Carmen King, Jeff Steuben, and crew made a short and sweet energy efficiency video a while back. It took some time, but we finally managed to get it online with some help from San Diego State Green Campus Program.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
CFL study at Humboldt State University
Lou Jacobson, a recent MA grad in Sociology (and now an energy auditor at the Redwood Coast Energy Authority), wrote his thesis las year on CFL risk perception and barriers to adoption at Humboldt State. Here are some highlights from the study:
1. 52% have CFLs as their primary light source, and 16% have never heard of CFLs
2. Primary reasons given for not using the technology were (in order): high cost, mercury toxicity, flickering, and brightness
3. Green Campus was cited as a source of information about CFLs for 30% of respondents, where Utilities & Friends had over 60%, and media ads and family both at 45%.
4. Respondents who bought their lightbulbs at a hardware store were more likely to use CFLs than those purchased at grocery stores or "box stores"
5. Statistically, significantly more men used CFLs than women.
6. 49% of respondents did not know what phantom loads were.
And some interesting excerpts:
"Early interactions with the product [CFLs] have left ripples of negative meaning associations that are still prominent within those who do not use the technology."
"First, non-users had more negative meaning attachments for CFL technologies than users. That is, non-users thought that CFLs generally flickered more, were larger than incandescent bulbs, were colder in color, and were dimmer in comparison."
"The results of this study showed that respondents from a small city or town were less likely to use CFLs than those who came from county villages, suburbs or big cities."
Thanks to HSU Energy Management Intern (and Green Campus alumnus) Jeff Steuben for sending this info to us.
1. 52% have CFLs as their primary light source, and 16% have never heard of CFLs
2. Primary reasons given for not using the technology were (in order): high cost, mercury toxicity, flickering, and brightness
3. Green Campus was cited as a source of information about CFLs for 30% of respondents, where Utilities & Friends had over 60%, and media ads and family both at 45%.
4. Respondents who bought their lightbulbs at a hardware store were more likely to use CFLs than those purchased at grocery stores or "box stores"
5. Statistically, significantly more men used CFLs than women.
6. 49% of respondents did not know what phantom loads were.
And some interesting excerpts:
"Early interactions with the product [CFLs] have left ripples of negative meaning associations that are still prominent within those who do not use the technology."
"First, non-users had more negative meaning attachments for CFL technologies than users. That is, non-users thought that CFLs generally flickered more, were larger than incandescent bulbs, were colder in color, and were dimmer in comparison."
"The results of this study showed that respondents from a small city or town were less likely to use CFLs than those who came from county villages, suburbs or big cities."
Thanks to HSU Energy Management Intern (and Green Campus alumnus) Jeff Steuben for sending this info to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
