Response to: “Evaluating energy efficiency policy: understanding the ‘energy policy epistemology’ may explain the lack of demand for randomized controlled trials,” by Adam Cooper, Energy Efficiency, published online 26 January 2018
- 27 Downloads
In January 2018, Adam Cooper (Energy Efficiency, 2018) published a paper that principally responds to a paper by Vine et al. (Energy Efficiency, 7, 627–640, 2014) that makes the case for promoting greater use of experimental research designs, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in the evaluation of energy efficiency policy. Cooper focuses on the barriers that public policy administrators face—arguing that there are alternative, rational reasons why RCTs are not commonly used in energy policy, providing an overlapping but somewhat different “energy policy epistemology” than in Vine (2014).
KeywordsExperimental design Evaluation Energy policy Epistemology RCT Longitudinal panel design
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cooper, A. (2018). Evaluating energy efficiency policy: understanding the ‘energy policy epistemology’ may explain the lack of demand for randomized controlled trials. Energy Efficiency, published online 26 January 2018.Google Scholar