【摘要】 私人领域的个体或家庭节能日益受到重视，然而对缺乏财务动机的公共领域群体用能者而言，如何促进其主动节能还缺乏关注。为评估目标设置和承诺方式耦合的非财务策略在激励群体用户节电上的有效性，该研究开展了一项为期14周的现场对照实验。将两种难度的节电目标（节电15%的高目标、节电5%的低目标）和对目标的两种承诺方式（公开承诺、私下承诺）进行耦合，形成4个实验组，并设置1个无干预对照组，以评估4种干预策略对促进群体用户节电的有效性。实验以电力系统记录的群体居住者的真实用电量数据为依据，运用双重差分法分析不同干预策略的节电效果。结果显示：3种“目标+承诺”的耦合干预策略可以显著促进群体用能者主动节电。其中，“高目标+公开承诺”组的节电效果最好，与对照组相比节电25.221%；其次是“低目标+公开承诺”组（节电20.511%）和“高目标+私下承诺”组（节电17.821%），而“低目标+私下承诺”组的节电效果不显著。析因分析进一步发现：目标难度与承诺方式之间交互效应不显著。在目标设置与承诺的耦合中，主要是承诺方式发挥了作用，而且，公开承诺优于私下承诺。这些结论为如何利用目标和承诺等非财务干预策略低成本地促进公共建筑的群体用能者主动节能提供了依据和可行建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Increasing attention has been paid to individual or household energy conservation in the private spheres.However,for group-level energy users who have no financial motivation in the public spheres,little attention has been paid to the ways of promoting their active energy conservation.To test the energy-saving effect of non-financial strategies that couple goal setting with commitment,a 14-week field experiment was carried out.In this study,four experimental groups were formed by coupling two types of goals(high goal of electricity-saving by 15% vs.low goal of electricity-saving by 5%) with two kinds of commitment to the goals(public commitment vs.private commitment),and one no-intervention control group was set.Then,based on real electricity consumption data recorded by the power system,this study used the difference-in-differences model to analyze the energy-saving effects of different intervention strategies.The results showed that three coupled intervention strategies could significantly promote group-level energy users to engage in active energy conservation.Among them,the ’high goal+public commitment’ group had the best energy-saving effect,which saved 25.221% compared with the control group,followed by the ’low goal+public commitment’ group(saving electricity by 20.511%) and the ’high goal+private commitment’ group(saving electricity by 17.821%).The ’low goal+private commitment’ group had no significant effect on saving electricity.Analysis of variance further showed that there was no interaction effect between goal-achieving difficulties and ways of commitment.In the coupling between goal setting and commitment,the ways of commitment played a role,and public commitment worked better than private commitment.These conclusions provide strong implications for how to use non-financial intervention strategies such as goal setting and commitment to motivate group-level energy conservation at a low cost.更多还原