the dubuque electricity portal/wookjaemaeng

The Dubuque Electricity Portal:Evaluation of a City-Scale Residential Electricity Con-sumption Feedback System

+ CHI 2013-Thomas Erickson/ 맹욱재x 2013 fall

The Dubuque Electricity Portal:Evaluation of a City-Scale Resi-dential Electricity Consumption Feedback System

2013.10.16Wookjae Maeng

Why this paper?

• ICT policy project• Curious about the way of evaluation

3

4

Dubuque?

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-11/data-transforming-dubuque-and-it-will-transform-your-city-too

5

Author

Thomas Ericksoninteraction designer and re-searcherSocial Computing Group at IBM's Watson Labshttp://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-snowfall

6

Abstract

Dubuque Electricity Portalfor volunteering reductionLog, Survey, interview20weeks pilot, 765 household3.7% reductionUnderstanding of usage↑

7

Problem

• Energy consumption is critical global issue

• In developed, developing countries• Side effect : CO2 emission, ecology dam-

age

• Among U.S’s Electricity consumption 37% from home

8

Previous Work

Sustainability

EnvironmentalPsychologyHCI

9

Previous Work 2

ECF(Electricity Consumption Feedback) techniques

1. Feedback (show how much they use)2. incentive (points, pricing, differential pricing)3. Comparisons (between individuals, group)4. Goal-setting 5. Commitment (elicit public commitment)

10

System

• The Sitestrong sustainability agenda citysmart electricity meters are deployed

• The Systemevery 15min transmit data to gatewayData was stored and uploaded in cloudanalyzed, fed back to web portalnot track individual devicebut high, medium, low load device

11

Solution

Figure 2 on this paper

12

Pilot project

• 765 neighborhood – 20 weeks• First log in – fill in profile for cus-

tomizingsize of household, type of device

• Survey, interview for UX qualitative data

13

Survey

• Survey – 32 questions, 10minmultiple choice, Likert scale, open-ended

1. Why?2. How often?

If answer > 1go next question

elsego final question

3. Portal UI – value, degree(cue for picture)4. Effects on understanding and use5. Physical or Behavior Change• Distributed by email when the pilot ended

22% answer (116/561)

14

Survey 2

• Privacy requirement – link survey to log data X

• 34% - logged on > 1 (91 survey, 266 log)

• 53% response rate of logged on > 1• 5% never use (25 survey, 490 log)

15

Interview

• 18( 1 couple, 4 women, 13 men)• 23 ~ 90 years old• Most single-family, living with spouse• 33% having children• Recruited by city employee

most engaged, active participants• 45 min• 15 city office, 2 participant’s office, 1

restaurant

16

Interview 2

• Semi-structured• Informant’s background and household• Same with survey• Discussing their experience with oth-

ers?• How the portal could be improved?

17

Result - Survey

• 35% use > 1 from log(= water portal)opt-in energy conservation program < 10%

• Reasonsover 90%1. interest in reducing electricity costs2. belief in the importance of sustainability of city3. Concern about the environment4. Dislike of waste and a preference for being frugal– Curious about the tech : 84%– Concern about climate change : 72%– Good educational experience : 59%91% conserve electricity before : highly motivated

18

Result 2 - Survey

• Barriers51% no difficultiesproblem with ID or password : 42%difficulty in finding the site : 12%can’t see their data : 4%

• Complexity of initial password from privacy is-sue( mixed number and upper, lower case)

• Forgetting password : 27%no time : 26%integrating into ordinary life is hardtoo difficult (5%), too complicated(4%)

19

Result 3 - Survey

• Degree of uselog in > 5 / week : 12%1 / week : 18%occasional : 31%rare : 25%don’t recall : 14%

• Baseline consumption checkerfrequently at first(30%), regularly(20%)

30%

30%

40%

20

Result

Figure 3 on this paper

21

Result 4 - Survey

• Time based got good score• Alert, Facebook Chat require menu access• Clear correlation between UI component

and understanding how they use• Comparison by Neighbor, Alerts, Facebook

chat were bad.

22

Result 5 - Interview

• Incentivesmany : comparing with themselvesothers : comparing with similar neighborfixed itselfNo points from direction

• Contextaverage temperature, degree of heating/cooling daysvacation or not

23

Result – Impact of portal useExceptional Participants266 participant 3.7% reduction

<= Already taken actions Small support

61% at least one change in infra - unplugging(40%)42% plan for change - energy star appliance(28%)69% at least one change in behav-ior - non peak period(51%) - less use of light(33%) - short shower, dishwasher cycle(32%)

table 1 on this paper

24

Discussion

• Limitation1. Not random samples – smart electricity meter

particular social economic characteristic- single family, blue or white color jobs, retired

- internet literate2. Volunteers

- highly motivated- already taken many actions to conserve

3. Over-represent of participant from survey, interview

25

Discussion 2

• Accessibilitydifficulty with ID and passwordcomplexitycan estimate waking up, sleeping, vaca-tionunfavorable comparison=> biometrics to single sign on

• Engagementcollective attention from campaign

26

Discussion

• Manner of usetime-based visualization – historic feedbackmultiple feedback optionschat failure – face to face conversation, not privacy=> larger set will be solved=> linking to local discussion

• Credibilitybig spike – system errorbut refrigerator defrost cycle, dehumidheaterelectricity consumption is invisible=> list of possible explanationalert should be informative

27

Contribution

• HCI 에서 sustainability design approach a lotfew field study, identifying gap be-tween real and theory

• thorough evaluation - 20 weeks,765 household, log, survey, 18 interview

28

Generalizing to Me

• ECF? -> Electricity Consumption Feed-back!

• HVAC? -> Heating Ventilating Air Condi-tioning

• Environmental Psychology• Good reference for public data visualiza-

tion• Insight from limitation and result• Curious about implementing in Korea

29

Sharing

• What is the bad points of this paper?• How do you think about implement-

ing in Korea, further issues?• Any idea about improving chat, in-

teraction with other users?