A study of factors enhancing smart grid consumer engagement

Energy Policy

Volumn 72, Issue , 2014, Pages 211-218

  Park, Chan Kook ^a,b   Kim, Hyun Jae ^b   Kim, Yang Soo ^b  

^a Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

^b Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Consumer engagement; Smart grid; Technology acceptance model

Indexed keywords

ENERGY POLICY;

CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE; CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS; PRODUCTS AND SERVICES; RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS; SMART GRID; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL;

SMART POWER GRIDS;

CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY PLANNING; ENERGY POLICY; STRATEGIC APPROACH; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

KOREA;

EID: 84902119285     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.017     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Accenture Understanding Consumer Preferences in Energy Efficiency 2010, Accenture, Dublin.
2. Bauer R.A. Consumer behavior as risk taking. American Marketing Association 1960, R.W. Hancock (Ed.).
3. Bagozzi R.P., Yi Y.J. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1988, 16:74-94.
4. BCG (Boston Consulting Group) The Smart-Meter Opportunity 2010, BCG, Boston.
5. Brooker G. An assessment of an expanded measure of perceived risk. Adv. Consum. Res. 1984, 11:439-441.
6. Chicagotribune Naperville Smart Grid Opponents Sue 2011, Chicagotribune, Chicago.
7. Cochran W.G. Sampling Techniques 1977, Wiley, New York.
8. Cox D.F. Risk handling in consumer behavior: an intensive of study two case. Risk Taking and Informational Handling in Consumer Behavior 1967, 36-37. Harvard University Press, London. D.F. Cox (Ed.).
9. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, easy of use, and the user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13(3):319-340.
10. Earth2tech, Smart Meter Backlash, Again: This Time in Texas, 2010, Earth2tech; San Francisco, CA.
11. EcoAlign Separating Smart Grid from Smart Meters? Consumer Perceptions and Expectations of Smart Grid 2010, EcoAlign, Boston.
12. EPRI Understanding Electric Utility Customers-Summary Report. Technical Report 2012, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
13. Featherman, M.S., Pavlou, P.A. 2002. Predicting E-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. in: Proceedings of the Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems. pp. 1034-1046.
14. Finucane M.L, Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S.M. The affect heuristic in judgements of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2000, 13:1-17.
15. Fornell, C., Tellis, G., Zinkhan, G. 1982. Validity assessment: a structural equations approach using partial least squares. In: Proceedings of AMR education's conference. pp. 405-409.
16. GE Smart Grid Survey: Majority Down Under still wonder 2010, GE, New York.
17. Gefen D., Karahanna E., Straub D.W. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an interacted model. MIS Q. 2003, 27(1):51-90.
18. GlobalData Smart Grid Stakeholder Analysis-Economic Impact of Smart Grid Technology Deployments 2011, GlobalData, Los Angeles.
19. Greentech Media Embracing Lifestyle Plans and Social Media 2011, Greentech Media, Boston.
20. GridWise Alliance 2013 Grid Modernization Index 2013, GridWise Alliance, Washington, DC.
21. Harris Interactive Consumers Have Little Awareness of Smart Grid and Smart Meters 2010, Harris Interactive, New York.
22. Hooper D., Coughlan J., Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 2008, 6(1):53-60.
23. Huh M.H. Statistics Analysis 2001, Bobmunsa, Seoul.
24. IBM Knowledge is power. White Paper 2011, IBM, New York.
25. IEA Smart Grid - Smart Customer Policy Needs 2011, IEA, Paris.
26. Jacoby, J., Kaplan, L.B., 1972. The component of perceived risk. In: Venkatesan, M. (Ed.), Proceedings from Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. University of Chicago. pp. 382-393.
27. Jun S.Y., Huh J.H., Kang S.J. The effects of risk perception on the relative role of brand and price in internet shopping mall. J. Consum. Stud. 2003, 14(2):19-43.
28. Kassarjian H.H., Robertson T.S. Perspectives in Consumer Behavior 1991, Pretice Hall, New Jersey. 4th ed.
29. Koufaris M., Hampton-Sosa W., 2002. Customer trust onlne: examining the role of the experience with the web site, CIS Working Paper Series. Baruch College New York.
30. Kim D.U. AMOS A to Z: Structural Equation Modeling for Writing Papers 2008, Hakhyunsa, Paju.
31. Kim H.J., Park J.H., Park C.H. A study on key influencing factors in smart grid consumer engagement. Informatiz. Policy 2012, 19(1):91-106.
32. Kim K.S. Structural Equation Modeling Analysis 2008, Hannarae, Seoul.
33. Kim S.Y. Studies of Acceptance Model of New Science-Technology. STEPI Report 2009, Science and Technology Policy Institute, Seoul.
34. Lee M.C. Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 8(3) 2009, 130-141.
35. Li Y.H., Huang J.W. Applying theory of perceived risk and technology acceptance model in the online shopping channel. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2009, 53.
36. Lleras C. Path analysis. Encycl. Soc. Meas. 2005, 3:25-30.
37. Oracle Turning Information into Power Report: Moving Toward the Smart Grid 2009, Oracle, California.
38. Pike Research Smart Grid Consumer Survey 2010, Pike Research, Boulder.
39. Roselius T. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. J. Market. 1971, 35:56-61.
40. Sanayei A., Bahmani E. Integrating TAM and TPB with perceived risk to measure customers' acceptance of internet banking. Int. J. Inf. Sci. Manag. 2012, 25-37.
41. SGCC (Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative) Consumer Voice: Results of Baseline Focus Groups 2010, SGCC, Atlanta.
42. Shim J.S. Trust in nuclear power plant, perceived risk and benefit, and acceptance. Korean Policy Stud. Rev. 2009, 18(4):213-238.
43. Siegrist M., Keller C., Kastenholz H., Frey S., Wiek A. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal. 2007, 27(1):59-69.
44. Stone R.N., Gronhaug K. Perceived risk: further considerations for the marketing discipline. Eur. J. Market. 1993, 27:39-50.
45. Taylor S., Todd P.A. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 1995, 6(2):145-176.
46. Venkatesh V.A., Bala H. Technology acceptance model3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39(2):273-315.
47. Venkatesh V.A., Davis F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46(2):186-204.
48. Venturebeat PG&E Lawsuit Spreads Down Smart Grid Supply Chain 2009, Venturebeat, San Francisco, CA.
49. Vincent M., Zikmund W.G. An experimental investigation of situational effects on risk perception. Adv. Consum. Res. 1976, 3:125-129.
50. Wu J.H., Wang S.C. What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42:719-729.
51. Yoon, Y.B., Park, K.C., Ahn, S.M., Lee, J.Y., Lee, B.G. 2011. Study on the effects of perceived riskness on smartphone application acceptance. In: Proceedings of the Korean Society for Internet Information Summer Conference. pp. 291-292.
52. Yann Y., Jung M.K. Perceived risks and consumer characteristics in CATV homeshopping. Korean J. Advert. 1999, 10(2):115-139.
53. Zpryme The New Energy Consumer 2011, Zpryme, Mountain City.