Design your activity

Behavioural interventions draw on psychology to guide choices without mandating them. A classic “nudge” steers people via the choice environment while preserving freedom (e.g. making a green energy tariff the default option). Nudges are typically non-regulatory and non-monetary tweaks – for instance, automatically enrolling residents in a green electricity plan unless they opt out, which massively raises green uptake (69% participation with opt-out vs ~7% with opt-in).  

In contrast, “boosts” aim to empower individuals with skills or information so they can make better choices on their own. An example of a boost is an energy literacy workshop or a mobile app that helps users interpret their energy bills – building their capability to save energy. 

In practice, behavioural interventions often blend elements of both nudges and boosts. For instance, a programme may “nudge” through default thermostat settings and “boost” by educating households on programming the thermostat for comfort and efficiency.  

The key is that behavioural change strategies work alongside technology and regulation – encouraging citizens to adopt the technology or regulation, use it effectively or comply with it, and sustain energy-conscious habits. 

Examples: 

Nudge: Setting printers to duplex by default can lead to a ~15% reduction in paper use, whereas simply asking people has no impact. Similarly, utilities sending Home Energy Reports with peer comparisons exploit social norms as a nudge – consistently trimming electricity use by around 2% on average. 

Boost: A city-run “energy coach” programme that teaches families how to track and reduce energy can boost their knowledge and long-term savings. Unlike a one-time rebate, this approach equips people with enduring skills, such as understanding appliance settings or reading smart meter data. 

Another useful distinction is habitual behaviours vs. one-off actions. Habits are repeated behaviours that can yield sustained energy savings once ingrained. One-off actions – like investing in insulation or an efficient heat pump – produce energy savings more passively after the decision. Behavioural programmes often target the “curtailment” behaviours (i.e., daily conservation habits) to complement efficiency upgrades. Effective strategies might involve both: e.g. a retrofit programme that also trains occupants on energy-saving habits to ensure that renovations deliver their full potential. 

Feedback & information: Providing timely, meaningful feedback on energy use is highly effective. When people can see their consumption – especially in real-time or very frequently – they often cut back energy use. For example, giving households real-time usage data (e.g., via smart meter displays or apps) reduces their energy use and even makes them more responsive to prices. Simply put, knowledge is power – but actionable knowledge is key. The best feedback is specific (e.g. “this cooling unit cost €5 yesterday”), immediate, and contextualized (e.g. comparisons to past use or efficient peers). 

Social norms & comparisons: Humans are social beings; knowing what others are doing can powerfully influence our choices. Utilities have leveraged this by sending reports to customers comparing a home’s energy use to that of similar neighbours. These social norm messages can cut electricity use around 2% on average. Interestingly, the impact persists: even after reports stop, a substantial portion of the savings endures months or years later as new habits stick (Allcott & Rogers 2014). Norms work for one-off actions too. For example, defaulting customers into a green electricity tariff (with opt-out) can lead to 10× higher adoption of renewables than a voluntary opt-in, illustrating that many will stay with a pro-environment choice if it’s presented as the norm. 

Goals and commitments: Setting a clear energy-saving goal and prompting people to commit can drive behavioural change. Research shows that when households pledge to save and receive feedback on progress, they are more likely to achieve it. Goal setting often works best with public or social commitment (for accountability) and regular feedback. For example, a community “energy challenge” might ask residents to sign a pledge, provide them weekly tips and usage updates, and celebrate those who hit the target – reinforcing both the goal and social norm. 

Default settings: Harnessing default effect is a quick win – people tend to stick with pre-set options. Default settings can save energy in everyday contexts, e.g. setting thermostats to a slightly lower heating default can automatically trim consumption. In offices, simply changing printer default to double-sided printing can reduce paper use by 15% with no loss of satisfaction. These changes cost little or nothing to implement yet have immediate impact. 

Incentives: Financial incentives (rebates, rewards) can encourage energy-saving actions, but they must be thoughtfully designed and used with care. Small non-monetary incentives or prompts sometimes outperform price signals. Aligning incentives with people’s values (e.g., health, community well-being) can be more motivating than a few euros saved on the energy bill. Monetary incentives, if used, work best to kick-start action (like giving a gift card for completing a home energy audit) or to reward sustained effort, rather than as sole motivation. They should also be paired with education to avoid rebound once the incentive ends. 

“Make it easy” – remove barriers: Often, the gap between intent and action is due to hassle or complexity. Effective programmes simplify the desired action. Examples include “one-stop shops” for home retrofits that handle all paperwork or automatically scheduling a free tune-up for heating systems. When things are opt-out or pre-arranged, more people follow through. Even simple prompts help frequent reminders (emails, stickers on light switches) keep the desired behaviour salient and easy to remember, countering forgetfulness and inertia.  

It’s important to avoid the pitfalls of one-off or short-lived interventions. Information alone, such as a single flyer about saving energy, often has fleeting effects if not reinforced - people quickly revert to old habits once the novelty fades. To make savings stick, energy saving programmes should be built in repeated engagements, habit formation techniques, and occasional follow-ups. For instance, a smart meter display might lead to an initial drop in usage, but without continued interest, the effect could dwindle. Some utilities now cycle through different messaging (tips, challenges, alerts) to keep users engaged over time. 

Another caution is the rebound effect: efficiency gains can be partially offset if people take some of the savings back in increased comfort or consumption. (e.g., after insulating their home, a family might heat it to higher temperatures, eating into the energy saved.) Tackling rebound requires awareness and planning: energy saving programmes stress the non-energy benefits such as increased comfort from better insulation without turning the thermostat up and encourage people to “re-invest” savings in further efficiency gains. Overall, evidence shows rebounds are usually modest (often 10–30% of total energy savings), and behavioural strategies can minimize them by shaping norms around sufficient energy use. 

Energy Efficiency Directive & “Energy efficiency first” principle: The recast EED (Directive (EU) 2023/1791) emphasizes cutting energy demand and empowering consumers as top priorities. It explicitly urges Member States to address behavioural barriers to efficiency. Under Article 20 of the revised EED, governments must include behavioural measures in their national energy efficiency strategies – using tools like information campaigns, training, smart metering, and nudges, such as defaults, to drive efficient energy use. The Directive even lists examples, such as fiscal incentives, one-stop shops for advice, awareness campaigns (e.g. eco-driving) and feedback programmes. The EED also highlights consumer empowerment and protection (especially for vulnerable groups) as key, aligning with behavioural approaches that focus on engagement and informed choice. In short, EU law now recognizes that achieving the mandated energy savings (e.g. –11.7% final energy consumption by 2030) will require changing how citizens consume energy and will not solely rely on installing new technologies and regulations. 

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) & Renovation Wave: The EPBD recast (Directive (EU) 2024/1275) focuses on renovating Europe’s building stock to high efficiency levels. However, once buildings are renovated, occupant behaviour determines whether theoretical savings are realized. EU policy documents note that user behaviour and building operation play a big role in actual performance. Accordingly, the Renovation Wave strategy calls for “occupant-centric” solutions, including better information for building users (like energy performance certificates that give practical guidance) and building automation systems to help manage energy use. Some national long-term renovation plans now incorporate occupant education modules or post-renovation coaching to prevent a performance gap. By embedding behavioural measures – e.g. instructing residents on ventilation and heating controls, providing digital twins or dashboards of energy use– policies ensure renovation yields its full benefits. The EPBD also encourages smart technologies and user-friendly controls, essentially making the desired behaviour the default (e.g., smart thermostats that “learn” occupants’ schedule to optimize heating without sacrifice). 

REPowerEU & demand-side action: In response to the 2022 energy crisis, the EU’s REPowerEU plan underscored the importance of demand reduction for energy security. Short-term behavioural campaigns, such as encouraging lowering thermostats, car-free Sundays, or efficient driving, were promoted to curb gas use quickly. In fact, behaviour change was estimated to deliver about 15 bcm of gas savings over the 2022/23 winter, roughly 40% of the EU’s 13% gas reduction target for that period. The Council set a voluntary 15% gas demand cut for member states, explicitly including public awareness measures. This experience showed that collective behavioural efforts can meaningfully enhance energy security. Going forward, REPowerEU and related initiatives continue to emphasize smarter consumption: e.g. consumer awareness for shifting electricity use away from peak times (demand response) and promoting heat pump usage behaviours that maximize efficiency.  

Green Deal & Citizen empowerment: Programmes like the Climate Pact and Green Deal Going Local initiative encourage municipalities to involve citizens in energy/climate actions. Behavioural approaches (e.g., community challenges, education, nudges) are tools to engage citizens, and they align with the EU’s broader objectives of engagement and equity. For example, the Green Deal Going Local working group highlights best practices for cities to change energy behaviour as part of their local energy and climate plans. The Covenant of Mayors for Energy & Climate also provides a framework where cities commit to awareness-raising and behavioural measures to complement their technical actions. Thus, behaviour change is woven into multi-level governance: cities and regions implement on the ground what EU directives and strategies call for in principle – empowering people to take energy-saving actions in their daily lives. 

By anticipating these barriers, energy savings programme designers can choose the right levers. Often a mix is needed to address multiple barriers. For example, a workplace energy programme might combine awareness (e.g., posters showing energy use), social norms (e.g., team competitions to save power), and incentives (e.g., the department that saves the most gets a prize). It’s also crucial to involve the community in identifying barriers – what holds your residents back? Surveys or focus groups can reveal specific local insights, allowing programme designers to tailor interventions.

Awareness & information gaps: Many people simply aren’t aware of how they can save energy, or how much wasteful habits cost. Even when aware in theory, they might not connect it to personal action (e.g., “I know insulation saves energy, but I’ve never checked my attic”). Barrier: lack of salience – energy is invisible and often taken for granted. Levers: Make energy visible and relatable. Use smart meters, bill comparisons, or infrared images of heat loss to show energy consumption. Tailor information to the audience: personalized tips or audits resonate more than generic advice. One effective approach is “energy labels” for behaviours – e.g. showing the cost of a long shower vs a short one. Also, simplify information: too much technical detail causes cognitive overload; clear, plain language prompts work better This means testing messages for comprehension. 

Habits, inertia and the status quo bias: People are creatures of habit; we tend to stick to routines (e.g., “I always leave the hall light on”) and resist change even when alternatives are better. Psychology terms this status quo bias or a preference for the current state even when improvements exist. It’s partly due to cognitive inertia: our brains avoid the effort of change, and factors like loss aversion or fear that changes might make things worse. Barrier: ingrained behaviours and the comfort of habit. Levers: Defaults and gradual change. Change the default option to the desired behaviour so that doing nothing results in energy savings (e.g., new heating systems default to an efficient setting). People often accept a new status quo if it doesn’t require active choice. Another lever is commitment devices: encourage small initial changes that can snowball. For example, a pledge to lower the thermostat for just one week can break inertia, especially if the experience is positive, making it easier to continue. Habits can be reshaped by cues and routines: programmes can provide external cues (stickers, app notifications) at the moment of action to disrupt old patterns and insert new ones. Once a new habit is formed and becomes the status quo, the barrier turns into a benefit – the new behaviour sustains itself. 

Cognitive dissonance and denial: When people’s actions don’t align with their values (e.g. “I care about climate, but I fly frequently”), it creates discomfort. Some resolve this by denial or rationalization (e.g., “my impact is small, so it doesn’t matter”), which can be a barrier to admitting change is needed. Barrier: psychological defence mechanisms against feeling guilty or pressured. Levers: Positive framing and identity: Avoid finger-wagging or implying hypocrisy. Instead, frame energy-saving actions as consistent with people’s self-image and pride. Community campaigns often tap into local identity (e.g., “Our town leads in green living”). Giving people social recognition for good behaviour, such as public thanks, certifications, competitions, provides an ego boost rather than ego threat. When energy conservation is seen as the norm and a source of pride, people are less likely to defensively deny the need for change and more likely to embrace it to stay consistent with the valued norm. 

Upfront costs and convenience: Some energy-saving actions, such as buying an efficient appliance or insulating a home, require upfront investment or effort, which deters people even if lifecycle benefits are strong. Behavioural programmes alone can’t eliminate cost barriers, but they can help mitigate them. Barrier: financial constraints and hassle factors. Levers: Incentives and facilitation: Provide easy financing or subsidies (e.g., vouchers, rebates) combined with behavioural nudges. For example, a city might offer a subsidized smart thermostat and automatically enrol homeowners in a training on using it – reducing both cost and effort barriers. Streamline processes: reduce paperwork, offer concierge services or bundling deals. The idea is to make the desired action as easy as possible. Additionally, emphasize non-financial benefits, such as comfort, health, safety, which can sometimes motivate action even when money is tight. 

Social and cultural norms: People are influenced by what others like them to do. If energy hogging is seen as normal or even a status symbol (e.g. driving a big car, brightly lit houses), individuals face a social barrier to conserving. Barrier: prevailing norms that favour higher consumption or equate comfort with waste. Levers: Norm shifts through community programmes: Leverage the power of example and peer influence. Highlight stories of “people like you” who saved energy and loved the results (e.g., case studies of local businesses that cut energy bills by 20% and became more profitable, neighbours who carpool, etc.). Use social comparison feedback (e.g., home energy reports) to subtly indicate that moderate consumption is normative and admired. Public commitments and group challenges also create a bandwagon effect – if everyone in an apartment building agrees to a certain thermostat range, it becomes a shared norm. Over time, conservation becomes part of the culture (e.g. how smoking went from socially acceptable to discouraged, one can shift views on energy waste). 

“Not my priority” – competing motivations: Even if people acknowledge saving energy is good, it often falls low on their daily priority list. Immediate concerns, such as work and family, dominate, and energy-saving actions can be forgotten or procrastinated. Barrier: low salience and lack of immediate reward. Levers: Gamification and rewards: Make saving energy more engaging or immediately rewarding. For instance, some cities have tried game-based apps where households earn points or badges for energy-wise actions, fostering a sense of fun and competition. Real or symbolic rewards (e.g., discounts on bills, community award ceremonies) give timely feedback. Another approach is to integrate energy tips into moments when people are receptive – e.g. when moving into a new home, give them a welcome kit with LED bulbs and a guide; at the point of appliance purchase, have the retailer nudge them toward efficient u

Sceptics worry that any savings vanish once the novelty wears off. Evidence shows some decay but also lasting change. Allcott & Rogers (2014) analysed energy report programmes and found that about two-thirds of the initial savings persisted one year after the reports stopped – indicating real habit formation. Similarly, a study found that even after high-price events ended, the treated group’s overall consumption remained lower due to learned conservation habits. Good programmes plan “exit strategies” to lock in habits, (for example, by gradually reducing frequency of feedback to see if people maintain actions, and possibly re-engaging if they slip. 

Persistence of effects: Sceptics worry that any savings vanish once the novelty wears off. Evidence shows some decay but also lasting change. Allcott & Rogers (2014) analysed energy report programmes and found that about two-thirds of the initial savings persisted one year after the reports stopped – indicating real habit formation. Similarly, a study found that even after high-price events ended, the treated group’s overall consumption remained lower due to learned conservation habits. Good programmes plan “exit strategies” to lock in habits, (for example, by gradually reducing frequency of feedback to see if people maintain actions, and possibly re-engaging if they slip. 

Magnitude of savings: Behavioural interventions vary in energy savings achieved, but many demonstrate meaningful savings: 

• Social norms nudges: In some enhanced interventions (combining social norms with goal-setting or non-monetary incentives) effect sizes of ~5 % or more have been targeted or observed in specific contexts. For baseline of ~1-3 %   social norm results and higher (~15.9 %) effect in a dormitory-setting. 

Information & feedback: Real-time electricity feedback can lead to 5–15% usage reductions in the short run, especially for high-energy consumers.  

• Defaults: The green energy default trial in Germany found almost 70% remained on the renewable plan, versus ~7% in opt-in, effectively a tenfold increase in green energy adoption – which, in carbon terms, is significant. Another default study switched office printer settings to double-sided; paper use fell ~15% immediately. These illustrate resource savings (paper, CO₂) beyond just kWh. 

Community campaigns: In some community-based outreach campaigns in Europe (e.g., student halls or fuel-poverty contexts), savings of around 5-15 % have been reported among participating households. For example, one UK intervention in university halls saw reductions spanning the upper end of that range. However, evidence for general city-or-utility-run multifaceted campaigns in typical residential households remains limited. 

Measurement and verification: Sceptics often ask, “How do you know it wasn’t the weather or something else?” Robust evaluations use methods to isolate the effect: comparing to control groups, adjusting for weather (degree days), normalizing for occupancy or production changes in businesses, etc. energy savings are typically measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or joules for energy, often converted to CO₂ emissions avoided and € saved on bills for context. For example, a programme might report “Average electricity savings of 150 kWh per household over 6 months (2.5% of usage), translating to €30/year lower bills and 50 kg CO₂ avoided, compared to controls, weather adjusted.” By using statistical analysis (regressions controlling for external factors) or experimental design, evaluators ensure the savings claimed are attributable to the behavioural intervention. Many jurisdictions (i.e. Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, amongst others) now issue evaluation protocols (e.g. EnR Behaviour Change Working Group 2023) for behavioural programmes, similar to those for efficient hardware, which give confidence in the results.  

Real-world case studies: report documented tangible outcomes. For example, a factory that implemented an employee energy awareness program cut electricity use by 7%, saving millions of kWh and hundreds of thousands of euros annually. A city-led residential challenge got thousands of households to collectively reduce energy ~12%, verified via utility meter data. These cases often also note co-benefits – e.g. the factory’s program improved morale and identified other process efficiencies; the city’s challenge raised public support for future climate policies. The multiple benefits angle (per IEA 2014) is important: behavioural programmes not only save energy and emissions, but also save consumers money on bills, improve comfort (through smarter use of heating/cooling), improve air quality (less fuel burned), and increase energy security. They also tend to have positive spillovers: participants might continue other environmental-friendly behaviours (e.g., recycling, water saving) after experiencing success with energy, deepening the sustainability impact. 

Answering the rebound concern: Some worry that if people save in one area, they might spend their savings on another energy-consuming activity (rebound). While rebound exists, properly monitored programs show net positive gains. For example, if a home energy report saves 2% electricity, at worst a small fraction might be offset by slightly more gas heating (if comfort increased). But overall carbon savings remain positive. Additionally, behavioural programmes can include messaging to mitigate rebound (e.g., “You saved €50 on energy – here are green ways to reinvest it!”). Evaluation studies     find direct rebound for household efficiency typically <30% for most end-uses, meaning at least 70% of savings stick – and that’s often without any behavioural follow-up. With conscious design, rebound can be minimized. 

Beyond the energy saving numbers: behavioural measures also build public engagement and acceptance for the energy transition – an intangible but critical benefit. People directly see and feel the changes, which can make them more supportive of larger policies. For example, someone who successfully reduced energy consumption may back efficiency standards or infrastructure for cycling, having experienced the benefits first-hand. 

For local authorities implementing a behavioural campaign, success metrics should include: 

Energy saved – e.g. kWh of electricity, cubic meters of gas or litres of fuel reduced, ideally normalized per household or participant. 

Participation rate – what fraction of the target population engaged (e.g., took the pledge, installed the app, etc.). A high reach means broader impact and norm shift. 

Cost-effectiveness – energy saved per euro spent on the program. Behavioural programmes often excel herewith many achieving savings at a few cents per kWh, competitive with or cheaper than technology subsidies. 

Persistence – does the behaviour change last? Check energy use post-intervention; some programmes do follow-up 6 or 12 months later to see if savings sustain or if refresher actions are needed. 

Co-benefits – qualitatively or quantitatively note things like participant satisfaction (e.g., surveys often show people appreciate learning how to save), comfort improvements, any reduction in arrears (e.g., people who save energy might pay bills more easily), etc. 

Urgency of climate and energy targets: The EU’s 2030 targets cannot be met by technology roll-out alone in the short timeframe. Many technical solutions, such as grid upgrades, deep renovations, new renewable plants, have lead times of years. Behavioural measures, however, can be rolled out immediately and scaled rapidly. For instance, launching a national energy-saving challenge or awareness campaign can happen within months – yielding near-term savings during the crucial 2025–2030 window, while larger projects are still in pipeline. The IEA has highlighted that to reach net-zero by 2050, about 63% of the greenhouse gas emission reductions needed involve behaviour changes or decisions by consumers. In the next few years, accelerating those changes will buy time for infrastructure to catch up. 

Energy security and price volatility: The recent energy crises taught us that demand-side flexibility is a security asset. When governments appealed for behavioural changes in late 2022, EU citizens responded: gas and electricity demand dropped significantly within months. This helped avoid blackouts and rationing. With continued geopolitical uncertainties, institutionalizing behavioural measures, such as peak shaving, fuel-saving driving habits, thermostat adjustments, makes the energy system more resilient. It’s much quicker and cheaper to reduce demand by 5–10% through behaviour measures than to find equivalent new energy supply in a crunch. Plus, households and businesses benefit directly through lower energy bills, easing the pain of high prices. Behavioural efficiency is a hedge: as energy prices remain unpredictable, consuming less through smarter behaviour protects vulnerable consumers – a key concern for energy poverty in Europe. Now is the time to embed these practices while the memory of high prices is fresh and motivation is high. 

Equity and just transition: Behavioural programmes can be designed to reach and benefit all segments of society, including low-income and marginalized groups. In fact, these groups often have the most to gain from energy savings as a higher share of income goes to energy. Traditional policies might overlook them (e.g. subsidies for heat pumps mainly help homeowners with capital). But community-based behavioural initiatives – like local energy advisors doing door-to-door visits in social housing, or gamified challenges in schools – can engage those who might not participate in rebate programmes. As we push to renovate buildings and switch to clean energy, ensuring everyone is on board and no one is left behind is critical (a theme of the European Green Deal). Now is the time to pair investments with outreach, so that behavioural uptake of new technologies is high across all segments of society. For example, deploying smart thermostats in public housing will only save energy if residents are guided on using them; a behavioural campaign can secure both climate and equity outcomes. 

Cost-effectiveness in tight budgets: Coming out of the pandemic and with economic strains, public budgets are tight. Behavioural measures are generally inexpensive relative to engineering solutions. Regulatory solutions — such as mandatory efficiency standards, energy-performance requirements or procurement obligations — offer another cost-effective path, especially because once enacted they impose minimal ongoing budgetary cost while delivering systemic change.  They often provide the most cost-effective solution in energy savings. Local and regional authorities looking to meet ambitious energy and climate goals can use behavioural programmes as a cost-efficient tool to deliver part of these goals. Between now and 2030, tapping these “low-hanging fruit” can lower the overall cost of the transition, preventing expensive last-minute measures. Every kWh saved by behaviour is one that doesn’t need to be generated or one less unit of gas to import. 

Momentum and public appetite: There is growing public awareness of climate issues, especially among youth, and a willingness to change behaviour if it contributes to solutions – provided the changes are reasonable and well-supported. The past few years have seen unprecedented public discourse on energy (e.g., people discussing heat pump pros and cons, efficiency tips trending on social media during the gas crisis, etc.) By acting now, we normalize new behaviours well before 2050. We also capitalize on current momentum: many citizens took emergency actions in 2022, such as lowering thermostats, teleworking, and found them tolerable; institutionalizing such changes (e.g. encouraging hybrid work weeks to reduce commuting) can lock in sustained energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions. 

Climate adaptation and quality of life: Beyond mitigation, behavioural changes can help communities adapt to climate impacts (for instance, adjusting cooling habits during heat waves to avoid grid stress). Promoting behaviour, such as planting shade trees or using natural ventilation, can improve urban resilience. These tie into broader sustainability lifestyle trends (e.g., healthy, low-carbon living) that Europe is embracing. People prefer cities with sustainable mobility, energy-efficient homes, and conscious consumption. Thus, fostering these behaviours now is part of staying culturally and economically vibrant.  

Common limitations and design tips: 

Short-lived effects (the “novelty wears off” problem): some behavioural interventions (especially one-time nudges) might have temporary impacts. For example, a single email blast may spur energy savings for a week, but then people forget. Design solutions: Plan for reinforcement and follow-up. Instead of one-off actions, use campaigns or sequences: e.g. a 3-month challenge with weekly tips, or periodic home energy reports rather than a single report. If using a nudge like a default setting, make sure it stays in place long enough for the new behaviour to become routine. Another tactic is combining nudges with boosts: the nudge provides immediate change, while a boost makes the change stick. For example, default thermostats accompanied by workshops on heating management ensure that even if the default is overridden, many people will keep the efficient practice because they learned its value. Habit formation support, such as reminder apps, or social support groups, during the critical early phase can convert a short-term change into a long-term habit. Also, monitor behaviour over time; if you see decay, consider a “booster” intervention, such as a refresh campaign next season. 

Rebound effect: if people save energy (especially via efficiency), they might use a bit more energy elsewhere. Psychologically, some feel “license” to indulge once they’ve done something good (known as the moral licensing effect). Design solutions: Awareness and coupling. Ensure participants understand the importance of keeping the savings. Sometimes simply informing them of rebound can prevent it (e.g., “Avoid turning up the heat with the money you saved on insulation – keep those gains!”). Encourage them to channel any financial savings into further sustainable choices, such as, buying a bike, or investing in solar. If a rebound is likely (e.g. efficient car -> more driving), consider complementary measures like caps or norms, e.g. by pairing a fuel-efficient car programme with a campaign about driving less for health and community. On a programme level, account for rebound in your goals (e.g., aim for 15% energy savings if you need net 10% after an assumed rebound). The good news: in many household cases, rebound is limited, and multiple studies indicate a large share of behavioural savings translate into real, net reductions, especially when the programme messages emphasize conscious use. 

Dependence on context and individual differences: What works in one city might not work in another. Behavioural responses can vary across contexts but also between individuals. For example, social norm feedback might motivate most households but could backfire for the lowest energy users (e.g., they might increase usage if they learn they use much less than average – known as the “boomerang effect”). Design solutions: Customize and segment. Use local insights to tailor your programme – run small pilots, get feedback, and adjust. To avoid the boomerang effect, many programmes include an injunctive norm (e.g., a smiley face on the report if you’re doing well) to affirm and encourage low energy users to stay low. 

Segment audiences: what motivates seniors (e.g., bill savings, comfort) may differ from what motivates millennials (e.g. carbon footprint, tech gadgets). You can vary messaging accordingly. Also, co-create with the community – involve target users in design, to ensure interventions resonate with their values and context. By being attentive to context, you increase effectiveness and avoid misalignment. 

Scalability and consistency: Some behavioural initiatives work great in a small trial but are hard to scale up or repeat consistently, especially those needing human facilitation, like energy advisors, or school programmes needing enthusiastic teachers. Design solutions: Institutionalize and use technology. To scale, embed successful pilots into routine government or utility programmes. For instance, if a local energy advisor programme saved a lot, work to get it funded as a long-term service (e.g., via utility obligation or regional funds). Alternatively, use digital tools to reach more people – apps and online platforms can automate personalized feedback, allowing scalability at low marginal cost. For consistency, develop toolkits and training so that different implementers can replicate the programme with fidelity. The IEA’s UsersTCP Behavioural Insights Toolkit is one resource that helps standardize best practices. Essentially, treat behavioural programmes as you would any major program – with clear protocols, quality control, and continuous improvement cycles. 

Measurement difficulty: Unlike a new LED light that has a rated wattage, behavioural outcomes can be trickier to measure accurately. Sceptics sometimes doubt reported savings if measurement is complex. Design solutions: built in robust evaluation. Use the gold-standard methods (RCTs or control groups) whenever feasible. This might mean rolling out a programme in phases and comparing early participants to later ones or using an “opt-in vs opt-out” comparison. Leverage smart meter data – high-frequency data can reveal usage changes more clearly and attribute them to certain times or actions. Adopt normalization techniques (weather-adjustments, etc.) and transparently report methods. When policymakers see solid data (with confidence intervals, etc.), they’ll be more convinced. Although evaluation comes with a cost, it is essential to prove impact – and often behavioural programmes remain cost-effective even after adding monitoring and verification costs. Over time, as you gather evidence, you can streamline measurement. For example, you might establish that a certain intervention reliably yields ~X% of energy savings, so you can claim that with simpler verification after a few iterations. 

Public reception and political risk: Some people can feel manipulated by nudges or feel pressured to change lifestyle. If not handled well, a behavioural campaign could face pushback (e.g., “Don’t tell me to take shorter showers!”). Design solutions: Empower and respect choice: Emphasize that these programmes empower citizens and expand choices (e.g. by providing information they currently lack, or new convenient options), rather than restrict them. Nudges by definition preserve freedom of choice. Transparency helps: communicate in a transparent way about the use of behavioural techniques for positive ends and invite feedback. Focus on positive messaging (e.g., “Here’s how you can save and benefit”) instead of guilt or coercion. Also, frame the message in terms of community benefit and solidarity (e.g., as was done during the energy crisis – appealing to people’s desire to help avoid shortages, which was well-received). By making people partners in the effort rather than targets, you gain acceptance. Politically, highlight co-benefits like energy bill savings and energy independence to garner broad support. 

Energy Savings (primary KPI): Ultimately, we want to see a reduction in energy consumption attributable to the intervention. This can be reported in physical units – e.g. electricity saved in kWh, natural gas saved in cubic meters, fuel saved in litres – which are often converted to CO₂ emissions or CO2 equivalents avoided. For instance, a campaign might report “Average household electricity use dropped from 300 kWh/month to 285 kWh/month, a 5% reduction.” Multiply by the number of households to get total kWh saved and use CO2 emissions factors to get CO₂ emissions saved. See IPCC Emissions Factor Database (IPCC EFDB) for values and IPCC AR5 Annex II for methodological guidance. It’s good to contextualize: “this is equivalent to X tonnes of CO₂ or taking Y cars off the road for a year.” Energy savings should be measured against a baseline (historical usage or a control group). A baseline could be each participant’s own usage in the prior year (adjusted for weather) or a similar group’s usage if doing an RCT. Showing a before-and-after comparison or a difference vs. control group is very convincing. 

Participation and Reach: How many people (or entities) engaged out of the target population? High participation indicates the program resonated and had broad impact potential. Track metrics like number of households enrolled, percentage of invited citizens who took part, attendance at events, downloads of an app, etc. Also note demographics if relevant: e.g. “We reached 5,000 households (~25% of the city), across all neighbourhoods including 1,200 low-income households.” If you have school programmes, monitor how many students were involved etc. Depth of engagement can be measured by monitoring e.g. the proportion who signed up, and those who took part in the intended actions. High participation, especially among typically hard-to-reach groups, is a strong indicator of inclusiveness and effective outreach. 

Cost Savings for participants: One very tangible metric is money saved on energy bills. Many people care about the financial aspect. If your programme achieved 10% electricity savings, you can estimate annual bill savings, depending on tariffs. Summing that up, e.g. “City residents saved €250,000 on energy bills in 2025 thanks to the campaign” is a compelling figure. It demonstrates direct economic benefit to the community. It’s also useful for equity arguments (e.g. “the average low-income household saved €100, a meaningful relief in energy costs”). These cost savings make the abstract kWh saved more relatable. 

Cost-Effectiveness of the Programme: From the authority’s perspective, it is useful to monitor the cost required to achieve energy savings. Calculate programme cost per kWh saved (or per ton CO₂ saved) and compare with other measures if relevant data are available. For example, “Our behavioural campaign costs €0.02 per kWh saved, significantly lower than typical subsidy-driven savings which are around €0.10 per kWh saved”. Such comparisons can demonstrate how public funds or utility resources are invested. If the program leveraged volunteer time or had in-kind contributions, note these as contributing factors to efficiency. 

Sustainability of energy savings: Show whether savings sustained after the intervention period. For instance, if you run a 3-month pilot campaign, check energy use 3 months after the pilot ended. If energy consumption remains lower than the baseline, that will indicate lasting behavioural change. You might report, e.g. “Even six months after the contest, participants’ electricity use was still ~3% below pre-programme levels, indicating habits stuck.” Conversely, if you see a rebound, that’s a lesson to either adjust the programme or plan re-engagements. Demonstrating persistence convinces sceptics that your actions have long-term impact, not just a one-time effect. 

Non-energy benefits and qualitative success: Success extends beyond measurable energy savings. It is important to document co-benefits and positive side effects: 

• Health & comfort: Assess whether participants experienced improved comfort (e.g. fewer drafts after behavioural fixes like closing shutters at night) or any health benefits (like better indoor air quality from reduced wood burning due to efficient practices). These outcomes may be evaluated through surveys or indirect observations. 
• Awareness & knowledge: Pre- and post-surveys can measure if knowledge improved (e.g., an increase in the percentage of residents who can identify major sources of energy consumption at home. An informed public is a legacy benefit that can lead to future actions. 
• Engagement & empowerment: Collect qualitative testimonials, such as feedback from families who express increased control over their energy bills or note significant savings. Or document the emergence of community initiatives, such as the formation of environmental groups by participants. These stories are qualitative success indicators. 
• Policy/strategy influence: A successful local pilot can inform broader policy decisions whether it is adopted at the regional level or integrated into national strategies. This broader uptake demonstrates significant impact and scalability. For instance, “Our programme’s results were presented at the national energy conference and inspired replication by three other cities”. 

Evaluation rigor: If you employed a robust evaluation method, such as randomized controlled trials or a statistically significant analysis, mention it in showcasing success. It adds credibility. For example, “Independent evaluation with a control group confirmed the savings with 95% confidence.” Not every audience wants the technical detail but having it available in e.g., an appendix or detailed report, is useful for convincing technical stakeholders and funders. 

Key Performance Stories: highlight specific examples can illustrate impact. For example, “In one public building, simple behavioural measures such as signs and thermostat policy, cut energy by 15%, saving €5,000/year). While in a small business that joined our energy savings programme, employees’ actions reduced electricity by 8% with no loss in output. Multiply such successes across our economy and the impact is substantial.” Such a narrative can complement aggregate statistics.  

Communicate success in a relatable way: Infographics work well – show before/after consumption graphs, pie charts of participation, or even maps of neighbourhood involvement. People respond to comparisons, such as “the energy saved could power 200 homes for a year” or “CO₂ saved equals taking 300 cars off the road”. Also, framing helps officials and the public grasp the significance. 

Proximity and Trust: Local governments are closest to citizens. Residents are more likely to trust information and initiatives coming from their city council or community leaders, whom they see as understanding local realities, compared to messages from distant agencies. A town mayor promoting an energy-saving challenge, or a county council providing tips during a cold spell, can resonate strongly. Local authorities can leverage existing community networks (such as schools, faith groups, neighbourhood associations) to spread messages in a culturally tuned way. This trusted messenger status means behavioural programmes delivered locally may achieve better uptake. For example, participation rates in energy retrofit programmes often rise when municipalities endorse them, because people trust it is not a scam and that support is on hand. 

Tailoring to Local Context: Energy behaviour is influenced by local climate, culture, housing stock, transportation options, etc. What works in a dense city (e.g. promoting cycling) might differ from a rural area (where car-sharing or efficient driving might be key). Local authorities can custom-fit interventions to their context. They have data and insights about the local context: they know e.g., which neighbourhoods have older homes (target them for thermostat and insulation behaviour tips), which communities prefer communication in certain languages, when local events can be used to promote campaigns (e.g. town fairs, school events). This tailoring can make behavioural interventions more relevant and effective than one-size-fits-all national campaigns. 

Ability to integrate with local initiatives: Cities and regions often have ongoing projects – from renovation schemes to public transport improvements – in which behavioural insights can be seamlessly integrated. For instance, a city running a building retrofit subsidy can add on a “user training” behaviour module for residents. Or when rolling out smart meters regionally, the regional authority can coordinate a parallel awareness campaign on how to use the new data to save energy. Local leaders can ensure behaviour measures are embedded in technical programmes and regulations (making sure the human factor is addressed). They can also align energy behaviour goals with other local priorities like air quality, traffic reduction, or public health. This integrated approach amplifies benefits (e.g. an anti-idling campaign can cut fuel use and improve air quality around schools). 

Mobilizing communities and leading by example: Local governments can mobilize local champions – e.g. enlist community leaders, NGOs, or enthusiastic citizens as ambassadors for energy saving. Peer-to-peer initiatives (like eco-teams in neighbourhoods) often flourish with a bit of support from city hall. Municipalities can also lead by example: implementing behavioural changes in their own buildings and operations (offices turning off lights, efficient fleet driving policies) and then showcasing those successes to inspire residents and private actors. When people see local or regional authorities practicing what they preach and saving money, it adds credibility and motivation. Regions can foster friendly competition: e.g. counties competing on who saves more energy, or cities within a region sharing best practices through networks like the European Covenant of Mayors. 

Replication through networks: Europe has strong networks of local authorities (Covenant of Mayors, ENERGY Cities, Committee of the Regions, Net Zero Cities, etc.) enabling rapid sharing and scaling of successful initiatives. A local or regional policymaker can pilot an innovative behavioural programme, demonstrate results, then champion it across the network. For instance, if a province in Spain finds success with a “Summer Energy Savings Olympics” for municipalities, this model can be presented to peers in other countries through EU-funded workshops or CoM webinars. Local leaders value case studies from similar cities. By taking initiative, local authorities not only help their constituents but also contribute to a Europe-wide learning loop. In essence, cities and regions act as laboratories and multipliers for behavioural innovation. 

Policy advocacy and upward influence: When local leaders demonstrate that behavioural programs are effective, they can advocate for supportive policies at higher governance levels (i.e., at national or EU level). Many national policies (like utility regulation for energy savings) have been informed by pioneering local efforts. So, by succeeding locally, you can inspire broader changes – such as getting behavioural programmes recognized in national energy efficiency obligation schemes or securing funding in EU programmes specifically for community engagement. The European Committee of the Regions has been vocal about the need to involve citizens in the Green Deal; local examples give them the ammo to push for that in EU policy drafting. 

Call to action – utilizing forums and resources: We encourage local and regional authorities to actively use available forums and tools to strengthen their behavioural initiatives. The Energy Behaviour Forum is an example of a platform where practitioners share experience, co-develop strategies, and even aggregate demand for resources (like case studies or toolkits). Local and regional policymakers should take advantage of the capacity-building support offered through these platforms rather than starting from scratch. Participating in EU-funded projects or exchanges, such as Horizon Europe calls on behavioural aspects, or twinning programmes between cities, can provide funding and expert support. Local and regional policymakers are not alone – a community of practice is out there, ready to help amplify local impact.