| The purposes of this study were to: (1) identify and determine the effectiveness of elements of established energy conservation programs; (2) systematically examine the development, cost and incentive features of existent residence hall energy conservation practices and programs; and (3) develop a set of recommendations for implementing a residence hall energy conservation program. Major elements of established programs were identified in the literature and used to form the Conservation Program Elements Index (CPEI). The CPEI was used to determine the extent to which selected ACUHO related colleges and universities had implemented the identified conservation elements. The Perceived Energy Effectiveness Scale (PEES) was used to ascertain housing administrators' perceptions of the effectiveness of the elements listed in the CPEI. Both the CPEI and PEES were sub-sections of an original survey instrument, the Residence Hall Energy Conservation Questionnaire (RHECQ). Data on the development, cost and incentive features of college and university residence halls were obtained in section three of the RHECQ.;Twenty-nine chief housing officers, 83% of those contacted, in ACUHO related institutions in twenty states participated in the study. Total enrollment of the surveyed institutions ranged from 3,400 to over 50,000. The number of residence halls at the surveyed institutions ranged from three to ninety-two with residence hall populations of between 659 and 17,086 students.;This study identified sixteen elements, regarded by various energy experts as important components of effective energy conservation programs. Although all sixteen elements, which comprised the CPEI, were utilized in varying degrees at various institutions, four of the elements had significantly lower utilization rates than the other twelve.;An item-analysis of the sixteen-element PEES, which utilized high-low "contrast" group scores, showed that although there was some variability in the responses of the "contrast" groups, the groups tended to be consistent in rating the elements as either effective or ineffective. The results showed that there was greater agreement among the "contrast" groups of the PEA sub-scale items than there was among the "contrast" groups of the PET sub-scale items.;Three types of energy conservation programs were identified, with the majority of institutions utilizing low-cost Quick-fix programs. Housing administrators were identified as the primary group of individuals involved in the establishment of objectives for residence hall energy conservation programs. Residence hall conservation programs were implemented primarily on the basis of "ease of implementation" and "minimum cost" with actual costs ranging from "small or minimal" to $300,000 and conservation cost avoidance figures ranging from unknown to $1,300,000.;Institutional recognition of staff efforts to conserve energy was generally in the form of a "pat on the back." Only one institution reported that a reduction in energy related operating costs resulted in a portion of the savings being allocated to the housing department. Few housing departments conducted student incentive based residence hall conservation programs. Of those departments which did have incentive based programs, incentives or awards were generally in the form of specific cash prizes or recreational equipment.;Eleven recommendations for implementing residence hall energy conservation programs were enumerated. Four recommendations regarding future areas of study were also listed. |
