Introduction

The interdisciplinary field of behavioural environmental policy brings together insights from psychology, sociology, economics, and political science to create practical strategies for encouraging sustainable behaviour. Current discussions highlight the key roles of social norms and habitual behaviours, focusing on how to shift norms towards sustainability through social influence and community-based initiatives. This article examines the energy efficiency paradox, the challenges of nudging, and how habits shape our energy use. Ultimately, it explores the drivers of future environmental policy design, emphasising a greater reliance on insights from the behavioural foundations.

The Discourse on Behavioural Environmental Policy

Behavioural environmental policy is an interdisciplinary field that combines insights from the behavioural and social sciences to develop strategies for promoting sustainable behaviour. Current discussions emphasise the importance of social influence and community-based interventions in shifting norms towards sustainability. For example, the energy efficiency paradox—where people often do not make economically rational investments in energy efficiency due to cognitive biases—remains a significant challenge. Addressing this paradox requires policies that make energy-efficient choices more attractive and accessible.

While nudging, a concept from behavioural economics, involves subtle guidance towards desirable behaviours and has shown effectiveness at the individual level, it has limitations in achieving large-scale environmental outcomes. However, green nudges, which encourage environmentally friendly actions, are particularly powerful when framed within the context of systemic change. Aligning personal incentives with collective environmental goals can foster a sense of shared responsibility and collective efficacy.

Behavioural Science and the Energy Efficiency Paradox

The energy efficiency paradox, where individuals and organisations often fail to adopt economically rational energy-efficient technologies despite their long-term benefits, presents a significant challenge in environmental policy. Applied behavioural science provides valuable insights into this paradox by examining the cognitive and contextual factors that influence decision making, offering strategies for more effective interventions.

Several cognitive biases underpin the energy efficiency paradox. Present bias leads individuals to prioritise immediate rewards over future benefits, making the upfront costs of energy-efficient investments appear less appealing. This phenomenon is well-documented in studies by Frederick et al. (2002) and Laibson (1997), which explore how such biases shape intertemporal choices. Additionally, status quo bias causes people to favour existing conditions, often deterring the adoption of new technologies due to perceived risks or the effort required for change, as demonstrated by Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988). Compounding these challenges, information asymmetry leaves consumers without clear and reliable information about the benefits of energy-efficient options, a point highlighted by Wilson and Dowlatabadi (2007). Finally, loss aversion—the tendency to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains—further discourages investment in energy-efficient technologies, as explored by Kahneman and Tversky (1979).

To overcome these behavioural barriers, applied behavioural science suggests several effective interventions. Framing and messaging strategies that emphasise immediate benefits can counteract present bias, as evidenced by Tversky and Kahneman’s (1981) research on the impact of framing on decision making. Financial incentives and nudges, such as rebates and default options, can reduce perceived upfront costs and guide individuals towards energy-efficient choices, as demonstrated by Thaler and Sunstein (2008). Additionally, simplified information through clear labelling schemes can address information asymmetry, with empirical support from Allcott and Taubinsky (2015) showing the effectiveness of such interventions. Leveraging social norms and peer influence can encourage collective action, as validated by Nolan et al. (2008), who found that social norms significantly impact energy consumption behaviours. Furthermore, commitment devices, such as public pledges, enhance accountability and encourage follow-through, as illustrated by research from Rogers et al. (2014).

By integrating these behavioural insights, policymakers can design interventions that effectively promote energy-efficient behaviour, overcoming the biases and barriers that contribute to the paradox. This interdisciplinary approach not only facilitates the adoption of energy-efficient technologies but also advances the broader goal of environmental sustainability, as supported by the growing body of empirical research in behavioural science and environmental policy.

Habits and Behavioural Lock-in

Habits play a central role in shaping behaviour related to energy consumption and resource use. Habitual behaviours, often triggered by environmental cues and routines, significantly influence energy consumption patterns, making them resistant to change. Traditional environmental and energy policy instruments, such as carbon taxes and tradable emissions rights, primarily aim to influence behaviour through economic incentives and market mechanisms. While these tools are effective in creating broad economic signals for reducing emissions and promoting energy efficiency, they often fail to address the deeply rooted behavioural barriers stemming from ingrained habits.

For example, carbon taxes increase the cost of carbon-intensive activities, theoretically encouraging more energy-efficient behaviours. However, when energy consumption habits are firmly entrenched, the immediate response to price signals can be minimal. Research by Schwanen et al. (2012) found that habitual car use persisted despite increased fuel prices, indicating that economic incentives alone may not suffice to alter deeply ingrained behaviours.

To effectively disrupt unsustainable habits, policymakers must draw on behavioural insights to design interventions that directly address the automatic nature of these behaviours. Behavioural science offers several strategies to achieve this. Modifying the physical environment, such as altering the default settings on appliances to more energy-efficient modes, can reduce energy use without requiring active decision making from users, as suggested by Thaler and Sunstein (2008). Providing real-time feedback on energy consumption can increase awareness of habits and encourage more mindful behaviour, as supported by Fischer (2008). Public commitments to energy-saving behaviours can enhance accountability and disrupt old habits, as demonstrated by Rogers et al. (2014). Leveraging social norms to motivate individuals to adopt new habits by showcasing the energy-saving behaviours of peers is another effective strategy, validated by Nolan et al. (2008). Temporary subsidies for energy-efficient appliances can incentivise adoption, leading to long-term habitual use. Additionally, educating consumers about the long-term benefits of energy efficiency and the environmental impact of their habits can shift attitudes and encourage behavioural change.

By targeting the specific cues and contexts that trigger these habits, interventions can effectively break the cycle of unsustainable behaviour. Employing choice architecture strategies, such as making energy-efficient options the default in appliances or settings, can guide individuals towards more sustainable practices without requiring active decision making. Furthermore, incorporating real-time feedback mechanisms, such as smart meters that display immediate energy usage, can increase awareness and promote more conscious consumption choices. Commitment devices, such as public pledges or goal-setting initiatives, enhance accountability and encourage individuals to maintain new sustainable habits. Leveraging social norms by highlighting the energy-efficient behaviours of peers or community leaders can create a sense of collective responsibility and motivate behaviour change. Moreover, temporal incentives that reward the initial adoption of energy-efficient technologies can help establish new habits that persist beyond the incentive period. Understanding and addressing the behavioural underpinnings of energy consumption through these science-based interventions can effectively disrupt entrenched habits and support long-term sustainable energy use.

The Limits of Nudging

In recent years, nudging and choice architecture have emerged as prominent strategies for influencing environmentally friendly behaviour. Despite their potential, these microtargeted interventions, commonly referred to as “green nudges,” often exhibit limited efficacy due to the complexities of human behaviour and diverse individual motivations. Recent insights from behavioural science underscore the necessity of framing these interventions at the systemic level to enhance their effectiveness.

Nudging relies on principles from behavioural economics that recognise how cognitive biases and heuristics often prevent individuals from acting in their long-term best interests. Traditional economic incentives, like subsidies or taxes, have frequently failed to induce lasting behavioural change, prompting policymakers to explore subtle behavioural interventions that guide individuals towards sustainable choices without restricting their freedom.

However, the efficiency of microtargeted interventions remains constrained. While nudging involves small environmental adjustments to encourage significant behavioural changes, these strategies often fall short of achieving long-term, widespread impact. A recent study by Lohmann et al. (2024) highlights that explicit emotional appeals invoking warm glow (positive emotions from helping) or cold prickle (negative emotions from not helping) fail to significantly enhance pro-environmental behaviour. Surprisingly, a simple call to action proved as effective, if not more so, than emotionally charged messages.

Key findings from recent behavioural science research reveal that emotional appeals do not necessarily boost pro-environmental efforts. Messages emphasising personal emotional benefits or adverse effects can backfire, particularly among individuals with strong pre-existing environmental values. Conversely, straightforward calls to action paired with basic climate change information can be more impactful than complex emotional appeals, suggesting that clarity and directness in communication are crucial.

Moreover, the research underscores the nuanced roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Appeals to intrinsic motivation, such as the desire to feel good about oneself, must be carefully crafted to avoid undermining inherent values. Similarly, extrinsic motivators, like social norms, must be context-specific and perceived as authentic to avoid resistance.

To overcome the limitations of microtargeted interventions, integrating nudges within a broader system-level framework is essential. This approach involves combining nudges with structural changes that create supportive environments for sustainable behaviour, such as enhanced recycling infrastructure and improved public transport. Additionally, contextualising behavioural interventions ensures they resonate with local values and norms, thereby increasing their relevance and effectiveness. Long-term engagement strategies that sustain and adapt to evolving behaviours and attitudes are also critical for maintaining impact.

The findings by Lohmann et al. (2024) highlight the complexity of designing effective behavioural interventions for environmental and energy policies. While green nudges show promise, their isolated application is insufficient. By framing these interventions within a system-level approach and combining them with broader policy measures, their impact can be significantly amplified. Future research should continue to explore the interplay between individual motivations, contextual factors, and systemic changes to develop more robust and effective strategies for promoting sustainable behaviour.

Drivers of Future Behavioural Environmental and Energy Policy

In the quest to address environmental and energy challenges, behavioural science and behavioural economics have emerged as vital tools in shaping effective policy. These disciplines provide insights into human behaviour that go beyond traditional economic models, highlighting the importance of cognitive biases, social norms, and intrinsic motivations. As policymakers increasingly integrate these insights, a nuanced approach to designing and implementing environmental policies is required. The following sections explore key aspects of this evolving landscape, focusing on the integration of behavioural economics into policy frameworks, the shift from incentive-based to norm-based policies, and the critical nexus between researchers and policymakers.

Integrating Behavioural Economics into Policy Frameworks

Integrating behavioural economics into policy frameworks involves recognising that individuals do not always act rationally and are influenced by cognitive biases and heuristics. Traditional policy tools such as subsidies and taxes often assume that individuals will respond predictably to financial incentives. However, behavioural economics suggests that factors like loss aversion, status quo bias, and framing effects can significantly alter decision making processes (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). For example, studies have shown that default options can drastically increase participation rates in retirement savings plans (Madrian and Shea, 2001). Applying these insights to environmental policy, default enrolment in green energy programmes or opt-out recycling schemes can lead to higher adoption rates without requiring active decision making from individuals (Pichert and Katsikopoulos, 2008). By embedding these behavioural insights into policy frameworks, governments can design more effective interventions that align with actual human behaviour.

Moreover, the integration of behavioural economics requires continuous testing and adaptation of policies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and field experiments are crucial for understanding how different interventions perform in real-world settings (Duflo et al., 2007). For instance, the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) in the UK has pioneered the use of RCTs to test various policy interventions, leading to more refined and effective strategies (Service et al., 2014). This iterative process allows policymakers to identify what works for whom and under what circumstances, ensuring that behavioural interventions are not only theoretically sound but also practically effective. Integrating behavioural economics into policy frameworks thus represents a paradigm shift towards evidence-based policymaking that accounts for the complexities of human behaviour.

From Incentives to Norms: The Shift in Behavioural Policy Design

The shift from incentive-based to norm-based behavioural policies marks a significant evolution in how governments approach environmental challenges. Traditional incentive-based policies, such as taxes on carbon emissions or subsidies for renewable energy, rely on extrinsic motivations to change behaviour. However, these approaches often fall short in fostering long-term commitment and can sometimes lead to counterproductive effects, such as the rebound effect where savings from energy efficiency are offset by increased consumption (Greening et al., 2000).

In contrast, norm-based policies leverage social and moral norms to encourage pro-environmental behaviour, tapping into intrinsic motivations and the desire for social approval (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). For instance, interventions that highlight how peers are engaging in energy-saving behaviours or reducing waste can create social pressure to conform, leading to more sustainable habits (Allcott, 2011).

The implications of this shift for public policymaking are profound. Norm-based policies require a deep understanding of social dynamics and cultural contexts to be effective. Policymakers must engage with communities to identify prevailing norms and craft messages that resonate with local values (Schultz et al., 2007). This approach necessitates closer collaboration between behavioural scientists and policymakers to ensure that interventions are grounded in robust empirical research and tailored to specific contexts. Additionally, norm-based policies often demand ongoing communication and reinforcement to maintain their effectiveness, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring and adjustment.

This shift underscores the importance of integrating behavioural insights into the policymaking process, moving beyond one-size-fits-all solutions towards more nuanced and context-specific strategies.

Enhancing the Nexus Between Researchers and Policymakers

Enhancing the nexus between researchers and policymakers is critical for the development of effective and evidence-based environmental policies. Historically, there has been a disconnect between academic research and policy implementation, often due to differences in priorities, timescales, and communication styles (Nutley et al., 2007). Bridging this gap requires the establishment of interdisciplinary research centres and policy labs where researchers and policymakers can collaborate closely.

For instance, the German Federal Environment Agency’s (UBA) Competence Centre on Climate Impacts and Adaptation (KomPass) has been instrumental in integrating scientific expertise into policymaking. KomPass develops and promotes the implementation of the German Adaptation Strategy, providing valuable policy advice, conducting environmental research, and facilitating information provision and networking among stakeholders (UBA, 2021). Additionally, the Climate Impact and Risk Assessment (KWRA) 2021 by UBA identifies urgent needs for action by assessing climate risks and proposing targeted adaptation measures. This comprehensive analysis helps translate complex scientific findings into practical policy recommendations, making scientific insights more accessible and actionable for policymakers (UBA, 2021).

Such collaborations ensure that decisions are informed by the latest research, thereby enhancing the development of sustainable environmental policies. Mechanisms for knowledge exchange, such as secondment programmes where researchers work within government agencies and vice versa, can also enhance this nexus (Guston, 2001). Additionally, the use of clear and concise policy briefs can help bridge the communication gap, ensuring that research findings are presented in a way that is relevant and understandable to policymakers.

Actionable Recommen­dations

1. Promote Continuous Testing and Adaptation of Policies: Encourage the use of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and field experiments to test and refine behavioural interventions, ensuring their effectiveness in real-world settings.
2. Leverage Social Norms in Policy Design: Develop interventions that harness the power of social norms to encourage sustainable behaviour, focusing on community engagement and local values.
3. Foster Collaboration Between Researchers and Policymakers: Establish interdisciplinary research centres and policy labs to facilitate ongoing collaboration and knowledge exchange, ensuring that policies are informed by the latest scientific research.
4. Enhance Communication and Education: Improve the clarity and directness of communication strategies, emphasising straightforward calls to action and basic climate change information to foster pro-environmental behaviour.

Conclusion

Integrating behavioural insights into environmental and energy policy design offers a powerful way to promote sustainable behaviour. By addressing cognitive biases, leveraging social norms, and fostering collaboration between researchers and policymakers, interventions can be more effectively tailored to disrupt unsustainable habits and promote energy-efficient behaviours. This comprehensive approach goes beyond traditional policy instruments, utilising behavioural science to inform public policies.

Key strategies include continuous testing, community engagement, and clear communication to ensure these policies are both theoretically sound and practically effective. Strengthening the collaboration between researchers and policymakers is essential for crafting evidence-based environmental policies that effectively address the human factors influencing environmental decisions, resulting in more sustainable outcomes.

 

References

Allcott, H. (2011), Social norms and energy conservation, Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-10), 1082-1095.

Allcott, H., and D. Taubinsky (2015), Evaluating behaviorally motivated policy: Experimental evidence from the lightbulb market, American Economic Review, 105(8), 2501-2538.

Cialdini, R. B., and N. J. Goldstein (2004), Social influence: Compliance and conformity, Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.

Duflo, E., R. Glennerster, and M. Kremer (2007), Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit, In T. P. Schultz and J. A. Strauss (Eds.), Handbook of Development Economics (Vol. 4, pp. 3895-3962). Elsevier.

Fischer, C. (2008), Feedback on household electricity consumption: A tool for saving energy?, Energy Efficiency, 1, 79-104.

Frederick, S., G. Loewenstein, and T. O’Donoghue (2002), Time discounting and time preference: A critical review, Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401.

Greening, L. A., D. L. Greene, and C. Difiglio (2000), Energy efficiency and consumption – the rebound effect – a survey, Energy Policy, 28(6-7), 389-401.

Guston, D. H. (2001), Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399-408.

Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.

Laibson, D. (1997), Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443-477.

Lohmann, P. M., E. Gsottbauer, S. van der Linden, and A. Kontoleon (2024), Chilling results: How explicit warm glow appeals fail to boost pro-environmental behaviour, Behavioural Public Policy, 1-26.

Madrian, B. C., and D. F. Shea (2001), The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149-1187.

Nolan, J. M., P. W. Schultz, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius (2008), Normative social influence is underdetected, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913-923.

Nutley, S., I. Walter, and H. T. O. Davies (2007), Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services, Policy Press

Pichert, D., and K. V. Katsikopoulos (2008), Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63-73.

Rogers, T., K. L. Milkman, and K. G. Volpp (2014), Commitment devices: Using initiatives to change behavior, Journal of the American Medical Association, 311(20), 2065-2066.

Samuelson, W., and R. Zeckhauser (1988), Status quo bias in decision making, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59.

Schultz, P. W., J. M. Nolan, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius (2007), The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms, Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434.

Schwanen, T., D. Banister, and J. Anable (2012), Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: The case of low-carbon mobility, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 522-532.

Service, O., M. Hallsworth, D. Halpern, F. Algate, R. Gallagher, S. Nguyen, S. Ruda, M. Sanders, M. Pelenur, A. Gyani, V. Harper, A. Reinhard, E. Kirkman (2014), EAST: Four Simple Ways to Apply Behavioural Insights, The Behavioural Insights Team.

Thaler, R. H., and C. R. Sunstein (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman (1981), The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 211(4481), 453-458.

Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (2021), Climate Impact and Risk Assessment 2021 for Germany: English Summary. Climate Change 27/2021. Retrieved from https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/479/publikationen/cc_27-2021_climate_impact_and_risk_assessment_2021_for_germany_english_summary_bf.pdf

Wilson, C., and H. Dowlatabadi (2007), Models of decision making and residential energy use, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 169-203.