Next Article in Journal
Street Trees’ Obstruction of Retail Signage and Retail Rent: An Exploratory Scene Parsing Street View Analysis of Seoul’s Commercial Districts
Previous Article in Journal
Leveraging the Power of Human Resource Management Practices for Workforce Empowerment in SMEs on the Shop Floor: A Study on Exploring and Resolving Issues in Operations Management
Previous Article in Special Issue
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Approaches in Institutional Buildings: The Riyadh Reformatory Case in Saudi Arabia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17156932
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Social Nudging for Sustainable Electricity Use: Behavioral Interventions in Energy Conservation Policy

by
Pratik Mochi
1,*,
Kartik Pandya
2,
Karen Byskov Lindberg
1 and
Magnus Korpås
1
1
Department of Electric Energy, Norwegian University of Science & Technology (NTNU), 7034 Trondheim, Norway
2
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Parul Institute of Engineering and Technology (PIET), Parul University, Vadodara 391760, Gujarat, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6932; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156932
Submission received: 25 June 2025 / Revised: 22 July 2025 / Accepted: 27 July 2025 / Published: 30 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Energy and Climate: Net Zero Strategies and Rapid Decarbonisation Pathways)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Traditional energy conservation policies have primarily relied on economic incentives and informational campaigns. However, recent insights from behavioral and social sciences indicate that subtle behavioral interventions, particularly social nudges, can significantly influence household electricity use. This paper presents a structured review of 23 recent field studies examining how social nudging strategies, such as peer comparison, group identity, and normative messaging, have contributed to measurable reductions in electricity consumption. By analyzing intervention outcomes across different regions and formats, we identify key success factors, limitations, and policy implications. Special attention is given to ethical considerations, fairness in implementation, and potential challenges in sustaining behavior change. This study offers a framework for integrating social nudges into future energy policies, emphasizing their role as low-cost, scalable tools for promoting sustainable energy behavior.

1. Introduction

The urgency of transitioning to sustainable energy requires actions to reduce and efficiently manage energy usage. Initiating energy savings, even at the local level, is essential as it adds up to huge numbers regionally, nationally and globally due to vast number of customers at this level [1]. There exist many promising solutions for effectively managing energy resources [2,3,4] or for improving energy efficiency [5,6]. Effective behaviors for promoting energy conservation and efficiency are discussed in the research [7,8,9,10]. Studies [11,12] have shown that when an individual’s electricity usage is higher than the neighborhood average, educating people about social norms, like comparing their home’s energy consumption to the average for their neighbors, can have a positive impact on conservation. The ecological advantages of conserving electricity, practicing demand side management [13], transitioning to sustainable energy [14], and adopting renewables [15] benefit to society. Energy consumers must become more active participants in the energy markets, policymakers must pay more attention to behavioral aspects.
Traditional nudge refers to behavioral interventions rooted in classical behavioral economics, such as default options, reminders, or choice architecture, which influence decisions without altering economic incentives or restricting freedom of choice. Informational nudge involves presenting factual or feedback-based information (e.g., real-time consumption data, personalized energy reports) to influence behavior. It aims to correct information asymmetry without coercion or financial incentives. Social nudge specifically leverages social norms and comparisons (e.g., peer benchmarking, group identity messaging) to guide individuals toward energy-saving behaviors based on how others behave or what is socially desirable.
The concept of a nudge encourages people to make better decisions without significantly changing their financial incentives or limiting their freedom of choice [16]. A nudge influences people’s choices by slightly manipulating the decision-making environment without altering financial incentives or restricting available options. Nudges are often considered potential additions to traditional nudges, such as exposure to energy consumption data and incentive-based regulations. Integrating nudges into policy strategies can enhance both their effectiveness and public acceptance, compared to traditional regulatory approaches [17]. Research has shown that social nudges, like establishing social norms or default choices, can influence environmental behavior [18]. In recent years, many scholars have proposed combining incentives with nudges.
Although many energy conservation efforts assume that simply providing information will lead people to make rational decisions, the outcomes have often been disappointing. Researchers are now exploring normative messaging, which demonstrates how other customers behave, to encourage energy-saving activities [19]. Further, several studies suggest that the effectiveness and feasibility of social nudging are connected to the characteristics and patterns of energy consumption [20,21].
According to the author of [22], a social nudge for the energy field may be termed as a “green nudge”, and is a nudge that promotes eco-friendly behavior, but may also increase social benefits or an individual’s own welfare. In the same study, the authors conducted an ethical evaluation of green nudging in addition to providing a systematic review of this quickly expanding field of study. Anant [23] discovered that providing residents with information on the average electricity usage of their neighbors in comparison to their own resulted in about a 7% reduction over the course of the summer, using statistics from 466 residences monitored over a period of 4 months. According to the author of [24], energy savings climbed from 10% to 11% when follow-up sessions were held, while receiving social encouragement. This study urged 46 people to make savings through a field experiment lasting 12 weeks using feedback and electricity usage monitoring. A field experiment [25] was carried out using non-financial rewards that appealed to people’s environmental preferences to reduce residential energy usage, resulting in 5% reduction of monthly energy consumption. In a governmental office building in South Africa, energy savings were observed ranging from 9 to 14%, depending on the data each level obtained, by delivering various behavioral social nudges that contained comparable energy use statistics [26]. The “Social Power App,” a mobile phone application that included social media games and energy information sharing, was used in [27] to undertake a behavioral social nudge. As a result, up to 8.5% of electricity was saved in the three months following the energy-saving intervention, and Social Power participants continued to save more even a year later. A case study of a building [28] conducted an energy conservation feedback program. The results showed that all engaged buildings decreased their energy use by 6.5%, while non-participating facilities saw an increase in use of 2.4%. In a field experiment [29], the authors sent staff members at three schools daily, weekly, and monthly information on their electricity usage. The authors discovered financial savings on the participants’ electricity bills of 11–14%. This is higher compared to a meta-analysis [30], which suggests a presumed overall energy consumption decrease of around 3.9% based on the most recent findings of publications including field experiments.
Understanding behavior is crucial when working with the adoption of energy conservation measures [31]. There are, broadly speaking, two types of energy-saving approaches: technical and behavioral. The technical approach involves using equipment or appliances to improve efficiency, while behavioral approaches aim to change human behavior and energy consumption habits. Good [32] assesses the suitability of behavioral economics as a tool when modeling the demand response. The results indicate that considering customer biases can impact demand response simulations, especially during hours when the demand for an energy end-service is high. Regardless of the differences in organization size and location, the findings from a study [33] suggest that business managers are receptive to social nudges from the government, which serve as reminders to use electricity optimally. To engage people in achieving energy-saving goals by influencing behavior, researchers [34] argue that informational nudging could be a useful technique in the energy sector. This highlights the importance of various informational nudges.
A question arises: How can social nudges reduce electricity consumption while addressing potential concerns related to energy conservation inequality? This paper reviews literature on energy conservation where behavioral (or social) nudges are performed either solely or combined with traditional nudges, encompassing insights from the intersection of social sciences, behavioral economics, and energy policy. While the literature has predominantly focused on traditional nudges, this study explores a wider array of non-technical and non-financial strategies, called social nudging, for reducing electricity consumption. It advances the dialogue by considering social and behavioral nudges. Moreover, it emphasizes the significance of social considerations, particularly in relation to fairness and social norms, which have been insufficiently addressed in the context of energy conservation engineering. This unique perspective offers fresh insights into the challenges and opportunities surrounding electricity consumption and how policymakers can navigate them.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 connects social nudge with energy, followed by a literature review method in Section 3. The recent work reported on social nudge and energy conservation is listed in Section 4. Section 5 discusses challenges, policy implications, and future aspects of energy conservation in the context of behavioral economics and social science. Section 6 is the concluding remarks.

2. Social Nudge and Energy

Social nudges can be easy to implement and, thus, are valuable for addressing energy and climate change issues [35]. Behavioral economics has faced criticism from various academic fields, and researchers focusing on energy from a practical perspective have been particularly uncertain of the field [36]. Even if people are encouraged to change their behavior through various nudges, there are several socio-technical systems (e.g., social media platforms) that can hinder this change. A particular nudge might have a significant positive impact on some people, while for others, it may have a weaker, inconsequential, or even negative impact. For these individuals, a different nudge may be more effective [37]. Psychological research, customer behavior studies, and educational research suggest that behaviors, beliefs, and knowledge can influence energy savings. Recently, policymakers have increasingly sought regulations to control behaviors that harm the environment [24].
The goal of social nudges is to guide behavior in the right direction when traditional measures like taxes, incentives, or strict regulations are not feasible, and solutions should rely on the voluntary participation of individuals. In a behavioral context where people display sufficient rationality, awareness, motivation, and where preferences are often chosen rather than imposed, social nudges can be more effective in promoting energy conservation. Social nudge research seeks opportunities where behavioral economics can complement technical and economic approaches by adding adaptive, human-centered insights. From a management and policy perspective, it is preferable to use personalized approaches to provide tailored nudges to different individuals, as nudges aim to enhance people’s well-being [37].
In summing up our study, Figure 1 illustrates the two nudge types—physical nudge and virtual nudge—and the challenges and outcomes concerning energy conservation.
A physical nudge is delivered through in-person or tangible formats that involve direct or face-to-face interaction. Examples include printed home energy reports, energy audits by consultants, or physical paper bills with consumption tips. In contrast, a virtual nudge is mediated through digital means without physical contact, such as mobile apps, emails, social media interactions, or web dashboards showing real-time energy usage. While both aim to influence behavior, physical nudges rely on proximity and presence, whereas virtual nudges scale more easily but may vary in engagement impact. Smart appliances have the potential to improve energy efficiency, but their use also raises concerns around data privacy and the risk of surveillance. The tradeoff between the benefits of energy-efficient technologies and the risks associated with sharing sensitive personal data is influenced by factors such as data type, processing frequency, and perceived benefits. It is essential to consider these privacy concerns, as they may impact the acceptance of smart technologies and the effectiveness of energy conservation policies [38,39].
In the context of energy conservation through social nudging, the concept of fairness holds significant importance. Fairness pertains to the equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens associated with nudging interventions. Throughout our review of the existing literature, we found that fairness is a multifaceted aspect that is addressed to varying degrees in different studies. Some studies explicitly consider the potential impact of nudges on fairness and equity, while others primarily focus on the effectiveness of these interventions in achieving energy conservation goals. It is crucial to recognize that nudges, if not carefully designed, can inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities, as they might affect individuals differently based on their socioeconomic status or access to resources. This leads us to a crucial ethical question: How can energy conservation strategies through nudging be designed to ensure equitable outcomes while promoting sustainability? To address these concerns, this paper aims to delve deeper into the literature and critically examine the role of fairness within the realm of energy conservation nudging.

3. Methodology of Literature Search

In this section, we outline the methodological approach employed to analyze the collected sample of literature. We examine recent research on the positive effects of behavioral interventions, particularly social nudges, on energy conservation in various regions. We wanted to look at how different factors, like economics and people’s behavior, can be used in energy saving. Therefore, we chose an approach that combines different areas of study. Further, the work includes literature on traditional nudges as well as other ways to make people save energy.
We conducted searches on Scopus, Google Scholar, and Mendeley using the keywords “Social Nudge” and “Energy Conservation.” We found that adding these keywords to other terms could yield more articles, so we combined them with “social science”, “behavioral economics,” “energy conservation,” “field experiment,” and “intervention.” This search took place in January 2025, which resulted in several hundred articles After the initial search returned several hundred results, we applied the following inclusion criteria: (1) the study involved a field experiment or intervention targeting household or organizational electricity consumption; (2) the intervention included a behavioral component, particularly a social or informational nudge; and (3) results reported measurable changes in energy usage. We excluded studies that were primarily technical (e.g., focused on device efficiency or engineering simulations), did not involve human behavior, or lacked outcome data related to energy savings. In borderline cases, full-text screening was used to determine relevance based on the presence of behavioral intervention and outcome reporting. Ultimately, we selected 23 recent, successful cases, as listed in next section.

4. Results of Recently Reported Work

Table 1 lists each of the 23 papers, with information on the country where the field experiment or survey was conducted, and a short presentation of the work, results, and type of nudging.
The studies primarily highlight the effectiveness of information nudges and social nudges in promoting energy conservation across various regions. Key findings include:
  • Information nudges: Providing energy feedback (e.g., real-time data, emails, or reports) reduces energy consumption, with savings ranging from 0.7% to 15%. High-frequency and tailored feedback (e.g., hourly data or personalized messages) achieve greater reductions.
  • Social nudges: Social comparisons and group identification play a significant role, leading to reductions of 6.7% to 11%. Group identification amplifies social norm interventions’ effectiveness.
  • Combined nudges: Integrating multiple nudges (e.g., feedback, benchmark, or default) or combining nudges with incentives enhances energy conservation, achieving up to 16% savings.
  • Surveys and behavior drivers: Non-nudge studies emphasize the role of attitudes, values, and socio-demographic factors in energy-saving behavior, particularly highlighting gaps between attitudes and actions.
Although methodological heterogeneity limits a full meta-analysis, reported effectiveness of interventions ranged from 0.7% to over 16%, with virtual, combined, and personalized nudges generally yielding higher savings than one-time or generic interventions.

5. Discussion

The goal of the literature survey was to provide proof of the success stories of nudging in energy conservation. It is observed that nudging was performed in the form of emails, messages, surveys, personal visits, and digital tools to promote energy conservation.

5.1. Challenges on the Way

In this subsection, we have made some reflections regarding the challenges to the impact of social nudges on energy conservation:
While there has been substantial research on the impact of social nudges, there seems to be less effort that has been made to study the sustainability of behavior change to reduce energy consumption. This is important as it is possible that over time, people might grow less responsive to nudges, lose interest, or return to their original behavior.
Substantial collaboration is needed among researchers, the academic community, the private sector, marketing professionals, non-profit organizations, and the government to explore the intersection of social sciences and energy conservation policy. Through careful planning, testing, and refining of behavioral interventions, it is essential to determine what is effective and for whom.
Policymakers face two major challenges when creating a strategy for energy conservation and pricing policy. First, they need to consider customer incentives, which involve solving a significant problem at a cost that is lower than what customers are willing to pay. The second crucial factor is the profit formula (which can retain marginal benefits) or how the company generates value for itself. The profit formula determines the best combination of price, quantity, and cost structure, such as the resources needed in the business model [63].
Energy conservation is often considered a viable choice in macroeconomic studies, and consumers are expected to perform conservation actions when it is the most rational option. It is believed that consumers can weigh the benefits, even if the energy savings are in the future. These ideas suggest that perfectly rational individuals would always be inclined to save energy if it were financially advantageous. However, market failure may prevent them from doing so.
The effectiveness of social nudges is highly context dependent. Cultural differences, such as the strength of social cohesion, environmental awareness, and trust in institutions, may significantly influence how individuals respond to normative messages. For instance, peer comparison may be more effective in collectivist societies where group identity is more salient, whereas in individualistic societies, appeals to autonomy or personal gain may be better received. Recognizing this, policymakers should adapt nudging strategies to align with local cultural and social norms for greater impact.
Nevertheless, there are cases where feedback meant to promote energy conservation [64] can have the opposite effect or even backfire. For example, providing customers with detailed information about specific appliances may not be very effective [65]. Given this challenge, it is essential to design feedback strategies for energy conservation thoughtfully.
To address the sustainability of behavior change, future research could explore longitudinal studies that assess the persistence of energy-saving behavior beyond short-term interventions, and test the effectiveness of booster nudges (e.g., periodic reminders or adaptive feedback). On fairness, targeted nudges that account for socioeconomic disparities, such as providing low-income households with easier access to smart feedback tools, can help avoid reinforcing existing inequalities. Additionally, research should explore co-design methods where communities are involved in tailoring nudges that reflect local needs and norms, ensuring inclusiveness and equity in policy design.

5.2. A Way Forward

A technical standard should be based on previous evaluations of the cost–benefit analysis [66] of energy savings resulting from behavioral pattern changes, and should typically not consider losses in choices or rebound effects when social nudge has negative results and energy usage increases instead of decreasing.
According to Eriksson and Kjeang [67], energy advisors are individuals with knowledge about energy and good communication skills. Local energy advisors can connect public and local initiatives with specific groups and have a deep understanding of the local community to identify individuals in greater need of energy usage guidance [68]. The effectiveness of these energy advisors may lead to optimized local-level energy exchanges [69].
Energy Cafes [70] offer a meeting place for local democratic discussions and conversations about energy. They can also influence people’s perspectives on energy conservation through interactions with local officials and even cabinet ministers. Energy Cafes have been effective in engaging individuals who were traditionally disinterested in energy matters. In this setting, Energy Cafes created welcoming spaces where personal issues related to energy could be openly addressed, including discussions about challenges and the need for assistance [70].
Implementing an advanced energy management system is highly beneficial for energy conservation. It’s important to consider citizens’ experiences, values, and meanings related to their household energy usage. Ignoring these human factors risks overlooking key barriers to energy-efficient upgrades and fails to recognize how systems can be designed to enhance comfort while saving energy. Discussions on promoting energy conservation should be guided by social and scientific insights to better understand how to overcome barriers and help decision-makers effectively manage energy, even if locally generated [71].

5.3. Policy Implication

According to policymakers [33], the government’s ability to influence its citizens’ behavior largely depends on their trust in government policies. Policymakers should shift their focus away from uniformly applying one-size-fits-all nudges. Instead, efforts should be directed toward developing strategies that ensure individuals receive personalized nudges that suit them best [37,39]. With a subtle reference to regulatory and economic measures aimed at these objectives, the framework with social nudge for energy conservation places policy emphasis on both the electric utility and customers as the primary targets for behavioral change [22]. Within this framework, policymakers would aim to adopt a systematic approach to policymaking, informed by scientific theories, to understand how to address the energy conservation challenge while considering stakeholder input and support to shape policy priorities.
To provide guidance on energy-saving policies, it is essential to understand the evidence used in policy-making [72]. To make scientifically sound and socially meaningful political decisions, policymakers can initiate a process that closely examines existing policy models from various social science perspectives, involving experts from different social science disciplines. This can help raise awareness among consumers about energy conservation. An example in [73] demonstrates the positive impact of energy-saving nudges in a local energy community.
Exploring integrated energy system [74] policy among energy engineering, technical sciences [75], sociology, economics, and social sciences can help us better grasp the complexity of energy transition. To implement personalized nudging in practice, several approaches can be considered. First, data-driven segmentation using smart meter data can classify households based on usage patterns, responsiveness, or sociodemographic profiles. Second, adaptive digital tools—such as mobile apps or web dashboards—can deliver tailored messages based on real-time behavior (e.g., increased energy usage prompts a peer comparison or tip). Third, case studies such as the Opower HER program have shown that even modest personalization (e.g., including household name, local weather conditions, and personalized comparison groups) can significantly boost engagement. Future work should develop frameworks combining behavioral insights, machine learning, and user feedback to refine personalization models that are ethically designed and widely scalable.
The varying effectiveness of social nudging strategies can often be traced to psychological mechanisms such as social norm activation, identity alignment, and salience of feedback. For instance, peer comparison is particularly effective when individuals identify closely with the reference group, which enhances internalization of the behavior. Personalized feedback increases engagement by enhancing relevance and perceived control. In contrast, generic or infrequent nudges may fail to create a sense of urgency or personal connection. Environmental awareness, cultural context, and baseline consumption behavior also mediate nudge effectiveness. These factors highlight the need for tailoring nudges to fit the specific behavioral, social, and infrastructural context of the target audience.
This review has certain limitations. First, although we aimed for a structured literature synthesis, the included studies vary widely in terms of methodology, measurement, context, and reporting, which makes direct comparisons difficult. Second, while we focused on recent field studies with reported positive outcomes, this may introduce a publication bias, as unsuccessful or neutral interventions are less frequently reported. Third, cultural and regional differences were noted but not deeply explored due to space constraints. Future research should consider meta-analytic techniques, explore underrepresented regions, and investigate the long-term persistence of behavior change resulting from social nudges.

6. Conclusions

Energy conservation is not only an environmental imperative but also a means to enhance the well-being of our society. This paper has delved into the critical intersection of energy conservation with a specific branch of sociology called social nudging, shedding light on key ideas that can empower policymakers to craft effective strategies.
Social nudges, which draw from an understanding of social norms and individual choices, can play a pivotal role in redefining and addressing the challenges associated with energy conservation. It is a reminder that energy conservation strategies must transcend mere economic and market-driven considerations. While reducing greenhouse gas emissions and optimizing energy systems remain paramount, the paper also underscores the significance of nurturing citizens’ capacity for planning and improving their overall well-being. This holistic view considers not just the macroeconomic impacts but also the microlevel effects on individuals and communities.
Through a literature review, this paper has aimed to equip researchers and policymakers with a broader understanding of energy conservation by integrating sociological concepts into the energy conservation and policy framework. It encourages readers to draw upon the reservoir of sociological insights to define and address energy-saving issues better. As we look to the future, we must recognize that energy conservation is a dynamic and evolving field. It requires a multidisciplinary approach, one that merges insights from sociology, economics, and other social sciences, in collaboration with engineering. To construct truly effective energy conservation policies, it is vital to appreciate the dynamic interplay between societal norms, individual choices, and economic structures.
In closing, this paper underscores that energy conservation should not be confined to the realm of technical and economic solutions alone. It must be approached with a deep understanding of human behavior, social constructs, and individual actions. By embracing this comprehensive perspective, we can move closer to a sustainable and energy-efficient future that benefits both our environment and our communities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.M. and K.P.; methodology, P.M.; validation, K.B.L., M.K., and K.P.; formal analysis, K.B.L.; investigation, P.M.; resources, P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, P.M.; writing—review and editing, K.B.L., M.K., and K.P.; visualization, K.B.L.; supervision, K.P. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Backe, S.; Zwickl-Bernhard, S.; Schwabeneder, D.; Auer, H.; Korpås, M.; Tomasgard, A. Impact of energy communities on the European electricity and heating system decarbonization pathway: Comparing local and global flexibility responses. Appl. Energy 2022, 323, 119470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mochi, P.; Pandya, K.; Faia, R.; Soares, J. Prosumer Segmentation Strategies for Local Electricity Market Partaking by Monetary Reward. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 62879–62891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ilic, M.; Jaddivada, R.; Korpas, M. Interactive protocols for distributed energy resource management systems (DERMS). IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2020, 14, 2065–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hofmann, M.; Lindberg, K. Evidence of households’ demand flexibility in response to variable hourly electricity prices—Results from a comprehensive field experiment in Norway. Energy Policy 2024, 184, 113821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dregulo, A.M. Brownfields, Environmental Stability and Renewable Energy: Pathways to Overcome the Imperfection of Cumulative Effect Assessment. Energies 2023, 16, 6218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Diakaki, C.; Grigoroudis, E. Improving Energy Efficiency in Buildings Using an Interactive Mathematical Programming Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Al-Ardan, A.; Al-Shaalan, A.M.; Farh, H.M.H.; Al-Shamma’a, A.A. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Approaches in Institutional Buildings: The Riyadh Reformatory Case in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mochi, P.; Korpås, M. Energy Saving Behaviour based Cost Optimization in Peer-to-Peer Electricity Market. In Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Computational Innovations and Engineering Sustainability (ICCIES), Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India, 24–26 April 2025; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ma, F.; O’Hare, G.M.P.; Zhang, T.; O’Grady, M.J. Model Property Based Material Balance and Energy Conservation Analysis for Process Industry Energy Transfer Systems. Energies 2015, 8, 12283–12303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miller, M.W.; Malh, A.; Irizarry, S.; Ketenci, K.C.; Sturla Irizarry, S.M.; Vaishnav, P.; Rowe, Z.E.; Charles, S.M.; Gronlund, C.J.; Miller, S.A.; et al. Energy-Efficient Upgrades in Urban Low-Income Multifamily Housing: Energy Burdens and Lessons Learned for Best Sustainability Practices. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schultz, P.; Nolan, J.; Cialdini, R.; Goldstein, N.; Griskevicius, V. The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 18, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sloot, D.; Scheibehenne, B. Understanding the financial incentive conundrum: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions in promoting energy conservation behaviour. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 168, 112761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Leherbauer, D.; Hehenberger, P. Physics-Based Modeling and Parameter Tracing for Industrial Demand-Side Management Applications: A Novel Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mochi, P. Perspective on challenges and opportunities in integrated electricity-hydrogen market. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2025, 87, 101728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kowalska-Pyzalska, A. An Empirical Analysis of Green Electricity Adoption Among Residential Consumers in Poland. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thaler, R.; Sunstein, C. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hansen, P. The Definition of Nudge and Libertarian Paternalism: Does the Hand Fit the Glove? Eur. J. Risk Regul. 2016, 7, 155–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Drews, S.; Exadaktylos, F.; van den Bergh, J. Assessing synergy of incentives and nudges in the energy policy mix. Energy Policy 2020, 144, 111605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Komatsu, H.; Nishio, K. An experimental study on motivational change for electricity conservation by normative messages. Appl. Energy 2015, 158, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aydin, E.; Brounen, D.; Kok, N. Information provision and energy consumption: Evidence from a field experiment. Energy Econ. 2018, 71, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Skjølsvold, T.M.; Throndsen, W.; Ryghaug, M.; Fjellså, I.F.; Koksvik, G. Orchestrating households as collectives of participation in the distributed energy transition: New empirical and conceptual insights. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 46, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schubert, C. Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sudarshan, A. Nudges in the marketplace: The response of household electricity consumption to information and monetary incentives. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2017, 134, 320–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wong-Parodi, G.; Krishnamurti, T.; Gluck, J.; Agarwal, Y. Encouraging energy conservation at work: A field study testing social norm feedback and awareness of monitoring. Energy Policy 2019, 130, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ghesla, C.; Grieder, M.; Schmitz, J.; Stadelmann, M. Pro-environmental incentives and loss aversion: A field experiment on electricity saving behavior. Energy Policy 2020, 137, 111131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Klege, R.; Visser, M.; Datta, S.; Darling, M. The Power of Nudging: Using Feedback, Competition, and Responsibility Assignment to Save Electricity in a Non-residential Setting. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2022, 81, 573–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wemyss, D.; Cellina, F.; Lobsiger-Kägi, E.; de Luca, V.; Castri, R. Does it last? Long-term impacts of an app-based behavior change intervention on household electricity savings in Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 47, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dixon, G.; Deline, M.; McComas, K.; Hoffmann, M. Using comparative feedback to influence workplace energy conservation. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 667–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Samuels, J.; Booysen, M. Chalk, talk, and energy efficiency: Saving electricity at South African schools through staff training and smart meter data visualisation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 56, 101212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Buckley, P. Prices, information and nudges for residential electricity conservation: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 172, 106635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kwag, B.C.; Han, S.; Kim, G.T.; Kim, B.; Kim, J.Y. Analysis of the Effects of Strengthening Building Energy Policy on Multifamily Residential Buildings in South Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Good, N. Using behavioural economic theory in modelling of demand response. Appl. Energy Volume 2019, 239, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tikotsky, A.; Pe’er, E.; Feldman, Y. Which nudges do businesses like? Managers’ attitudes towards nudges directed at their business or at their customers. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2020, 170, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cappa, F.; Rosso, F.; Giustiniano, L.; Porfiri, M. Nudging and citizen science: The effectiveness of feedback in energy-demand management. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 269, 110759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liebe, U.; Gewinner, J.; Diekmann, A. What is missing in research on non-monetary incentives in the household energy sector? Energy Policy 2018, 123, 180–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hampton, S.; Adams, R. Behavioural economics vs social practice theory: Perspectives from inside the United Kingdom government. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 46, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peer, E.; Egelman, S.; Harbach, M.; Malkin, N.; Mathur, A.; Frik, A. Nudge me right: Personalizing online security nudges to people’s decision-making styles. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 109, 106347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Torriti, J. People or machines? Assessing the impacts of smart meters and load controllers in Italian office spaces. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014, 20, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Milchram, C.; Van de Kaa, G.; Doorn, N.; Künneke, R. Moral Values as Factors for Social Acceptance of Smart Grid Technologies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, H.; Iwamatsu, T.; Nishio, K.; Komatsu, H.; Mukai, T.; Odate, Y.; Sasaki, M. Field experiment of smartphone-based energy efficiency services for households: Impact of advice through push notifications. Energy Build. 2020, 223, 110151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Trotta, G. Electricity awareness and consumer demand for information. Int. J. J Consum. Stud. 2021, 47, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Andor, M.; Gerster, A.; Peters, J.; Schmidt, C. Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2020, 103, 102351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gołębiowska, B.; Bartczak, A.; Budziński, W. Impact of social comparison on preferences for Demand Side Management in Poland. Energy Policy 2021, 149, 112024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Callery, P.; Goodwin, C.; Moncayo, D. Norm proximity and optimal social comparisons for energy conservation behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 296, 113332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bonan, J.; Cattaneo, C.; d’Adda, G.; Tavoni, M. Can social information programs be more effective? The role of environmental identity for energy conservation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2021, 108, 102467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kažukauskas, A.; Jaraitė, J. Social comparisons in real time: A field experiment of residential electricity and water use. Scand. J. Econ. 2021, 123, 558–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Asmare, F.; Jaraitė, J.; Kažukauskas, A. The effect of descriptive information provision on electricity consumption: Experimental evidence from Lithuania. Energy Econ. 2021, 104, 105687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fanghella, V.; Ploner, M.; Tavoni, M. Energy saving in a simulated environment: An online experiment of the interplay between nudges and financial incentives. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2021, 93, 101709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lazaric, N.; Toumi, M. Reducing consumption of electricity: A field experiment in Monaco with boosts and goal setting. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 191, 107231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ruokamo, E.; Meriläinen, T.; Karhinen, S.; Räihä, J.; Suur-Uski, P.; Timonen, L.; Svento, R. The effect of information nudges on energy saving: Observations from a randomized field experiment in Finland. Energy Policy 2022, 161, 112731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mukai, T.; Nishio, K.; Komatsu, H.; Sasaki, M. What effect does feedback have on energy conservation? Comparing previous household usage, neighbourhood usage, and social norms in Japan. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 86, 102430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ramli, U.; Laffan, K. Double trouble: Concurrently targeting water and electricity using normative messages in the Middle East. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 88, 102496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mochi, P.; Pandya, K.; Soares, J.; Vale, Z. Optimizing Power Exchange Cost Considering Behavioral Intervention in Local Energy Community. Mathematics 2023, 11, 2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Luo, X.; Zhang, M.; Liu, X. Analysis of factors affecting rural residents’ willingness to adjust energy use behaviors based on a multi-group analysis. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 522–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fang, X.; Goette, L.; Rockenbach, B.; Sutter, M.; Tiefenbeck, V.; Schoeb, S.; Staake, T. Complementarities in behavioral interventions: Evidence from a field experiment on resource conservation. J. Public Econ. 2023, 228, 105028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Alomari, M.; EL-Kanj, H.; Topal, A.; Alshdaifat, N. Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on energy literacy and conservation behavior in academic buildings of Kuwait. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kotsopoulos, D.; Bardaki, C.; Pramatari, K. How to motivate employees towards organizational energy conservation: Insights based on employees perceptions and an IoT-enabled gamified IS intervention. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xiao, A.; Sparkman, G.; Constantino, S. Like me or near me? Assessing which norm referents best promote energy conservation in the field. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol. 2023, 5, 100142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Appiah, M.; Gyening, E.; Teye, P.; Frimpong, C.; Nsowah, A. The implications of energy literacy on energy savings behavior: A model of contingent effects of energy value and attitude. Energy Rep. 2023, 10, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pelka, S.; Kesselring, A.; Preuß, S.; Chappin, E.; de Vries, L. Can behavioral interventions optimize self-consumption? Evidence from a field experiment with prosumers in Germany. Smart Energy 2024, 14, 100140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Seyedrezaei, M.; Tak, A.; Becerik-Gerber, B. Consumption and conservation behaviors among affordable housing residents in Southern California. Energy Build. 2024, 304, 113840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sarrasin, O.; Gale, J.; Butera, F. Should we talk (more) about climate change when promoting energy conservation? An intervention in Swiss households. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol. 2024, 6, 100179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Croucher, M. Potential problems and limitations of energy conservation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 5795–5799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zangheri, P.; Serrenho, T.; Bertoldi, P. Energy Savings from Feedback Systems: A Meta-Studies’ Review. Energies 2019, 12, 3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Krishnamurti, T.; Davis, A.; Wong-Parodi, G.; Wang, J.; Canfield, C. Creating an in-home display: Experimental evidence and guidelines for design. Appl. Energy 2013, 108, 448–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mochi, P.; Pandya, K.; Faia, R.; Dabhi, D.; Soares, J.; Vale, Z. Empowering customers in local electricity market: A prosumer segmentation and operating envelope strategy for joint cost reduction and profit maximization. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2024, 226, 109908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Eriksson, L.; Kjeang, A. Local organization for promoting energy efficiency—Reform of local energy advice service in Sweden. Energy Effic. 2021, 14, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schneider, P.T.; van de Rijt, A.; Boele, C.; Buskens, V. Are visits of Dutch energy coach volunteers associated with a reduction in gas and electricity consumption? Energy Effic. 2023, 16, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mochi, P.; Pandya, K. Two Stage Optimization for Customer Fiscal Incentive in Local Electricity Market Policy. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Power and Renewable Energy Conference (IPRECON Kerala INDIA), Kollam, India, 16–18 December 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hards, S. Status, stigma and energy practices in the home. Int. J. Justice Sustain. 2013, 18, 438–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mochi, P.; Pandya, K.; Faia, R.; Soares, J. Six-Segment Strategy for Prosumers’ Financial Benefit Maximization in Local Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading. Mathematics 2023, 11, 3933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Della Valle, N.; Bertoldi, P. Promoting Energy Efficiency: Barriers, Societal Needs and Policies. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 9, 804091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mochi, P.; Pandya, K. The Impact of Social Nudge on System Cost & Revenue Optimization in Local Electricity Market. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Power Electronics and Energy (ICPEE), Bhubaneswar, India; 2023; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mochi, P.; Espegren, K.; Korpås, M. Short communication: Local electricity-hydrogen market. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2025, 116, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zheng, Y.; Cheng, P.; Li, Z.; Fan, C.; Wen, J.; Yu, Y.; Jia, L. Efficient removal of gaseous elemental mercury by Fe-UiO-66@BC composite adsorbent: Performance evaluation and mechanistic elucidation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2025, 372, 133463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06932 g001
Figure 1. Social nudge framework for energy conservation.
Figure 1. Social nudge framework for energy conservation.
Sustainability 17 06932 g001
Table 1. Recent work related to energy conservation and social nudges.
Table 1. Recent work related to energy conservation and social nudges.
Ref.RegionRelated WorkOutcomeSocial Nudge
[40]JapanThis field study aimed to test the effectiveness of energy efficiency guidance in the residential sector using a message pop-up feature in a mobile app. The app was distributed to approximately 1700 households that voluntarily enrolled in the program. Researchers conducted randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of message pop-ups containing energy efficiency advice. The advice included information about power usage and characteristics, as well as a social nudge approach.Energy-saving recommendations decreased power use by 1.3%.Information nudge: energy efficiency guidance via mobile app. Information was given on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis for five months.
[41]FinlandBy utilizing a clever overview and real month-to-month power utilization information, this study is aimed to analyze how aware people are about their power bills, costs, and expenses among a few Finnish families. Six inquiries were performed to examine whether more elevated levels of energy mindfulness are related to power investment funds. The web-based poll was sent to 244 individuals, of whom 184 completed it.As per the results, only 27.7% of the respondents accurately addressed the six inquiries. Also, 20.8% of total respondents agreed to receive information nudge to improve their power consumption.Information nudge: once, by email.
[42]GermanyThis research investigates the main finding of the Opower trials in the US—the cost-effectiveness of social resemblance Home Energy Reports (HER) as a climate policy tool. In a descriptive study, they demonstrate that, apart from Australia, lower energy usage levels and emissions levels of power production significantly limit the cost effectiveness potentials of HER. In a German case study, 11,630 residents were sent HER interventions.Due to the information from the HER reports, power usage was, on average, reduced by 0.7%, which is half of what was seen at the lower end of the 1.4–3.3 percent effect size range in the US.Information nudge: comparing HER reports between households. The information to the households was given monthly for six months.
[43]PolandThis study investigated the preferences for demand-side management (DSM) programs in the electricity consumption of 1000 households. A web-based survey, conducted by a polling agency, was used for data collection. The researchers assessed the willingness to embrace changes in power consumption, and also explored how the social analysis of households’ energy use affected their acceptance of DSM.A majority, i.e., 85.4% of respondents, agreed to perform DSM, but they wanted payment for altering their behavior.No nudging. Only a survey that supported financial incentives for behavioral change.
[44]CaliforniaHigh-frequency smart meter data was used to give occasional data information on electricity consumption to 237 individual loft units situated inside two different private buildings. The authors assessed the impact of information on the household’s individual way of behaving.Apartments receiving personal information on energy data decreased their power use throughout the experiment by roughly 6% more than units not receiving the treatment, compared to their average consumption before the intervention.Information nudge: weekly emails.
[45]ItalyThis study used an experiment to evaluate how environmental awareness influences the larger scale effects of information nudging that requires sustained efforts. The authors merged data on consumption with survey data of 4835 consumers in order to investigate probable origins of the messages’ diverse effects.The program typically results in a 0.9% decrease in electricity use. The authors offered hints that targeting particular sub-groups might increase the effectiveness of boosting environmental awareness.Information nudge: weekly emails.
[46]SwedenThis study used an experiment of 525 homes to determine the causal effects of social comparison on water and electricity use. The control and treatment groups were randomly assigned.The daily domestic power usage was reduced by 6.7% on average by the social comparison treatment, while the household’s water use remained unaffected.Information nudge: real-time display for 12 months.
[47]LithuaniaThis study performed an experiment on 2927 apartments to investigate how solely descriptive information, provided via online portals, may be a successful means of achieving energy savings in housing applications. The customized hourly energy demand data was presented on their individual online portals. The installation of new smart energy meters allowed for the availability of hourly energy data for the treatment group.The outcomes revealed that providing descriptive information decreased electricity usage by 8.6%.Information nudge: information on own hourly energy consumption data via a web portal.
[48]ItalyAuthors examined the impact of integrating financial reward with social nudges using a structured online experiment. Participants optimized their virtual electricity use on a simulated washing machine in a novel incentive-compatible electricity saving assignment suggested by the authors. A total of 566 participants took part in the study.Electricity saving of 0.148% by the nudge approach and 0.156% electricity saving by the combined approach (nudge and reward) was achieved for the washing machine simulation. Nudging on virtual study.
[49]MonacoIn this work, the authors investigated the relation between social nudge and the household’s environmental awareness. Data from 77 families were gathered and divided into four groups. Ex-ante survey questions included the socio-demographics of the home, ecological dedication and considerations, power usage, heating system, and curtailing practices. The difference in average energy consumption was noticed in the range of 7% to 31% among the groups.Information nudging by email for six months.
[50]FinlandThis research included peer comparisons and energy-saving advice while concentrating on nudging and home power consumption. A total of 528 families received emails with energy-saving advice for lowering winter electricity usage. Researchers looked at the relationship between power use and nudge effectiveness.The key finding is the possibility that households that are more engaged in monitoring their power use may experience lower energy use. During the test period, an energy-saving nudge lowered the energy consumption by 10%.Information nudge: social comparison treatment, and energy-saving advice. Information was given by monthly emails.
[51]JapanThis study is a large-scale randomized experiment of 62,400 homes, investigating the behavioral characteristics of energy-use feedback programs. The work includes social comparison-based home energy reports (HER), and categorization based on peer comparison. The authors used a randomized controlled experiment to analyze data from 62400 homes. There were two different sorts of home energy reports: one with hourly energy use comparisons and the other with yearly comparisons of monthly energy consumption.The social comparison of HER reports with hourly data to HER with monthly data showed 1.4% lower energy consumption, which is 0.8% higher than the results obtained by historic comparison.Information nugde: social comparison treatment through HER reports by monthly emails.
[52]Middle EastThe authors conducted a large-scale field study including around 200,000 families in the Middle East, sending each family periodic messages on their water and power usage. The research was focused on finding whether giving such information on the usage of the two resources jointly may result in decreases in both sectors, as use of this strategy to encourage resource savings spreads.For this social nudge, there was a reduction in electricity use of about 1.2%, keeping water utilization unaffected.Information nudge: monthly emails.
[53]PortugalAn empirical experiment was conducted for a system with 20 customers to assess the power exchange cost for local participants. The study incorporated the behavioral interventions for energy conservation and the adoption of renewable energy sources. The model followed a simulation-based study for the local electricity market.Considering a 3% to 5% electricity saving, a cost savings of 5.60% to 19.26% was obtained.Results from a simulation tool.
[54]ChinaThe study conducted a survey among rural residents to assess their willingness to adjust energy use behaviors in response to three virtual electricity pricing scenarios: Peak-valley rate (PVR), Photovoltaic systems (PVS) and original flat rate (OFR). A multi-group analysis was conducted to identify factors influencing residents’ willingness to adjust energy consumption, utilizing an extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) framework incorporating social capital and policy variables.The study revealed varying preferences among rural residents, with 45.22% choosing PVR, 22.89% opting for PVS, and 31.89% selecting OFR. Attitudes significantly influenced residents’ willingness to adjust washing machine usage time, while social network presence affected attitude and perceived behavioral control for certain scenarios. Policies and regulations notably impacted the willingness of residents selecting scenario PVS to adjust energy use.No nudge. Investigating price incentives for DSM.
[55]GermanyThe study conducted a field experiment on resource conservation, specifically focusing on the everyday activity of showering in a student dormitory, known for its energy and water intensity. With 351 participants, two interventions were implemented. The interventions targeted biases arising from imperfect information and limited attention. The experiment involved a three-month duration and tested the effects of each intervention alone and in combination.The findings revealed a remarkable complementarity between the two interventions. While each intervention individually had limited effectiveness in inducing conservation, the combined implementation yielded significant conservation effects. Information nudge: daily/monthly information on energy use and real-time feedback, given via email.
[56]KuwaitThis study investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on energy literacy and conservation behavior in academic buildings in Kuwait. Employing a mixed-methods approach, it combines quantitative surveys with qualitative data collection methods such as questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews. The research included 158 engineering students, 67 faculty members, and 52 administrative staff, totaling 277 participants. Education, awareness, personal motivation, values, religiosity, and culture were identified as crucial factors influencing energy literacy and conservation behaviors.The study found that COVID-19 had a significant impact on participants’ attitudes, intentions, and behavior related to energy conservation in academic buildings in Kuwait. Specifically, the student group experienced a significant increase in the relationship between their intentions and behavior, while the faculty group exhibited a strong correlation between intention and behavior. No nudge. Survey of impact of COVID-19 on energy literacy.
[57]EuropeThe study investigates the motivation behind employee energy conservation and assesses the impact of an IoT-enabled gamified intervention in three workplaces across Europe. It aims to unravel individual energy-saving behavior factors and understand their influence on organizational energy conservation. Through multiple regression analysis, the study evaluates the predictive ability of various factors, including self-determination, personal norms, and organizational profiles, on energy-related behavioral outcomes at work.Findings from the study reveal significant insight into energy-saving behavior and the effectiveness of the gamified intervention. The intervention led to a statistically significant increase in participants’ intention to conserve electricity at work with a moderate effect size. Additionally, participants reported a positive change in their personal energy-saving habits with large effect size. The intervention resulted in a conservatively estimated energy saving of 6413 kWh during the intervention period, equivalent to 12.99% compared to baseline consumption.Gamified nudge: personal feedback through an IoT device in the office.
[58]ChinaThis study investigated the effectiveness of social norm interventions in promoting sustainable behaviors in the context of energy conservation. The research involved a field experiment conducted in university dormitories, with 584 students randomly assigned to control and treatment groups. These groups received social norm information varying in terms of group identification. Data collection included daily electricity meter readings before and after the intervention. Exclusion criteria were applied to participants reporting events that could significantly impact energy usage, resulting in a final sample size of 1027 individuals from 603 rooms.The results of the study indicate that social norm information about a high identification group led to an 11% reduction in energy consumption, highlighting the importance of group identification in the efficacy of social norms interventions. The findings suggest that identification is a crucial factor in effectiveness for promoting energy-conservation behavior.Information nudge: daily text message for 18 days.
[59]GhanaThe study investigates the relationship between energy literacy (EL), attitude towards energy, personal energy value, and energy-savings behavior (ESB) within the context of a lower middle-income country, specifically focusing on hydro-electricity power in Ghana. A survey-based questionnaire was administered to 250 professional workers in Ghana to collect data.The study found that energy literacy has a positive effect on energy-saving behavior, with attitude towards energy and personal energy value significantly mediating this relationship. Specifically, cognitive skills and affective outcomes of energy literacy were identified as significant predictors of personal energy value and attitude towards energy.No nudge. Survey only.
[60]GermanyA field experiment was conducted with 111 households equipped with rooftop photovoltaics to test the effectiveness of three sequentially applied behavioral nudges (feedback, benchmark and default) delivered through digital tools. The experiment employed a control group design, baseline measurements and high-frequency smart meter data to assess the causal effects of each intervention on increasing self-consumption.The study revealed that while feedback and benchmark interventions resulted in a 3–4% in self-consumption, the default intervention led to a substantial 16% increase for active participants. Notably, households with controllable EVs showed stronger effects than those without.Information nudge: Information (feedback, benchmark, or default) provided through digital tools, i.e., web portal and smart charging app.
[61]CaliforniaThe paper investigates the consumption and conservation behaviors of residents in low-income housing in Southern California through a questionnaire-based survey conducted across four housing facilities. It explores factors such as energy burden, satisfaction with building services, and drivers of conservation behaviors among low-income households. Additionally, the study identifies potential intervention strategies aimed at reducing utility bills and improving residents’ quality of life, including educational programs and PV installation.The findings reveal a strong inclination towards energy and water conservation, with 16% of respondents reporting a reduction in electricity bills compared to the preceding year, averaging a drop of 34 USD. No nudging: survey only.
[62]SwitzerlandIn this study, households in two Swiss neighborhoods (N = 177) participated in an energy conservation program. They were randomly assigned to receive either a concrete intervention or one including abstract environmental information. Six months later, households exposed to the abstract message paid significantly more attention to energy consumption, with 12–15% more energy saving compared to the group which received concrete information. Information nudge: comparing concrete and abstract information.
Information was given through a personal visit.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mochi, P.; Pandya, K.; Lindberg, K.B.; Korpås, M. Social Nudging for Sustainable Electricity Use: Behavioral Interventions in Energy Conservation Policy. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156932

AMA Style

Mochi P, Pandya K, Lindberg KB, Korpås M. Social Nudging for Sustainable Electricity Use: Behavioral Interventions in Energy Conservation Policy. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156932

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mochi, Pratik, Kartik Pandya, Karen Byskov Lindberg, and Magnus Korpås. 2025. "Social Nudging for Sustainable Electricity Use: Behavioral Interventions in Energy Conservation Policy" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156932

APA Style

Mochi, P., Pandya, K., Lindberg, K. B., & Korpås, M. (2025). Social Nudging for Sustainable Electricity Use: Behavioral Interventions in Energy Conservation Policy. Sustainability, 17(15), 6932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156932

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop