Virtually all household choices – ranging from daily routines, such as what to eat and how to get to work, to less frequent decisions, like how to heat our homes and whether to buy a car – affect the climate and the environment. While the potential of individual and household choices to reduce environmental impacts is clear, the increasing urgency of climate change and other environmental crises illustrates the challenge governments face in realising this potential. How sustainable are household choices and how does behaviour vary across different domains? What is preventing us from making more sustainable choices and how can governments help overcome the barriers? On 13 June, the OECD report How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises was launched during our webinar. The report provides an overview of the results from the 2022 OECD Survey on Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC). With comparable data on household environmental behaviour across nine countries (Belgium, Canada, France, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States) and four thematic areas (energy, transport, waste and food), the EPIC Survey provides unique insights into the drivers of household choices and the measures governments can put in place to make them more sustainable.

1. How Green is Household Behaviour?
Sustainable Choices in a Time of
Interlocking Crises
Shardul Agrawala and Katherine Hassett
OECD Environment Directorate
13 June 2023

2. Demand side management is not new – but systemic change
has proved elusive
3
• Multiple triggers and waves of interest
o Limits to growth (1972): planetary impacts of overconsumption
o Oil crises (1970s) : policies to improve energy efficiency, reduce speed limits
o Environmental taxes, information schemes (labeling, footprinting)
o Nudges and other behavioural interventions (2000s - )
o Demand side incentives in green stimulus packages (Global Financial Crisis; Covid-19)
However, large scale shifts in behaviour to reduce environmental
pressures have proved elusive
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

3. Environmentally Beneficial Behavioural Change
4
• Reduce food waste
• Limit the use of heating or cooling
AVOID unnecessary consumption or impactful activity
• Shift car use to walking or biking and public transport
• Share instead of buying new
SHIFT consumption or activity towards less
environmentally impactful alternatives
• Use battery electric vehicles, renewable energy
IMPROVE the environmental performance of the activity
in question
Source: Based on IPCC WGIII AR6
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

4. Environmental benefits of scaling up behavioral changes
5
Source: Creutzig et al., 2022 (updated from IPCC WGIII AR6)
Other Research Findings
• Reducing speed limits by 10
km/h could deliver fuel savings
of up to 12-18% and reduce air
pollution (EEA, 2020)
• Plant-based diets can reduce
land for agriculture by 76%
(Poore and Nemecek, 2018)
• Charges on single-use plastic can
reduce disposable bags by >40
percent (Homonoff, 2018)
40-70 % potential reductions in ghg emissions by mid-century
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

5. Why are we not seeing more demand-side measures?
6
• Information
• Monetary and
non-monetary
incentives
1 2 3
CAPACITY PSYCHOLOGICAL
FACTORS
• Money
• Time
• Infrastructure
• Attitudes and norms
• Short sightedness or attitude-
behaviour gaps
AWARENESS AND
MOTIVATION
Why Households Matter
Collective purchase and investments; environmental footprint of household management; cross-influence of
environmentally relevant attitudes and behaviours
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

6. Third round of the OECD Household Survey
7
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

7. KEY FINDINGS
8

8. More concern about economy and safety than environment
9
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

9. Most respondents would change lifestyle for the environment
10
…Provided that these
changes do not incur
additional financial costs
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

10. Policy support depends upon environmental attitudes and
instrument type
11
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

11. THEMATIC FINDINGS
12

12. 13
Convenience is an important determinant of energy conservation
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

13. 14
Habit and lack of knowledge are barriers to energy conservation
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

14. Feasibility and affordability are barriers to the adoption of
low-emissions energy technologies
15
Low-emissions energy technologies are less likely to be
installed by lower-income households
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Barriers to installation of low-emissions technologies differ
across residence types
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

15. 16
Rural residents rely more on cars, but urban car use remains high
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

16. 75% of households use a conventional car on a regular basis
17
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

17. 75% of households use a conventional car on a regular basis
18
Still, over 80% of potential car buyers plan to buy a car that
runs at least partially on fossil fuels in the next 2 years
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

18. Measures that would encourage respondents to replace car
use with public transport
Key bottlenecks to address: improving public transport and
charging infrastructure for electric vehicles
19
Access to charging is a significant concern
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

19. 20
Effort appears to be an important determinant of engagement
in reduce and reuse practices
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises

20. 21
Convenience is key to greening waste practices
• Households with services that collect recyclable waste at residences produce
42% less mixed waste than those without such collection services
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

21. Financial incentives can motivate composting and recycling
22
• Households charged for
mixed waste disposal
generate less mixed
waste and recycle more
than households that are
not charged.
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

22. 23
Food quality is prioritised over environmental attributes in purchase decisions
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

23. Support for food system policies is widespread, except for taxation
24
Source: OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

24. FINAL TAKEAWAYS
25

25. • Self-reported behaviour, actual actions may be more modest
• Even the green behaviour that is reported appears to be limited to low-effort,
low-cost and convenient activities
• The Survey also points to some cognitive dissonance
– Households are willing to change, but don’t want to pay for it
– Environmental considerations appear disconnected from certain behaviours (e.g. food purchases)
• A central cross-cutting finding is that affordability, availability and
convenience are key to changing behaviour
• These reinforce policy priorities such as targeted subsidies for installation
of energy efficiency equipment, investments to improve public transport and
charging infrastructure for EVs, and improving kerbside collection of waste
26
Some final takeaways
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

26. • Is improving affordability, availability and convenience enough?
– High costs difficult in fiscally constrained environments
– Risk of offsetting by behavioural responses like rebound effects (lesson from the GFC)
– Importance of flanking price-based measures, while carefully considering
environmental justice
– Is there also more that can be done via behavioural nudges to green household
behaviour ?
• Finally, behaviours might be much more elastic than previously envisaged
– Covid-19; Energy crisis of 2022-23
– Driving more long-lasting and significant change in behaviour may be more achievable
than implied by historical experience
27
Some final takeaways
Energy Transport Waste Food Final takeaways
Introduction

27. OECD
• Katherine Hassett
• Nicolina Lamhauge
• Ioannis Tikoudis
• Lea Stapper
• Rose Mba Mébiame
• Shardul Agrawala
• Walid Oueslati
• Céline Giner
• Koen Dekoninck
• Nick Johnstone (IEA)
• Luis Martinez (ITF)
• Andrea Papu Carrone (ITF)
• Mallory Trouvé (ITF)
Acknowledgements
External Contributors
• Helene Ahlborg (Chalmers University of Technology)
• Thomas Bernauer (ETH Zurich)
• Jetske Bouma (PBL Netherlands)
• Zachary Brown (North Carolina State University)
• Alexandros Dimitropoulos (PBL Netherlands)
• Eyal Ert (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
• Steve Griffiths (Khalifa University of Science and Technology)
• Scott Hardman (University of California Davis)
• Gert-Jan de Maagd (Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water)
• Katrin Millock (Paris School of Economics)
• Céline Nauges (Toulouse School of Economics)
• David Shipworth (University College London)
• Sam Thomas (UsersTCP group of the International Energy Agency)
• Benjamin Sovacool (University of Sussex)
• Vivianne Visschers (University of Applied Sciences Switzerland)
• Marc Willinger (University of Montpellier)

28. Find out more and read the report:
oe.cd/EPIC