freedom’ parameter. In tween careful-use behaviours and energy saving without possess-
general, if the ratio ranged on a scale of 1e3, then the model was ing sufficient information. For example, some individuals do not
considered well-fitted. In this case of this study, the ratio was 2.877, realise that shutting down the TV instead of leaving it on standby is
which indicated that the empirical model was well-fitted with the important for saving energy. Thus, energy-consuming information
survey data. is the most important factor that could provide opportunities for
In addition, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of the empirical turning positive, careful-use attitudes into careful-use intentions.
model in this study was 0.919, which was close to 1 (>0.9), indi- Third, it is well known that careful-use behaviours possess exter-
cating a perfect fit of the model. And, the root mean squared error nality, which is bound to be affected by social pressure. Due to the
of approximation (RMSEA) in this study was 0.069, which was close weak effect of PBC and the lack of a link between attitudes and
to zero (<0.08), indicating a further good fit. Based on the analysis careful-use behaviours, the role of subjective norms was high-
of the aforementioned statistics of model fit, we believed the lighted in this study.
empirical data adequately fit the conceptual model. In addition, relative to investment behaviours in previous
It is more interesting to analyse the relationship between con- studies, residents with high education levels are more likely to
structs in the structural model. 11% of the variance of careful-use adopt investment behaviours. However, in our study, residents
behaviours was explained in the empirical model in Fig. 3. In line with high education levels were less likely to conduct careful-use
with the assumption of TPB, the careful-use intention parameter behaviours. The reasons could be attributed to the differences be-
possessed the strongest direct effect on careful-use behaviours tween investment and careful-use behaviours. Upfront investment
(b ¼ 0.28), followed by the PBC construct with the second strongest is needed for investment behaviours but not necessary for careful-
direct effect on careful-use behaviours (b ¼ 0.15). 74%of the vari- use behaviours. Residents with high education levels who usually
ance of careful-use intentions could be explained by the three an- have a high level of income could afford more upfront investment,
tecedents; among them, the subjective norm construct possessed leading to high adoption of investment behaviours. Conversely,
the strongest effect on careful-use intentions (b ¼ 0.77), while the residents with high education levels don't care about the benefits of
attitude construct possessed the second strongest effect (b ¼ 0.17) energy savings through careful-use behaviours, leading to low
on careful-use intentions. The PBC construct had the smallest effect adoption of careful-use behaviours.
on careful-use intentions (b ¼ 0.12) even though it was one of the To our best knowledge, the novel achievements of this study are
direct influencing effects on careful-use behaviours. In addition, the examination of influencing factors of specified careful-use
36 H. Nie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37
behaviours and explanation of the difference between careful-use
behaviours and energy-saving behaviours such as investment be-
haviours. And of course, there are still several limitations in this
study. Firstly, the TPB variables can't fully explain the careful-use
behaviours, some more variables will be definitely exist but not
included in our analysis. Secondly, the representativeness of rela-
tively small sample size from one city may affect the accuracy of
model results. For future studies on careful-use behaviours,
combining more variables with TPB model and expanding the
sample size and sample collection scope are highly recommended.
6. Conclusions and implications
Focusing on careful-use behaviours, which have not been
investigated by previous studies in sufficient depth, we conducted
an analysis using structural equation modelling along the frame-
work of TPB. A survey study specifically designed for careful-use
behaviours was conducted in Changchun, China, and 396 effective
samples were collected and analysed. We adopted an explanatory
factor analysis and a structural analysis to analyse the latent vari-
ables and their relationships. All correlation coefficients between
the measured variables to the latent variables were greater than
0.5, and all the composite reliability coefficients were greater than
0.6, indicating that all constructs were effective. In addition, by
analysing the estimated parameters of the structural equation, we
confirmed that the survey data fitted the structural equation model
perfectly.
The main conclusions from our analysis are as follow. First, we
have provided further evidence of TPB in the case of careful-use
behaviours in Changchun, China. In line with this theory, careful-
use behaviours are determined by careful-use intentions and PBC
directly, among which careful-use intentions are the most impor-
tant determinant of the behaviour. Careful-use intentions are
further determined by three effects, including attitudes, subjective
norms, and PBC. Second, we emphasised the effect of subjective
norms on careful-use behaviours, differing from previous studies
on investment behaviours or control behaviours that attributed the
determinants of energy-saving behaviours to attitudes or PBC.
Third, we further discussed the results of the empirical model and
identified the importance of knowledge and information for
improving careful-use behaviours.
The research findings not only theoretically contribute to cur-
rent literature, but also provide some implications to policy makers.
China's current energy-saving policies related to energy-usage
reduction focus mainly on advanced energy-saving technologies
(e.g., provision of subsidies for purchase of energy-efficient appli-
ances and alternative fuel vehicles), whereas the promoting of
energy-efficient technologies and new energy development is not
sufficient for solving the problems of high energy consumption and
environmental pollution (Cheng et al., 2018a, 2018b). Additionally,
the technical approach is widely considered to require large
amounts of time and money. However, a change in habits may be
fruitful without the requirement of additional investment and may
potentially make a great contribution towards solving the problem
(Ouyang and Hokao, 2009; Abrahamse et al., 2007; Feng et al.,
2010). Moreover, the effective and persistent energy-saving mea-
sures tended to be those that did require neither frequent efforts
nor considerable discomfort (Fujimi et al., 2016). According to the
results of this study, we strongly recommend that future energy
policies focus on careful-use behaviours.
First, Subjective norms should be enhanced by encouraging
more people to realise the importance of careful-use behaviours,
which could further benefit both the environment and themselves.
With the development of the economy, the financial incentive ef-
fect will not be as effective in cases in which telling people that
shutting down the TV instead of leaving it on standby could save 10
Yuan RMB each month, as most people will not care about that cost.
Only when they realise that the careful-use behaviours will benefit
themselves over a long period of time will they change their be-
haviours accordingly. Additionally, it is important to establish a
pro-environmental, social public opinion direction that will influ-
ence people's careful-use intentions by way of social pressure.
Second, attitudes toward careful-use behaviours should be
improved by providing knowledge and information (Yue et al.,
2013; Delmas et al., 2013; Jain et al., 2013). For example, if one
person believes the energy in the world is inexhaustible, he will
consider nothing about careful-use behaviours unless there are
other factors that limit his own behaviour. Thus, it is necessary that
people recognise the limit of energy consumption as well as the risk
of environmental damage, which could increase people's careful-
use intentions. Third, the mean among the items for PBC are rela-
tively high in this study, which indicates there is little difficulty in
exercising the careful-use behaviours. However, PBC is the least
important determinant of careful-use intentions, which means
that, while it is easy to implement these kinds of careful-use be-
haviours, people still do not intend to do so if they do not have
sufficiently encouraging driving forces from external social pres-
sures or internal attitudes. Thus, our findings further emphasise the
importance of social pressure and attitude in regard to careful-use
intentions and behaviours.
Acknowledgments:
This research is supported by the National Natural Sciences
Foundation of China (Grant No.71503026, No.71573113 and
No.71690245), and the External Cooperation Program of the Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. GJHZ1513), Dutch Research
Council NOW (Grant No. 467-14-023).
References
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., 2009. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors
relate to households' direct and indirect energy use and savings? J. Econ. Psy-
chol. 30, 711e720.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., Rothengatter, T., 2007. The effect of tailored in-
formation, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-
related behaviours, and behavioural antecedents. J. Environ. Psychol. 27,
265e276.
Allcott, H., Mullainathan, S., 2012. Behaviour and energy policy. Science 327,
1204e1205.
Allen, S., Dietz, T., McCright, A.M., 2015. Measuring household energy efficiency
behaviours with attention to behavioural plasticity in the United States. Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 133e140.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50, 179e211.
Ajzen, I., 2012. Chapter: the theory of planned behaviour. In: Ajzen, I. (Ed.), Hand-
book of Theories of Social Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York,
pp. 438e459.
Ayers, I., Raseman, S., Shih, A., 2009. Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments
that Peer Comparison Feedback Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage. NBER
Working Paper, p. 15386.
Banfi, S., Farsi, M., Filippini, M., Jakob, M., 2008. Willingness to pay for energy-
saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Econ. 30, 503e516.
Brounen, D., Kok, N., Quigley, J.M., 2013. Energy literacy, awareness, and conser-
vation behaviour of residential households. Energy Econ. 38, 42e50.
Cayla, J.M., Maizi, N., Marchand, C., 2011. The role of income in energy consumption
behaviour: evidence from French households data. Energy Policy 39,
7874e7883.
Chan, L., Bishop, B., 2013. A moral basis for recycling: extending the theory of
planned behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 36, 96e102.
Cheng, X., Long, R., Chen, H., Li, W., 2018a. Green competitiveness evaluation of
provinces in China based on correlation analysis and fuzzy rough set. Ecol.
Indicat. 85, 841e852.
Cheng, X., Long, R., Chen, H., 2018b. Obstacle diagnosis of green competition pro-
motion: a case study of provinces in China based on catastrophe progression
and fuzzy rough set methods. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 25 (5),
4344e4360.
Delmas, M.A., Fischlein, M., Asensio, O.I., 2013. Information strategies and energy
conservation behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to
 H. Nie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 29e37
2012. Energy Policy 61, 729e739.
Department of Energy Statistics of National Bureau of Statistic of China (DESNBS),
2017. China Energy Statistical Yearbooks. China Statistics Press, Beijing.
Feng, D., Sovacool, B.K., Vu, K.M., 2010. The barriers to energy efficiency in China:
assessing household electricity savings and consumer behaviour in Liaoning
Province. Energy Policy 38, 1202e1209.
Fujimi, T., Kajitani, Y., Chang, S.E., 2016. Effective and persistent changes in
household energy-saving behaviors: evidence from post-tsunami Japan. Appl.
Energy 167, 93e106.
Gadenne, D., Sharma, B., Kerr, D., Smith, T., 2011. The influence of consumers'
environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy-saving behaviours. Energy Policy
39, 7684e7694.
Gaspar, R., Antunes, D., 2011. Energy efficiency and appliance purchases in Europe:
consumer profiles and choice determinants. Energy Policy 39 (11), 7335e7346.
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J., Li, H., 2017. Application of the extended theory of planned
behavior to understand individual's energy saving behavior in workplaces.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 107e113.
Grob, A., 1995. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour.
J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 209e220.
Godin, G., Kok, G., 1996. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications
to health-related behaviors. Am. J. Health Promot. 11 (2), 87e98.
Gyberg, P., Palm, P., 2009. Influencing households' energy behaviour- how is this
done and on what premises? Energy Policy 37, 2807e2813.
Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D., Bonetti, D., Wareham, N., Kinmonth, A.L.,
2002. Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour change in-
terventions: a systematic review. Psychol. Health 17 (2), 123e158.
Harland, P., Staats, H., Wilke, H.A.M., 1999. Explaining pro-environmental intention
and behaviour by the theory of planned behaviour and personal norms. J. Appl.
Soc. Psychol. 29 (12), 2505e2528.
Hori, S., Kondo, K., Nogata, D., Ben, H., 2013. The determinants of household energy-
saving behaviour: survey and comparison in five major Asian cities. Energy
Policy 52, 354e362.
Jain, R.K., Taylor, J.E., Culligan, P.J., 2013. Investigating the impact eco-feedback in-
formation representation has on building occupant energy consumption
behavior and savings. Energy Build. 64, 408e414.
Kalafatis, S.P., Pollard, M., East, R., Tsogas, M.H., 1999. Green marketing and Ajzen's
theory of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination. J. Consum. Mark. 16
(5), 441e460.
Kastner, I., Stern, P.C., 2015. Examining the decision-making processes behind
household energy investments: a review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 72e89.
Lopes, M.A.R., Antunes, C.H., Martins, N., 2012. Energy behaviours as promoters of
energy efficiency: a 21st century review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 4905,
4104.
Manjunath, M., Singh, P., Mandal, A., Parihar, G.S., 2014. Consumer behaviour to-
wards electricity - a field study. Energy Procedia 54, 541e548.
Mills, B., Schleich, J., 2012. Residential energy-efficient technology adoption, energy
conservation, knowledge, and attitudes: an analysis of European countries.
Energy Policy 49, 616e628.
Mizobuchi, K., Takeuchi, K., 2013. The influences of financial and non-financial
factors on energy-saving behaviour: a field experiment in Japan. Energy Pol-
icy 63, 775e787.
Nie, H., Kemp, R., 2014. Index decomposition analysis of residential energy con-
sumption in China: 2002-2010. Appl. Energy 121, 10e19.
37
Noonan, D.S., Hsieh, L.H.C., Matisoff, D., 2015. Economic, sociological, and neighbor
dimensions of energy efficiency adoption behaviours: evidence from the US
residential heating and air conditioning market. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10,
102e113.
Ouyang, J., Hokao, K., 2009. Energy-saving potential by improving occupants'
behaviour in urban residential sector in Hangzhou city, China. Energy Build. 41,
711e720.
Owens, J., Wilhite, H., 1988. Household energy behaviour in Nordic countries - an
unrealized energy-saving potential. Energy 13 (12), 853e859.
Panzone, L.A., 2013. Saving money VS investing money: do energy ratings influence
consumer demand for energy efficient goods? Energy Econ. 38, 51e63.
Park, E., Kwon, S.J., 2017. What motivations drive sustainable energy-saving
behavior?: an examination in South Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79,
494e502.
Sapci, O., Considine, T., 2014. The link between environmental attitudes and energy
consumption behaviour. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 52, 29e34.
Scott, F.L., Jones, C.R., Webb, T.L., 2014. What do people living in deprived com-
munities in the UK think about household energy efficiency interventions?
Energy Policy 66 (1), 335e349.
Stephenson, J., Barton, B., Carrington, G., Gnoth, D., Lawson, R., Thorsnes, P., 2010.
Energy cultures: a framework for understanding energy behaviours. Energy
Policy 38, 6120e6129.
Sweeney, J.C., Kresling, J., Webb, D., Soutar, G.N., Mazzarol, T., 2013. Energy-saving
behaviours: development of a practice-based model. Energy Policy 61, 371e381.
Thogersen, J., Gronhoj, A., 2010. Electricity saving in households e a social cognitive
approach. Energy Policy 28, 7732e7743.
Thogersen, O., 2006. Intergenerational Risk Sharing by Means of Pay-As-You-Go
Programs - an Investigation of Alternative Mechanisms, vol 7. Social Science
Electronic Publishing.
Vassileva, I., Wallin, F., Dahlquist, E., 2012. Analytical comparison between elec-
tricity consumption and behavioural characteristics of Swedish households in
rented apartments. Appl. Energy 90, 182e188.
Verhallen, T.M.M., Van Raaij, W.F., 1981. Household behaviour and the use of natural
gas for home heating. J. Consum. Res. 8, 253e257.
Wang, S., Fan, J., Zhao, D., Yang, S., Fu, Y., 2016. Predicting consumers' intention to
adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of
planned behavior model. Transportation 43 (1), 123e143.
Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Yin, J., Zhang, Y., 2011. Determinants and policy implications for
household electricity-saving behaviour: evidence from Beijing, China. Energy
Policy 39, 3550e3557.
Yu, B., Zhang, J., Fujiwara, A., 2012. Analysis of the residential location choice and
household energy consumption behaviour by incorporating multiple self-
selection effects. Energy Policy 46, 319e334.
Yue, T., Long, R., Chen, H., 2013. Factors influencing energy-saving behaviour of
urban households in Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy 62, 665e675.
Zhang, M., Guo, F., 2013. Analysis of rural residential commercial energy con-
sumption in China. Energy 52, 222e229.
Zhang, M., Song, Y., Li, P., Li, H., 2016. Study on affecting factors of residential energy
consumption in urban and rural Jiangsu. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53,
330e337.
Zhao, X., Li, N., Ma, C., 2012. Residential energy consumption in urban China: a
decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 41, 644e653.