Full Document Text

                
Behavioural climate change mitigation options and their appropriate inclusion in quantitative longer term policy scenarios 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation 
Options and Their Appropriate Inclusion in 
Quantitative Longer Term Policy Scenarios 
Main Report 
Report
Delft, April 2012 
 
 
Author(s): 
Dr. Jasper Faber, Arno Schroten, Dr. Mart Bles, Dr. Maartje Sevenster,  
Dr. Agnieszka Markowska, Martine Smit (CE Delft) 
Dr. Clemens Rohde, Dr. Elisabeth Dütschke, Dr. Jonathan Köhler,  
Michaela Gigli (Fraunhofer ISI) 
Karin Zimmermann, Rafat Soboh, Jonathan van ’t Riet (LEI) 

 
2 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Publication Data 
Bibliographical data: 
Dr. Jasper Faber, Arno Schroten, Dr. Mart Bles, Dr. Maartje Sevenster,  
Dr. Agnieszka Markowska, Martine Smit (CE Delft) 
Dr. Clemens Rohde, Dr. Elisabeth Dütschke, Dr. Jonathan Köhler,  
Michaela Gigli (Fraunhofer ISI) 
Karin Zimmermann, Rafat Soboh, Jonathan van ’t Riet ( LEI) 
Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options and Their Appropriate Inclusion in Quantitative 
Longer Term Policy Scenarios 
Main Report 
 
Delft, CE Delft, April 2012 
 
Behaviour / Climate change / Mitigation / Model research / Analysis / Policy 
 
Publication code: 12.7316.05 
 
CE publications are available from www.cedelft.eu. 
 
Commissioned by: European Commission, DG Climate Action,  
contract number  070307/2010/576075/SER/A4. 
Further information on this study can be obtained from the contact person, Jasper Faber. 
 
 
© copyright, CE Delft, Delft 
 
 
 
CE Delft 
Committed to the Environment 
 
CE Delft is an independent research and consultancy organisation specialised in 
developing structural and innovative solutions to environmental problems. 
CE Delft’s solutions are characterised in being politically feasible, technologically 
sound, economically prudent and socially equitable. 

 
3 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Preface 
This is the final report under the contract Behavioural Climate Change 
Mitigation Options and Their Appropriate Inclusion in Quantitative Longer 
Term Policy Scenarios, European Commission, DG Climate Action contract 
070307/2010/576075/SER/A4. The study has been conducted by a consortium 
led by CE Delft comprising of Fraunhofer ISI and LEI. 
 
Next to this main report, four separate reports have been issued, to which this 
report references where appropriate: 
1. The Transport Domain Final Report. 
2. The Housing Domain Final Report. 
3. The Food Domain Final Report. 
4. A Technical Report on the appropriate inclusion of results of the analysis in 
model-based quantitative scenarios. 
 
Together, the five reports constitute the final delivery under the contract. 
 
Jasper Faber 
 
 

 
4 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  

 
5 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Contents 
Summary 7 
1 Introduction 11 
1.1 Policy context 11 
1.2 Objectives 11 
1.3 Scope of the study and selection of relevant behavioural domains 12 
1.4 Framework for analysis 13 
1.5 Key concepts, definitions and data sources 14 
1.6 Outline 19 
2 Mobility 21 
2.1 Overview of behavioural changes 21 
2.2 GHG abatement potential of selected behavioural changes 22 
2.3 Barriers and policies related to electric cars and plug in hybrids 25 
2.4 Barriers and policies related to small cars 28 
2.5 Barriers and policies related to a more fuel-efficient driving style 31 
2.6 Barriers and policies related to teleworking 33 
2.7 Barriers and policies related to virtual meetings 35 
2.8 Conclusion 36 
3 Housing 39 
3.1 Overview of behavioural changes 39 
3.2 GHG abatement potential of selected behavioural changes 40 
3.3 Barriers and policies related to domestic energy saving behaviour 42 
3.4 Conclusion 45 
4 Food and drink 47 
4.1 Overview of behavioural changes 47 
4.2 Impacts of selected behavioural changes on GHG emissions 48 
4.3 Barriers and policies related to vegetarian and reduced animal  
protein diet 50 
4.4 Barriers and policies related to healthy diet 51 
4.5 Conclusion 53 
5 Conclusions 55 
References 57 
 

 
6 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
 

 
7 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Summary 
Changes in behaviour of households and consumers can result in large 
reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU, both in the shorter 
and in the long term.  
 
This study has focused on emission reduction potentials not covered by the EU 
Emissions Trading System and identified 36 options for behavioural change in 
the mobility, housing and food domains that will, when realised, result in a 
decrease of GHG emissions. Of these options, 11 have been studied in detail. If 
implemented by all the households and/or consumers which can reasonably be 
expected to be able to do so, their impact on EU GHG emission mitigation 
potentials would range from 22 Mt CO
2
 in 2020 (a reduction of space heating 
temperature by 1°C) to more than 250 Mt CO
2
 in 2020 (a shift to a vegetarian 
diet). Table 1 provides an overview of the maximum realistic mitigation 
potential of the changes in 2020, 2030 and 2050. 
 
Table 1 Maximum realistic mitigation potential of behavioural changes, relative to PRIMES/GAINS 
 reference scenario projections 
Behavioural change 2020 2030 2050 
1a.  Buying and using an 
 electric car 
96-174 330-371 420-462 
1b. Buying and using an 
 plug-in hybrid 
56-113 198-286 251-354 
2. Buying and using a 
 smaller car 
80-96 74-88 71-84 
3.  Fuel efficient driving 
 style 
47 32 10 
4.  Teleworking 35-45 38-47 40-49 
5.  Virtual meetings 39 35 55 
6a.  Reduction of room 
 temperature by 1°C 
22 19 16 
6b. Reduction of room 
 temperature by 2°C 
45 38 32 
7.  Optimised thermostat 
 settings 
11 10 9 
8.  Optimised ventilation 
 behaviour 
43 42 <<42 
9.  Shift to a vegetarian 
 diet 
266 270 271 
10.  Reduction of animal 
 protein intake (one 
 animal protein-free 
 day per week) 
50 50 50 
11.  Shift to a healthy diet 200 203 204 
Note:  The maximum realistic mitigation potential is defined as the reduction in GHG emissions 
 achieved when the option is adopted by the largest number of actors possible, taking into 
 account realistic and structural constraints, and where possible indirect effects and 
rebound effects.  
 
For each of the selected behavioural changes, barriers have been identified 
that inhibit their implementation. Often, these barriers are specific to the 
change options, although a generalisation is possible per domain. Policies can 
overcome barriers to an extent. This study has also identified policies and for 

 
8 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
a selection of change options quantified the likely effects of policy packages 
aimed at overcoming barriers. 
 
In the transport domain, changes in car purchase and use behaviour are mainly 
held back by social and psychological barriers, such as preferences for 
conventional cars, challenges to mobility related lifestyles and the image of a 
car, although other types of barriers may also be relevant. In the case of 
electric vehicles, economic barriers are also important as these cars have high 
initial costs. Teleworking and virtual meetings are mainly held back by 
social/psychological (e.g. fear for social isolation and adverse impacts on 
careers) and institutional (lack of support from managers/organisations) 
barriers. 
 
A wide variety of policy instruments could be implemented to address the 
barriers related to the mobility related behavioural changes. In this study we 
assessed the effectiveness of specific policy packages for two behavioural 
changes in transport: buying and using smaller cars and teleworking. The 
policy package with regard to smaller cars consists of economic and regulative 
instruments supported by informational measures. The maximum abatement 
potential of this policy packages was estimated at 6-9% of the CO
2
 emissions 
per pkm. This would correspond to 24–35 Mt in 2050. It should be noted that 
these reduction potentials depend to a large extent on tax incentives, which 
would require unanimity amongst Member States to be implemented at an EU 
level, and whose effect may not be fully realised due to interactions with the 
existing CO
2
 and cars regulation. 
 
The policy package with respect to teleworking consists of a wide variety of 
measures, including economic, regulative, informational and procedural 
instruments. There is little empirical evidence to build upon in an assessment 
of the effectiveness of this package. Our estimate suggests that about a fifth 
of the maximum realistic mitigation potential can be achieved, which amounts 
to 7 – 9 Mt CO
2 
in 2020 and increases to 8 – 10 Mt CO
2 
in 2050. Note that these 
estimates have a large range of uncertainty. 
 
In the housing domain, the most important barriers towards residential energy 
saving related to use behaviour are limited cognition, as lack of knowledge and 
awareness about one´s own energy consumption. 
 
To address the barriers a policy package consisting of informational and 
regulative instruments as well as subsidies and energy taxes has been defined. 
The empirical evidence on the effectiveness of policies is limited, and there is 
no evidence on the effectiveness of packages. Extrapolation from a few case 
studies suggests that reductions up to a quarter of the maximum potential are 
achievable in the short run, increasing to about a third after a few decades. 
For a reduction in room temperature of 1°C, this corresponds to a reduction in 
emissions of 19 Mt CO
2 
in 2020, increasing to 22 Mt CO
2 
in 2050. 
 
In the food domain, the most important barriers are a lack of knowledge on 
the environmental or health impacts of food products and the strong cultural 
norms that affect dietary choices. Moreover, diets have a strong habitual 
component. 
 
To address the barriers, policy packages have been developed for a shift 
towards a more healthy diet and for a shift towards a diet with a reduced 
animal protein intake. The former could be based on much more empirical 
evidence with regards to the effectiveness of policy instruments. A policy 
package comprising of taxes, school-based intervention and health labelling 

 
9 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
could reduce the gap between the current diet and a healthy diet by 22% in 
2020, increasing to 28% in 2050, resulting in a decrease of life cycle emissions 
of circa 44 Mt CO
2
e in 2020, increasing to 56 Mt CO
2
e in 2050. Of these 
emissions, about one sixth is emitted from outside the EU. The impact of a 
policy package aimed at reducing animal protein consumption is much smaller, 
although this could be an underestimation because of lack of empirical data. 
While labelling is clearly within the scope of EU policy, school based 
interventions could potentially be introduced at a national level. Tax 
incentives would require unanimity amongst Member States to be implemented 
at an EU level. 
 
 

 
10 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
 
 
 
 

 
11 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
1 Introduction 
1.1 Policy context 
The EU’s overarching climate policy goal is to keep the global temperature 
increase below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. The Low Carbon 
Economy Roadmap (COM(2011) 112 final) shows that a transition towards a 
competitive low carbon economy means that the EU should prepare for 
reductions in its domestic emissions by 80% by 2050 compared to 1990. The 
Transport White Paper (COM(2011) 144 final) sets out how the transport 
system can reduce its emissions by 60% in the same period. In the shorter 
term, as complement to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and its 
decreasing emission cap, the Effort Sharing Decision requires EU Member 
States to reduce non-ETS emissions by 10% in 2020 relative to 2005. 
 
The current models for quantitative assessments of climate policies are 
implicitly or explicitly focused on technical mitigation measures and on 
behavioural changes induced by price based instruments. From these models, 
it is clear that there is a considerable potential to reduce emissions, both in 
the sectors covered by the EU Emission Trading System and in the non-ETS 
sectors. However, they also show that reaching ambitious targets in some non-
ETS sector by conventional means may become quite costly. 
 
An emerging body of literature shows that changes in consumption patterns 
can achieve considerable reductions in emissions at relatively low costs. This 
body of literature focuses on the emission reduction potential of behavioural 
changes, associated costs, and barriers to these changes and policy 
instruments to overcome these barriers. Many of these studies are case studies 
or qualitative assessments, and hence the results are not yet translated into 
scenarios or policy assessment models. 
 
The Low Carbon Economy Roadmap and the Transport White Paper both also 
acknowledge that behavioural changes may be needed to reach the emissions 
targets or that the targets may be reached at lower costs of behavioural 
change would occur (see also the accompanying Impact Assessments SEC(2011) 
288 final and SEC(2011) 358 final). 
 
Because of the importance of behavioural changes, this study assesses their 
impacts on GHG emissions, focusing on domains not covered by the emission 
reduction incentives of the EU ETS. It also analyses which barriers exist to 
behavioural changes, whether policies can help overcoming these barriers and 
if so, to which extent.  
1.2 Objectives 
This study aims to contribute both to policy development and to policy 
evaluation. For the first aim, it analyses how policies can be used to overcome 
barriers to behavioural change. For the second, it analyses how models 
currently used in Impact Assessments can be amended to include behavioural 
change options and related policies. 
 

 
12 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Specifically, the study has three objectives: 
1. To assess and demonstrate the GHG emission reduction potential of 
changes in behaviour and consumption patterns. 
2. To analyse policy options for the further development of community 
policies and measures inducing changes in behaviour and consumption 
patterns. And 
3. To identify the linkages with other technical and economic variables in 
such a way that it can be used in modelling and scenario development. 
1.3 Scope of the study and selection of relevant behavioural domains 
Many aspects of behaviour have an impact on GHG emissions. This study is 
mainly concerned with behaviour of households and consumers. The scope of 
the study includes non-ETS emissions only. This is particularly relevant for 
behavioural choices regarding electricity use, which are excluded from the 
analysis of this report. 
 
Many of the mitigation options have an impact on emissions outside the EU. 
GHG are emitted in petroleum extraction and in growing fodder crops, for 
example. These emissions are not allocated to the EU in the UNFCCC reporting 
mechanism. However, they are clearly related to consumption in the EU.  
hence, this report takes them into account. In the food domain, where they 
are most significant, we report both total emissions associated with 
consumption and an estimate of EU emissions. 
 
A large number of studies have assessed the relative contributions of consumer 
behaviour to environmental sustainability and GHG emissions. For example: 
− Nemry et al. (2002) find that the most important categories of behaviour 
are ‘passenger transport’ (33% of total impact of products), ‘interior 
climate’ (31%), ‘building structure’ (11%). 
− Labouze et al. (2003) find that the most important categories of behaviour 
are ‘personal cars’ (17%), ‘space heating – domestic’ (16%), ‘building 
occupancy – commercial’ (12%), ‘transport of goods (road, rail, water)’ 
(10%), ‘domestic appliances’ (8%). 
− Nijdam and Wilting (2003) find that the most important categories of 
behaviour are ‘non-animal based food’ (12%), ‘animal based food’ (10%), 
‘heating’ (9%), ‘mobility for leisure’ (8%), ‘commuting, private transport’ 
(8%). 
− Moll et al. (2004) find that the most important categories of behaviour are 
‘electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply’ (16%),’food products and 
beverages’ (9%), ‘motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers’ (8%), 
‘construction’ (7%). 
− Weidema et al. (2005) find that the most important categories of 
behaviour are ‘dwellings and heating’ (7.7%), ‘car purchase and driving’, 
(6.0%), ‘meat purchase’ (3.4%), ‘tourist expenditures’ (3.7%). 
− Tukker et al. (2006) find ‘food and drink’ (29%), ‘transport’ (18%), 
‘household equipment and maintenance’ (16%), ‘restaurants and hotels’ 
(9%). 
 
Taken in combination, the results of the studies reviewed are strikingly robust 
when it comes to climate impacts. In the studies that included them 
systematically, food and drink, mobility and housing are consistently the most 
important areas. Some studies also find high emissions in the domains of 
tourism and waste. It is worth to note however that in the tourism category, 
the major share of the climate impact is related to transport (especially air 
transport, see e.g. Gössling et al. 2010) while the problem of waste is at least 

 
13 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
to some extent covered in the food category and is already quite well tackled 
by policies. Therefore, in our report we decided to focus on the three main 
areas as identified in Tukker et al. (2006), namely on ‘Food and drink’, 
‘Housing’ and ‘Mobility’. 
1.4 Framework for analysis 
The aim of the project is to assess the GHG emission reduction potential of 
changes in behaviour and consumption patterns, to analyse policy options that 
induce changes in behaviour and consumption patterns and to identify the 
linkages with other technical and economic variables in such a way that it can 
be used in modelling and scenario development. The basic framework for 
analysis is presented in Figure 1: behavioural changes can result in changes in 
GHG emissions per unit of activity. Depending on the activity level, they may 
also translate in changes in absolute emissions. While behaviour changes 
constantly, the change options considered in this report may not occur 
spontaneously. Often, incentives are needed to induce behavioural change, 
which may be provided by policies. 
 
Figure 1 Framework for analysis 
Policy
Behavioural 
change
Change in 
absolute GHG 
emissions
Change in GHG 
emissions per 
unit of activity
Barrier
 
 
 
For each of the three selected domains (mobility, housing and food and drink), 
this project identifies behavioural change options reported in the relevant 
literature. For each option, it broadly assesses the mitigation potential. 
 
In each domain, three to four behavioural change options are selected for 
further analysis. For these options, the mitigation potential is quantified and 
the barriers for these options and policies addressing these barriers through a 
literature review.  
 
After a second selection, the study constructs effective policy packages for a 
selected set of behavioural change options, quantifies their impacts on 
behavioural change and provides a quantitative estimate of the impact of 
behavioural changes on GHG emissions. This is presented in Figure 2. 
 

 
14 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Figure 2 Overview of steps 
Policy
Behavioural 
change
Change in 
absolute GHG 
emissions
Change in GHG 
emissions per 
unit of activity
Barrier
Identificatio
n
Quantificatio
n
Identificatio
n
Quantificatio
n
Identificatio
n
Quantificatio
n
Policy
Behavioural 
change
Change in 
absolute GHG 
emissions
Change in GHG 
emissions per 
unit of activity
Barrier
Identificatio
n
Quantificatio
n
Identificatio
n
Quantificatio
n
Identificatio
n
Quantificatio
n
Policy
Behavioural 
change
Change in 
absolute GHG 
emissions
Change in GHG 
emissions per 
unit of activity
Barrier
Identification
Quantification
Identification
Quantification
Identification
Quantification
 
 
1.5 Key concepts, definitions and data sources 
1.5.1 Maximum realistic mitigation potential 
The impact of behavioural changes on GHG emissions is reported in terms of 
the maximum realistic mitigation potential. The maximum realistic mitigation 
potential is defined as the reduction in GHG emissions achieved when the 
option is adopted by the largest number of actors possible, taking into account 
realistic and structural constraints, indirect effects and rebound effects. 
Diffusion patterns are considered to be behavioural and are not taken into 
account in the calculation of the maximum realistic mitigation potential. 
 
The assessment of the maximum realistic mitigation potential is carried out in 
six consecutive steps: 
1. Gather the data on the option from the literature. 
2. Review the literature based on expertise in the consortium and establish 
GHG reduction potential of the option, relative to the BAU projection,  
in 2020, 2030 and 2050. 
3. Identify and quantify structural and technical constraints that limit the 
number of actors by which the option can be adopted. 
4. Identify and quantify indirect effects on GHG emissions. 
5. Identify and quantify possible rebound effects. 
6. Transpose the GHG emission reduction to the EU, taking into account the 
constraints and to the extent possible indirect and rebound effects. 
 
A graphical presentation of the method is given in Figure 3. 
 

 
15 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Figure 3 Method to assess mitigation potential 
Maximum
technical
abatement
potential
Including
constraints
Including
indirect effects
Including
rebound effects
Maximum
realistic
abatement
potential
 
 
 
The BAU emissions and other relevant parameters of the BAU scenario for 
2020, 2030 and 2050 have been taken from the PRIMES-GAINS EU-27 reference 
scenario 2010 as e.g. described in European Commission (2011e): Roadmap for 
moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050, Impact Assessment, 
SEC(2011)288. 
1.5.2 Categories of behaviour 
From an environmental-psychological point of view, two categories of 
behaviour are relevant in this study: habitual actions and intended behaviour. 
Habitual action comprises frequently repeated actions that are not the result 
of a planning process and are often only consciously controlled the first times 
they are carried out. After people have internalised these actions, they are 
steered by habits and routines (“do without thinking”, Barr, 2005, p. 1426). 
Examples of habitual action are heating and ventilation behaviour, driving 
styles, diets, et cetera. This type of behaviour is referred to in the literature 
also as “curtailment behaviour” (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Black et al., 1985; 
Gardner and Stern, 2002), “habitual action” (Barr, 2005), “direct energy 
saving choices” (Stern, 2002) or ”practices“ (Curtis et al., 1984). Importantly, 
changing habitual action does not require significant investments such as 
structural changes of a building’s interior or exterior or the purchase of cars or 
equipment. Instead, daily routines and living habits, or what we may call 
lifestyles, have to be altered. People may perceive this as a reduction of 
comfort, which introduces social barriers that need to be overcome.  
 
Intended behaviour, on the other hand, comprises conscious behaviour 
involving planning and decision making. Examples of intended behaviour are 
technology choices. Technology choices involve behavioural decisions related 
to the purchase of technologies and appliances. Typical measures include 
purchases of cars, insulation of roofs or facades, purchase of energy efficient 
electric appliances, installation of solar thermal heating systems or the 
replacement of old windows. It is evident that for this kind of actions, 
conscious and deliberate reflexions act as prerequisite. Those decisions can 
often take a rather long time and are perceived as complex. This type of 
behaviour is also referred to as “efficiency behaviour” (Abrahamse et al. 2005; 
Gardner and Stern, 2002), “consumption oriented behaviour” (Barr et al., 
2005), “technology choices” (Stern, 1992), “conserving actions”  

 
16 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
(Dillman et al., 1983), “purchase related behaviour” (Van Raaij and Verhallen, 
1983), or “energy efficiency choices” (Black et al., 1985). Influencing 
technology choices may require substantial investments and in the residential 
sector often even structurally engineered alterations of the building. 
 
A distinction of the above mentioned behavioural categories is crucial for 
further research, given that customised practices and routines on the one 
hand, and one-shot actions in terms of strategic investment decisions  
on the other, must obviously be determined by different psychological,  
socio-demographical and structural factors (Frey et al., 1987). The focus of 
this study is on curtailment behaviour. 
1.5.3 Behavioural change 
Behaviour and behavioural change is often analysed using the Theory of 
Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1991; 2006), or its expansions. This 
theoretic framework is an efficient tool to identify crucial cognitions that 
underlie people's behaviour. In a nutshell, the theory states that a behavioural 
intention can lead to a manifestation of a specific behavioural reaction, while 
the intention itself is influenced by personal attitudes and beliefs toward the 
behaviour in question (see Figure 4). These attitudes reflect the degree to 
which performance of the behaviour is positively or negatively valued. 
Specifically, the evaluation of each outcome contributes to the attitude in 
direct proportion to the person’s subjective probability that the behaviour 
produces the outcome in question. A barrier occurs if the subjective 
probability that the behaviour will produce a given outcome is low. The model 
also incorporates normative beliefs, which are products of perceived social 
pressure towards the execution of the behaviour. 
 
According to TPB, even when a strong intention exists to execute a behaviour, 
if factors are perceived that may impede performance, perceived behavioural 
control may prevent the behaviour from taking place. This phenomenon is 
usually referred to as the value-action gap, or attitude-behavioural gap: Even 
though studies often find that residents place a high value on environmental 
issues, their behaviour regarding daily energy use is very inefficient, or they do 
not purchase environmentally friendly products and services. One reason for 
this gap is that environmental awareness is just one attitude influencing 
behaviour, and that others such as comfort-seeking and price awareness may 
play a stronger role. 
 
Figure 4 Theory of planned behaviour ‘TPB’ 
 
Source: Ajzen, 2006. 
 
 

 
17 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
As its name suggest, the theory of planned behaviour does not directly explain 
habitual actions, the first category of behaviour described in Section 1.5.2. 
However, a change from a certain habit into another habit often requires at 
least a period of planned behaviour. Hence, the theory can be used to analyse 
barriers both for habitual action and for technology choices.  
1.5.4 Barriers of behavioural changes 
Barriers to behavioural changes can be understood in terms of the theory of 
planned behaviour, as factors that prevent an intention from being developed 
or as factors that prevent an intention turning into a behaviour. At the same 
time, a large body of literature exists that deals with barriers to behavioural 
change. An often used distinction is that between individual barriers and 
societal barriers. Based on a review of the literature, we come to the 
following categorisation (see Table 2): 
− Individual (internal) barriers 
Although many consumer decisions are not made in a rationalised way, 
analysing underlying motives for certain choices helps to find barriers for 
behavioural change. Consumers make trade offs between advantages and 
disadvantages of certain lifestyles and product choices. These advantages 
and disadvantages may be related to costs, comfort, health, convenience, 
safety, quality, etc. The trade-offs made result from various factors which 
could act as (individual) barriers for behavioural change: 
• Social and psychological barriers: attitude, interest, beliefs, feelings 
and self efficacy/confidence. 
• Knowledge-based barriers: limitations in knowledge of the subject, or 
the ease with which it can be found.  
• Unconscious behaviour: routines and habits. 
• Demographic factors: age, education, gender, income. 
 
− Societal (external) barriers 
• Infrastructural barriers: lack of necessary infrastructure, e.g. people 
are less motivated to take the bike if no good structure of cycling 
lanes exists.  
• Cultural barriers: social norms and traditions, e.g. the custom to eat 
meat every day.  
• Economic barriers: people’s ability to invest in environmentally 
friendly technologies may be limited by financial constraints. 
• Institutional barriers: law, politics and organisational structures. For 
example, the organisational structure of a firm may be a barrier for 
working at home. 
 

 
18 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 2 Overview of barriers to behavioural changes 
Barrier category Examples Factor in Theory of 
Planned Behaviour 
Individual (internal) barriers 
− No environmental 
concern 
− Political attitudes 
− No interest in energy-
related topics 
− Emotions (e.g. health-
related) 
Attitude toward behavioural 
change 
− Risk-assessment: no 
threat perceived 
Attitude, subjective norm 
Social and psychological barriers 
− Attribution of 
responsibility to others  
− Low behavioural control 
Perceived behavioural 
control 
− Lack of adequate 
information 
− Overestimation of own 
energy savings compared 
to others 
Attitude toward behavioural 
change 
Knowledge-based barriers 
− Limited knowledge of 
consumers on their own 
space heating costs 
− Believe that no 
significant savings will 
occur 
Perceived behavioural 
control 
Unconscious behaviour − Strong habits and 
routines (e.g. no habit 
to turn down heating) 
No planned behaviour 
Demographic factors − Low income 
− Younger age 
− Gender differences 
Attitude toward behavioural 
change 
Subjective norm 
Perceived behavioural 
control 
Societal (external) barriers 
Structural and physical barriers − No possibility to adjust 
room temperature, 
install thermostat, open 
the windows 
Perceived behavioural 
control 
Cultural barriers − Comfort is a priority 
− No social norms towards 
energy saving 
− No social ‘competition’ 
or comparison 
− Social image not related 
to energy saving 
Subjective norm 
Economic barriers − Decreasing energy prices Attitude toward behavioural 
change 
Perceived behavioural 
control 
Institutional barriers − Lack of direct 
consumption feedback 
− Lack of incentives 
− Heating costs included 
in monthly rent 
− Political barriers 
Perceived behavioural 
control 

 
19 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Most of the barriers identified above can be understood in terms of the theory 
of planned behaviour, either as factors related to the development of an 
intention or as a factor related to turning an intention into action (see  
Figure 5). 
 
Figure 5 Different categories of barriers, divided between individual and societal barriers 
Societal
Economic
barriers
Cultural 
barriers
Institutional
barriers
Individual barriers
Individual
Infrastructural
barriers
 
 
1.5.5 Methodology for the quantification of the impacts of policies 
The impacts of policies on behaviour and GHG emissions are quantified using 
published data including: 
− (ex-ante) evaluation studies on the behavioural effects of the specific 
instrument (packages) implemented on a European scale, a national or 
local scale; 
− elasticity estimates, especially for economic instruments; 
− known effects (e.g. from evaluation studies) of the implementation of the 
instrument(s) in contiguous (behavioural) areas; 
− in the absence of other sources, in some cases expert judgement was 
used.  
 
In case of a combination of instruments the relation between the instruments 
and the impact of this relationship on the effects of the instruments has been 
considered.  
1.6 Outline 
The next chapters discuss, per domain, the behavioural change options 
identified in the literature, a quantitative assessment of the maximum 
realistic mitigation potential of selected options, barriers to these options, 
policy instruments with the potential to address these options and, for a 
selection of options, quantitative effects of policy packages on GHG emissions 
and government expenditures. Chapter 2 presents the study results for the 
Transport domain, Chapter 3 for Housing and Chapter 4 for the Food domain. 
Note that a more in-depth presentation of the results is provided in separate 
final reports for each of these domains. Chapter 5 concludes. 

 
20 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  

 
21 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
2 Mobility 
2.1 Overview of behavioural changes 
Four general classes of behavioural mitigation options in transport can be 
distinguished:  
− Using more fuel efficient cars; people could reduce the climate impact of 
their mobility behaviour by using more fuel-efficient cars. E.g. they could 
choose for a smaller car or an electric car. Note that this study has 
excluded changes in purchase behaviour which do not significantly affect 
the way the product could be used. Therefore, behavioural changes like 
buying a more fuel efficient car (e.g. due to a more efficient engine) from 
the same size or buying cars running on alternative fuels (e.g. biofuels, 
natural gas) are not taken into account.  
− Making use of the car in a more efficient way; by using passenger cars in a 
more efficient way GHG emission reductions of road transport could be 
realised. Efficiency measures that could be applied are: applying a more 
fuel efficient driving style, car pooling, sharing cars, etc.  
− Using more sustainable modes; a shift to travel modes with relatively low 
GHG emissions per passenger kilometres (e.g. walking, cycling, public 
transport) could contribute to decarbonisation of transport. Other 
behavioural measures would be to participate in car-sharing projects or 
make use of collective transport programs organised by employers for 
commuting trips.  
− Reducing travel distance; people could reduce the number of kilometres 
they travel in lots of ways: working at home, living near to the job, less 
holidays (to far-away countries), combining various trips, etc.  
 
In the literature review, measures from all four classes are identified (see 
Table 3). However, not all possible behavioural measures are assessed in the 
literature. Especially behavioural mitigation measures related to less transport 
demand are poorly studied: no studies on living near to the job, less holiday 
travels, combining various trips, etc. are found.  
 
It should be mentioned that behavioural mitigation measures with regard to air 
travel are not included, since aviation will be included in the European ETS 
system in 2012. Additionally, mitigation measures associated to freight 
transport are not taken into account, since the relation between consumer 
choices and climate impacts of freight transport is indirect and will be covered 
by the discussion of behavioural mitigation measures in other domains, e.g. 
Food and drink.  

 
22 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 3 Behavioural mobility measures  
Behavioural change category Behavioural change option 
Buying and using smaller cars Using more fuel efficient cars 
Buying and using electric or plug-in hybrids 
Applying a fuel efficient driving style 
Increasing the occupancy rate of the car  
(incl. car pooling) 
Sharing a car 
Making use of the car 
in a more efficient way 
Extending the life time of the car 
Travel by train instead of by car 
Travel by local public transport instead of by car 
Travel by bicycle instead of by car 
Using more sustainable modes  
of transport 
Travel by foot instead of by car 
Teleworking 
Apply visual meetings 
Reducing travel distance 
Make (more) use of e-commerce 
2.2 GHG abatement potential of selected behavioural changes 
From the list of options reported in Section 2.1, four change options were 
selected for further analysis. The selection was based on data availability, 
mitigation potential and policy relevance. The selected change options are: 
1. Buying and using an electric car or plug-in hybrid. 
2. Buying and using a smaller car. 
3. Applying a fuel-efficient driving style. 
4. Making use of ICT to decrease business travel: teleworking and applying 
virtual meetings. 
 
The maximum realistic mitigation potential of the four car based behavioural 
change options are presented in Table 4. Buying and using electric cars has the 
highest mitigation potential (particularly on the long term), mainly because of 
the large maximum technical potential and the lack of non-behavioural 
constraints on the longer term. However, it should be mentioned that the 
mitigation potential of this behavioural change is probably an overestimation, 
since the impact of large-scale shift to electric vehicles on the power supply 
sector (a possible shift to electricity generated by fossil fuels) is not taken into 
account. The mitigation potential for the use of plug-in hybrids is smaller than 
for electric vehicles because they use fossil fuel. Buying and using smaller cars 
and applying a fuel efficient driving style have a smaller maximum realistic 
mitigation potential, amongst others because they lower the cost of driving 
significantly and therefore have a rebound effect. The potential of applying a 
fuel efficient driving style is projected to decrease over time due to the 
deployment of advanced vehicle technologies, which automate eco-driving 
techniques. 
 

 
23 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 4  Maximum realistic CO
2
 mitigation potential of car based behavioural change options 
Behavioural change 2020 2030 2050 
Buying and using an electric 
car: per pkm 
19-34% 64-72% 82-90% 
Buying and using an electric 
car: Absolute CO
2
 mitigation 
potential (Mton) 
96-174 330-371 420-462 
Buying and using an plug-in 
hybrid: per pkm 
11-22% 39-56% 49-69% 
Buying and using an plug-in 
hybrid: Absolute CO
2
 
mitigation potential (Mton) 
56-113 198-286 251-354 
Buying and using a smaller 
car: per pkm 
17-20% 18-21% 18-21% 
Buying and using a smaller 
car: Absolute CO
2
 mitigation 
potential (Mton) 
80-96 74-88 71-84 
Fuel efficient driving style: 
per pkm 
10% 7% 2% 
Fuel efficient driving style: 
Absolute CO
2
 mitigation 
potential (Mton) 
47 32 10 
 
 
Table 5 shows the maximum realistic CO
2
 mitigation potential of teleworking 
and virtual meetings. The maximum realistic mitigation potential of 
teleworking is equal to ca. 5 to 8% of the total CO
2
 emissions of passenger 
transport in the EU-27. The maximum realistic mitigation potential of virtual 
meetings equals 6 to 9%. It should be noted that the uncertainty in these 
estimations are quite large, especially since not all rebound effects could be 
quantified. Moreover, in case the rebound effects were quantified, the 
uncertainties in these quantifications are rather large.  
 
Table 5  Maximum realistic CO
2
 mitigation potential of teleworking and virtual meetings 
Behavioural change 2020 2030 2050 
Teleworking: Relative reduction 
in CO
2
 emissions of total 
passenger transport  
5-6% 6-7% 6-8% 
Teleworking: Absolute CO
2
 
mitigation potential (Mton) 
35-45 38-47 40-49 
Virtual meetings: Relative 
reduction in CO
2
 emissions of 
total passenger transport  
6% 6% 9% 
Virtual meetings: Absolute CO
2
 
mitigation potential (Mton) 
39 35 55 
 
 
Figure 6 and Figure 7 show, by way of example, how the maximum realistic 
mitigation potentials has been calculated for two behavioural change options, 
viz. buying and using electric cars and teleworking. 
 
The composition of the maximum realistic CO
2
 reduction potential of buying 
and using electric cars for 2020 is shown in Figure 6. The main part of the 
maximum reduction potential could be allocated to the direct CO
2
 effects of 
buying and using electric cars. This effect results in 59% lower CO
2
 emissions. 

 
24 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
The indirect CO
2
 effects (CO
2
 emission reduction related to fuel production 
and vehicle production) contribute another 6% to the reduction potential. 
Some of this reduction potential may be outside the EU. Due to a lack of 
information it was not possible to estimate the impact of potential rebound 
effects. 
 
The theoretical maximum potential of teleworking is equal to 15% of the total 
CO
2
 emissions of passenger transport. This includes lower transport emissions, 
lower emissions associated with heating offices and higher emissions 
associated with heating homes. However, since about half of the jobs in the 
EU need to be executed in a certain place (a factory, shop, etc.) and since 
employees that need not be in a specific location still need to meet colleagues 
and/or clients, the theoretical maximum potential is reduced by 60%. The 
reduction potential is slightly extended by the indirect CO
2
 effects (less  
CO
2
 emissions due to lower fuel production), ca. 1%. Of the resulting reduction 
potential about 20% is undone by people using their car for other purpose 
instead of commuting. So the final maximum CO
2
 mitigation potential  
in 2020 is estimated at 5 to 6%. Notice, that this potential is probably an  
over-estimation, since we were not able to quantify all rebound effects. A 
more detailed discussion and references to studies on which this assessment is 
based can be found in the Transport domain report. 
 
Figure 6 Composition of the maximum realistic mitigation potential of buying and using electric cars in 
 2020 
 
 
 

 
25 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Figure 7 Composition of the maximum realistic mitigation potential of teleworking in 2020 
75
80
85
90
95
100
BAU Theoretical
potential
Incl.
constraints
Incl.
indirect
effects
Incl.
rebound
effects
R
e
l
a
tive
 c
h
an
ge
 
in
 
CO
2 
e
m
ission
s 
of 
p
a
sse
n
g
e
r
 tr
an
sp
or
t (
B
AU
=
100)
 
 
2.3 Barriers and policies related to electric cars and plug in hybrids 
Table 6 presents an overview of the barriers related to buying an electric car 
or a plug-in hybrid. The main barriers are at both the individual as societal 
level.  
 
At the individual level consumers rather negative attitude to electric and plug-
in hybrid cars are a main barrier. Electric cars are perceived as less attractive 
than conventional cars on many dimensions: performances (e.g. range), 
reliability, costs, image, etc. Additionally, electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles 
may challenge mobility-related habits of people, forcing people to change 
their lifestyles. For example, due to the long recharging time the use of 
electric cars is perceived to be less flexible than the use of conventional cars.  
 
At the societal level structural barriers (the poor availability of charging 
infrastructure and the limited number of electric and hybrid vehicle models) 
and economic barriers (high purchase costs) are the main barriers for an 
uptake of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.  
 

 
26 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 6 Overview of barriers for buying and using an electric car or plug-in hybrid 
Barrier category Examples 
Individual (internal) barriers 
Social and psychological barriers − Rather negative attitude of consumers to electric cars 
due to: worse performances compared to conventional 
cars, doubts on reliability, safety issues, rather high 
costs, soft image  
− Electric cars challenge the mobility-related habits of 
people 
Knowledge-based barriers − Knowledge of consumers of electric and plug-in hybrid 
cars is rather poor 
Societal (external) barriers 
Structural and physical barriers − Insufficient network of charging infrastructure  
− Limited availability of electric/plug-in hybrid cars 
− Not enough second-hand cars 
Cultural barriers − Uncommon in peer group 
Economic barriers − High initial investment costs 
− Uncertainties about the long-term value of the car 
− Perceived high maintenance costs 
Institutional barriers − Perceived reluctance of automobile dealers (and 
manufacturers) to actually sell electric and plug-in 
hybrid cars 
− Lack of government support 
 
 
Table 7 presents an overview of policy instruments that can in principle be 
used to overcome the barriers to the purchase and use of electric and  
plug-in hybrid cars. Each of these instruments, as well as their advantages and 
disadvantages, are discussed in more detail in the transport domain report. 
 

 
27 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 7  Overview of policy instruments which can be used to stimulate the purchase of electric and 
 plug-in hybrid cars 
Policy category  Examples 
Regulative instruments − Quota for (relative) number of electric/plug-in hybrid 
cars to be sold by manufacturers 
− Urban access restriction schemes focused on electric and 
plug-in hybrid cars 
− Use of parking policies to stimulate the purchase of 
electric and plug-in hybrid cars 
− Developing common plug and charging standards 
− Prescription of smart charging infrastructure 
− Require investments in charging infrastructure 
− Beneficial treatment of electric and plug-in hybrid cars 
with regard to vehicle emissions standards 
Economic instruments − Differentiated vehicle taxes  
− Energy taxes 
− Differentiated road charges 
− Subsidies on purchases of electric vehicles or the 
installation of charging points 
− Subsidies for the development of electric vehicles  
(e.g. battery technology) 
Communication   − Information campaigns 
− CO
2
/energy labelling 
− Providing comparisons of electric and plug-in hybrid cars 
with conventional cars 
− Demonstration projects 
Direct governmental expenditures − Public investments in charging infrastructure 
− Green procurement: investing in electric or plug-in 
hybrid vehicles 
Procedural instruments − Voluntary agreements with organisations to use electric 
or plug-in hybrid cars 
 
 
While it is clear that behavioural changes are held back by several barriers, 
and hence a mix of policy instruments may be needed to effectively induce the 
behavioural change, not all policy instruments listed in Table 6 can be 
combined. Some of the main interaction effects are: 
− Various instruments meant to stimulate the investments in charging 
infrastructure are discussed (e.g. subsidies, regulations, governmental 
investments). Applying these instruments at the same time may lead to an 
overlap and hence negative interaction effects. However, given the 
enormous investments needed CE et al. (2011) recommend to use a mix of 
these instruments.  
− Regulative instruments, like electric vehicle friendly parking policies, and 
economic instruments like fuel taxes may reinforce each other, since  
they provide consumers both a comparable incentive. However, if the 
regulative instruments are applied on a large scale (not only in some city 
centres, but in whole regions or even countries), these instruments may 
largely overlap; in that case they would negatively affect each other.  

 
28 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
− Economic instruments like differentiated vehicle taxes, fuel taxes and road 
charges may reinforce each other, but they could also overlap each other. 
If a combination of these instruments provides a financial incentive 
sufficiently large to change the consumer’s behaviour, these instruments 
reinforce each other. However, if the needed financial incentive could also 
be realised by just one of these instruments the implementation of the 
other instruments is redundant and result in distortions. Therefore 
combining these measures in a policy package should be carefully 
considered.  
− The various instruments related to communication will probably reinforce 
some of the other policy instruments. People with more knowledge on 
electric cars are probably more willing to buy one if fuel taxes increase or 
city centres are only available with electric cars.  
− Investing in electric or plug-in hybrid cars for governmental agencies may, 
if visible to people, serve as a good example and may stimulate consumers 
to buy these kinds of cars themselves.  
2.4 Barriers and policies related to small cars 
An overview of the barriers related to the purchase of smaller cars is shown  
in Table 8. Most of the main barriers are individual ones, indicating that 
consumers are often able to buy a smaller car, but that they are not always 
willing to do so.  
 
Table 8 Overview of barriers for buying a smaller car 
Barrier category Examples 
Individual (internal) barriers  
Social and psychological barriers − Consumers prefer a large car over a small one, since 
large cars are more practical and safer. Additionally, for 
some consumers large cars have preferable symbolic/ 
affective advantages (e.g. better image) 
− Fuel consumption/environmental performances are no 
top priority of car buyers  
− Small cars may challenge the mobility-related habits of 
people 
Knowledge-based barriers − Limited knowledge of consumers on their own fuel costs 
Structural and physical barriers − Limited number of small car models available on the 
market 
Cultural barriers − Pressure from peers to buy a large car 
Institutional barriers − Reluctance of car dealers to sell smaller cars 
 
 
Several demographic factors may influence the resistance of people to buy a 
smaller car: 
− Household size; one- or two-person households will be more likely to buy a 
small car than households with children (Choo and Mokhtarian, 2004; 
Kitamura et al., 2000), since for the latter the internal space of the car 
will be more of a key factor in the car purchase decision.  
− Gender; women are expected to be more likely to buy a small car than 
men (Choo and Moktharian, 2004). Women are less concerned to the status 
of car and, in addition, are more concerned on the environmental 
performance of the car (Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson, 2006).  

 
29 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
− Educational level; it may be expected that higher educated people are 
more likely to convince smaller cars (Choo and Moktharian, 2004). 
According to Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson (2006) these people are 
less concerned on the status of their car. Additionally, environmental 
concern is often expected to be higher for high-educated people than for 
low-educated people.  
− Place of residence; people living in the city are more willing to buy a 
smaller car than people living on the countryside. Since the latter group 
will use the car more often, they prefer a more comfortable car than 
citizens. Additionally, small cars are more practical in the dense urban 
traffic.  
 
As we saw before, the main barrier to buying smaller cars is consumers’ 
attitude to these types of cars. To change this attitude will take some time. 
For example, it will take some time to convince people that they don’t need 
to change their lifestyle if they buy a smaller car. Also the symbolic values 
related to small and large cars need time to change. Therefore, it will require 
long-term policy instruments to stimulate the purchase of smaller cars on a 
large scale. 
 
Table 9 shows a list of policy instruments that can be used to overcome 
barriers to the purchase and use of smaller cars. Each of these instruments, as 
well as their advantages and disadvantages, are discussed in more detail in the 
transport domain report. 
 
Table 9 Overview of policy instruments to stimulate the purchase of smaller cars 
Policy category  Examples 
Regulative instruments − Regulate maximal size/weight of cars 
Economic instruments − Differentiated purchase taxes  
− Fuel taxes or inclusion in EU ETS 
− Differentiated registration taxes 
− Differentiated road charges 
Communication   − CO
2
/energy labels for passenger cars 
− Providing information via independent websites or 
guides 
− Providing information via sales persons 
− Mass communication  
Direct governmental expenditures − Green procurement: only buying small cars 
Procedural instruments − Voluntary agreements with companies to buy small 
company cars 
 
 
If the various policies are implemented in policy packages some interaction 
effects affecting the effectiveness of the individual instruments may occur. 
Some of the main interaction effects are: 
− As for electric and plug-in hybrid cars, the various economic instruments 
(differentiated vehicle taxes, fuel taxes, road charges) may both reinforce 
and overlap each other, depending on the design of these instruments (see 
also Section 2.3). Therefore, combining these instruments in a policy 
package should be carefully considered.  

 
30 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
− The various instruments related to communication will probably reinforce 
some of the other policy instruments. People with more knowledge on the 
impact of fuel efficiency on total cost of ownership are probably more 
willing to buy a smaller car than people without this knowledge.  
− Investing in smaller cars for governmental agencies may, if visible to 
people, serve as a good example and may stimulate consumers to buy 
these kinds of cars themselves.  
 
Based on the analysis of barriers and policy instruments we also composed for 
further examination (in close agreement with the Commission) a policy 
package for stimulating the purchase and use of smaller cars. This policy 
package consists of the following five policies:  
− a CO
2
 differentiated purchase tax; 
− a CO
2
 differentiated company car tax; 
− a (CO
2
 differentiated) increase of fuel taxes; 
− spatial policies favourable to smaller cars, like parking charges 
differentiated to the size of the car and restricted access to city  
centres for large cars; 
− a supportive communication strategy, consisting of CO
2
/energy labels and 
the provision of data via an independent website.  
 
This policy package provides strong (financial and regulative) incentives for 
consumers to change their car purchase and use behaviour. In this way the 
main psychological barriers to buying smaller cars (see above) could be 
addressed.  
 
A rough estimation of the effectiveness (in terms of CO
2
 reductions) of the 
entire policy package
1
 is presented in Table 10. Both the CO
2
 impacts of the 
individual policy instruments as the CO
2
 impact of the entire policy package is 
presented. We were not able to quantify the CO
2
 impact of spatial policies 
favourable to small cars. These estimates do not take account of interaction 
effects with the existing EU CO
2
 and cars regulation which currently sets 
emission limits for 2015 and 2020. These interactions could significantly 
reduce the effect of purchase or company car taxes on CO2 reductions. 
 
Table 10  Rough estimation of the relative CO
2
 reductions of passenger cars of both individual 
 instruments and policy packages for stimulating the purchase and use of smaller cars  
Policy (package) CO
2
 reduction due to 
smaller cars 
Total CO
2
 reduction 
CO
2
 differentiated purchase tax 3-4% 6-10% 
CO
2
 differentiated company car tax 2-3% 4-7% 
10% fuel tax increase  0.5% 3-4% 
20% fuel tax increase 1% 6-8% 
Spatial policies favourable to  
small cars 
? ? 
Supportive communication strategy Not significant Not significant 
Policy package 1 (incl. fuel tax 
increase of 10%) 
At least 6-8% At least 13-21% 
Policy package 2 (incl. fuel tax 
increase of 20%) 
At least 6-9% At least 16-25% 
Note: Due to possible interaction effects, the CO
2
 impacts of individual policy instruments do 
not necessarily add up to the CO
2
 impacts of the various policy packages.  
                                                 
1
  Two policy packages are distinguished, differing in the fuel tax increase assumed: 10 and 20% 
respectively. 

 
31 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
 
 
Implementation of the proposed policy package could result in the longer term 
in 6-8% (or 6-9% in case a fuel tax increase of 20% instead of 10% is introduced) 
lower CO
2
 emissions of passenger cars due to the purchase and use of smaller 
cars. By implementing a supportive communication strategy the actual CO
2
 
reduction could shift to the upper bound of the presented bandwidth, although 
the same caveats apply.  
 
Many of the policy instruments applied in this policy package do have broader 
CO
2
 impacts than only affecting the purchase and use of smaller impacts  
(e.g. a fuel tax provides also incentives to reduce the demand for transport). If 
these broader impacts are also taken into account, the reduction potential 
increases by a factor 2.5 (see the third column of Table 10).  
 
It should be noted that these reductions depend to a large extent to tax 
incentives, which would require unanimity amongst Member States to be 
implemented at an EU level. 
2.5 Barriers and policies related to a more fuel-efficient driving style 
An overview of the identified barriers for applying a more fuel-efficient driving 
style is shown in Table 11. Most of the main barriers are individual (internal) 
barriers, indicating that people perceive that they should be able to apply a 
more fuel efficient driving style, but (that some of them) are not willing to do 
that or do not know how to do that.  
 
Table 11 Overview of barriers for applying a more fuel efficient driving style 
Barrier category Examples 
Individual (internal) barriers 
Social and psychological barriers − Some drivers like to apply an aggressive (non fuel-
efficient) driving style 
− Driving behaviour is habitual and therefore difficult to 
change 
Knowledge-based barriers − Gathering information on fuel-efficient driving is 
perceived difficult 
− Many drivers already think they drive well and do not 
realise the potential for improvement  
− Drivers do not know exactly how to apply the tips and 
tricks for fuel-efficient driving 
Societal (external) barriers 
Structural and physical barriers − The application of a fuel-efficient driving style may be 
hindered by traffic conditions 
− Some car types are more suitable to apply a  
fuel-efficient driving style 
Cultural barriers − Peer group pressure to apply an aggressive (non  
fuel-efficient driving style)  
 
 
Table 12 presents an overview of possible policy instruments to overcome 
barriers to applying a more fuel-efficient driving style. Each of these 
instruments, as well as their advantages and disadvantages, are discussed in 
more detail in the Transport domain report. 
 

 
32 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 12 Overview of policy instruments to stimulate the application of a more fuel-efficient driving 
 style 
Policy category  Examples 
Regulative instruments − Obligation to include eco-driving in driving lessons 
− Obligation to equip vehicles with ICT that facilitates 
eco-driving techniques 
Economic instruments − Subsidising eco-driving courses 
− Subsidising tools which assist a fuel-efficient driving 
style 
− Fuel tax or inclusion of transport in ETS 
Communication  − Mass campaigns  
− Targeted information campaigns (e.g. driving schools, 
fleet managers) 
− Training of driving instructors  
Direct governmental expenditures − Eco-driving programs at governmental agencies 
Procedural instruments − Voluntary agreements with companies to apply  
eco-driving programmes (e.g. leasing companies) 
− Voluntary agreement with car manufacturers or dealers 
to provide a voucher for a eco-driving course to buyers 
of a new car 
 
 
If the various policies are implemented in policy packages some interaction 
effects affecting the effectiveness of the individual instruments may occur. 
The main interaction effects are: 
− Following an eco-driving course (as specific measure, as part of the driving 
lessons, as part of an eco-driving program at governmental agencies or as 
part of a voluntary agreement) and increased fuel taxes (or inclusion of 
transport in ETS) will reinforce each other. The increase in fuel taxes 
provides car users an incentive to actually apply the fuel-efficient driving 
style learnt during the course.  
− Providing information (via mass or targeted campaigns) to consumers on 
applying a more fuel-efficient driving style may have a positive interaction 
with the economic instruments. If people are aware of fuel-efficient 
driving, they are more willing to follow a subsidised eco-driving course. 
Additionally, awareness of fuel-efficient driving (tricks) increase the 
probability that people would apply such a driving style if fuel prices 
increase due to increased fuel taxes.  
− Providing information may also be a good way to reinforce the driving style 
learnt during an eco-driving course. Therefore, positive interaction effects 
may exist between providing information and following an eco-driving 
course (also if included in the regular driving lessons).  
− Eco-driving programs at government agencies may, if visible, stimulate car 
users to follow an eco-driving course themselves or apply the driving style 
learnt during an eco-driving course.  
− The obligation to include eco-driving in regular driving lessons may on the 
long-term negatively affect the effectiveness of providing specific eco-
driving courses to car users. The effectiveness of an eco-driving course will 
be lower if the fuel-efficient driving style has already been learnt in the 
past. However, the eco-driving course may also act as a ‘reminder’ and 
hence reinforce the effectiveness of the inclusion of eco-driving in the 
regular driving lessons.  
 

 
33 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
2.6 Barriers and policies related to teleworking 
In Table 13 an overview of the barriers to teleworking is given. The main 
barriers for teleworking are the social/psychological and institutional ones.  
 
The social/psychological barriers refer to people’s perceptions of the 
drawbacks of teleworking: social isolation, tendency for overworking, adverse 
impacts on career, mixing up private and professional life, etc.  
 
The institutional barriers are related to the resistance of organisations and 
direct managers to allow their employees to work at home. Reasons for this 
resistance are concerns on the productivity of employees, security issues, 
adverse impacts on teambuilding, etc.  
 
Table 13 Overview of barriers to teleworking 
Barrier category Examples 
Individual (internal) barriers  
Social and psychological barriers People may prefer to work not at home (permanently) due 
to:  
− Fear for social isolation 
− Tendency for overwork 
− Fear for adverse impacts on employees’ careers 
− Stress due to more autonomy 
− Unwanted mixing of work and private life 
Cultural barriers − Social norm against teleworking  
Institutional barriers − Lack of support from organisation and direct manager 
 
 
Table 14 presents an overview of possible policy instruments to overcome 
barriers to teleworking. Each of these instruments, as well as their advantages 
and disadvantages, are discussed in more detail in the Transport domain 
report. 
 
Table 14 Overview of policy instruments to stimulate teleworking 
Policy category  Examples 
Regulative instruments − Developing a regulatory framework concerning the 
employment conditions of teleworkers 
− Developing a regulatory framework enabling and 
stimulating investments in broadband IT infrastructure 
Economic instruments − Subsidies for necessary (ICT) equipment 
− Subsidies for home energy bills 
− Tax credits for companies reducing their employees’ 
commuting kilometres due to teleworking 
− Innovation subsidies 
− Fuel taxes and road use charges 
Communication  − Communicate best practices of teleworking to 
employees and employers 
− Communicate the direct link between GHG reduction 
and teleworking 
− Providing training assistance 
Direct governmental expenditures − Providing civil agents the possibility to work at home 
Procedural instruments − Voluntary agreements with companies to stimulate and 
facilitate teleworking 
 

 
34 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
In a policy package aimed at stimulating teleworking, policies may interact, 
i.e. either be synergetic or counterproductive. Therefore we briefly discuss 
the main interaction effects between the various individual policy instruments: 
− The various regulative instruments are just meant to provide an 
environment in which teleworking could be applied more easily. Therefore 
these instruments only provide positive interaction effects with other 
instruments. For example, higher fuel taxes will result in higher 
teleworking rates if there is a favourable regulatory framework on the 
employment conditions of teleworkers.  
− Also the instruments related to communication reinforce most of the other 
instruments. Voluntary agreements would, for example, be more effective 
if employees of organisations taking part in these agreements are aware of 
the individual benefits associated with teleworking.  
− As for some of the other behavioural changes, some of the economic 
instruments (affecting the same agents) may both reinforce and overlap 
each other. Therefore, combining these instruments (e.g. increasing fuel 
taxes and subsidies for home energy bills) in a policy package should be 
considered carefully.  
− Providing civil agents the opportunity to work at home may, if visible to 
other workers, serve as a good example to other organisations and 
employees and hence may reinforce the various other instruments. 
 
Finally, we composed for further investigation (in close cooperation with the 
Commission) the following policy package to stimulate teleworking:  
− an increase of fuel taxes; 
− development of a regulatory framework concerning employment conditions 
of teleworkers; 
− support provision of (broadband) IT infrastructure and equipment; 
− EU communication campaign; 
− voluntary agreements with private organisations; 
− stimulating teleworking at governmental institutions. 
 
The policies in this package address both the psychological barriers related to 
employees’ doubts on some aspects of teleworking, like social isolation and 
adverse impacts on one’s career (e.g. by providing a set of clear employment 
conditions for teleworkers) and the institutional barriers related to the lack of 
support of managers/organisations (by arranging voluntary agreements and 
providing information on the advantages of teleworking for organisations).  
 
The effectiveness of the policy package to stimulate teleworking could not be 
estimated in quantitative terms due to a lack of information on the impacts of 
the individual instruments in the literature. However, despite the fact that the 
policy package contains particularly soft instruments, we expect that it could 
be effective in stimulating teleworking. The main reason for this is that  
tele-working provides a lot of benefits for both employers and employees, and 
hence by removing some of the main barriers a significant shift to teleworking 
may be realised. Since some of the main barriers could be effectively over-
come by the proposed soft measures (e.g. fear for adverse impacts on one’s 
career by providing a clear set of employment conditions for teleworkers) the 
selected policy package could significantly affect the amount of teleworking. 
However, it should also be mentioned that some of the barriers, like fear for 
social isolation, will become very tough if teleworking is applied on a large 
scale (e.g. four days a week) and hence will probably not be tackled by the 
policies proposed.  

 
35 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
2.7 Barriers and policies related to virtual meetings 
Table 15 presents an overview of barriers to applying virtual meetings. The 
main barriers exist at both the individual as societal level.  
 
At the individual level, people’s perception that virtual meetings are a poor 
substitute for physical meetings is a main barrier. Especially for meetings 
meant to exchange non-tangible values like trust or interest, virtual meetings 
are often perceived as inappropriate.  
 
At the societal level, the main barrier refers to the institutional context. 
Organisations/managers resistance to allow their employees applying virtual 
meeting is an important barrier for this behavioural change.  
 
Table 15 Overview of barriers to applying virtual meetings 
Barrier category Examples 
Individual (internal) barriers 
Social and psychological barriers − Virtual meetings are in some cases perceived as poor 
substitutes for physical meetings 
− People prefer to meet people in real 
− Business trips are seen as advantages of a job 
Knowledge-based barriers − Lack of knowledge how to use sophisticated equipment  
− Lack of knowledge how to apply virtual meeting in an 
efficient way 
Societal (external) barriers 
Structural and physical barriers − Availability but especially quality of equipment is not 
always sufficient 
Cultural barriers − Cultural resistance to change current way of organising 
meetings 
Economic barriers − Relatively high cost for sophisticated videoconferencing 
equipment, especially for small and medium sized 
organisations 
Institutional barriers − Applying virtual meetings is not supported by the 
organisation and direct managers 
 
 
Table 16 presents an overview of possible policy instruments to overcome 
barriers to virtual meetings. Each of these instruments, as well as their 
advantages and disadvantages, are discussed in more detail in the Transport 
domain report. 
 

 
36 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 16 Overview of policy instruments to stimulate the application of virtual meetings 
Policy category  Examples 
Regulative instruments − Developing a regulatory framework enabling and 
stimulating investments in broadband IT infrastructure 
Economic instruments − Subsidies for virtual meeting equipment 
− Tax credits for companies reducing their employees’ 
commuting kilometres due to teleworking 
− Innovation subsidies 
− Fuel taxes, road use charges, charges for rail and air 
transport 
Communication  − Communicate best practices to employees and 
employers 
− Communicate the direct link between GHG reduction 
and teleworking 
− Providing training assistance 
Direct governmental expenditures − Providing civil agents the possibility to apply virtual 
meetings 
Procedural instruments − Voluntary agreements with companies to apply virtual 
meetings 
 
 
If the various policies are implemented in policy packages some interaction 
effects affecting the effectiveness of the individual instruments may occur. 
The main interaction effects are: 
− The stimulation of the improvement of ICT infrastructure (regulative 
instrument) is meant to provide an environment in which virtual meetings 
could be applied more easily. Therefore this instrument only provides 
positive interaction effects with other instruments.  
− As for teleworking, the instruments related to communication reinforce 
most of the other instruments.  
− As for teleworking, some of the economic instruments (affecting the same 
agents) may both reinforce and overlap each other. Therefore, combining 
these instruments in a policy package should be considered carefully.  
− Providing civil agents the opportunity to apply virtual meetings may, if 
visible to other workers, serve as a good example to other organisations 
and employees and hence may reinforce the various other instruments.   
2.8 Conclusion 
Behavioural changes in passenger transport may lead to lower GHG emissions 
in the EU. Changing purchase and use behaviour of cars could maximally result 
in a reduction of 10-68% per passenger kilometre in 2020, increasing to 90% in 
2050. This would equate a reduction of 47-349 Mt CO
2
 in 2020, relative to the 
PRIMES/GAINS reference scenario projection, and up to 462 Mt in 2050. 
However, these figures assume that the maximum realistic abatement 
potential is reached, meaning, for example, that all consumers who in 
principle can use an electric vehicle will do so. 
 
Reducing transport demand by increased teleworking and applying virtual 
meetings could maximally result in a reduction of 10-11% of GHG emissions 
associated with passenger transport in 2020, increasing to 15-17% in 2050. 
Relative to the PRIMES/GAINS reference projection, the reduction could be  
74-84 Mt CO
2
 in 2020 and 95-104 Mt in 2050.  
 

 
37 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Currently, several barriers inhibit these behavioural changes. Changes in car 
purchase and use behaviour are mainly held back by social and psychological 
barriers, such as preferences for conventional cars, challenges to mobility 
related lifestyles and the image of a car, although other types of barriers may 
also be relevant. In the case of electric vehicles, economic barriers are also 
important as these cars have high initial costs. Teleworking and virtual 
meetings are mainly held back by social/psychological (e.g. fear for social 
isolation and adverse impacts on careers) and institutional (lack of support 
from managers/organisations) barriers. 
 
A wide variety of policy instruments could be implemented to address the 
barriers related to the mobility related behavioural changes. In this study we 
assessed the effectiveness of specific policy packages for two behavioural 
changes in transport: buying and using smaller cars and teleworking.  
 
The policy package with regard to smaller cars consists of economic and 
regulative instruments supported by informational measures. The longer term 
abatement potential of this policy package was estimated at 6-9% of the CO
2
 
emissions per pkm (24-35 Mt in 2050), although the extent to which this 
potential can be realised also depends on interactions with the CO
2
 and cars 
emission regulation. Full realisation would correspond to about 30 to 40% of 
the maximum realistic abatement potential.  
 
The policy package with respect to teleworking consists of a wide variety of 
measures, including economic, regulative, informational and procedural 
instruments. We estimate that this policy package results in about 6-12% less 
commuting travel and hence 1% less CO
2
 emissions of total passenger transport 
(7 Mt in 2020). This corresponds to about a sixth of the maximum realistic 
abatement potential. However, it should be mentioned that these figures are 
very rough estimates; since the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of 
policy instruments with respect to teleworking is very scarce, it was not 
possible to come up with a more reliable estimation. Therefore, the figures 
with respect to the effectiveness of policies stimulating teleworking should be 
considered carefully.  
 
 
 

 
38 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  

 
39 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
3 Housing 
3.1 Overview of behavioural changes 
It is widely acknowledged in the literature that user behaviour significantly 
influences energy use in the housing sector. However, the extent to which 
variations in energy use are due to variations in user behaviour is still largely 
unknown. Thus, also quantitative analyses of the potential of behavioural 
change measures can hardly be found in the literature. 
 
In the residential sector energy is primarily used for space heating and cooling, 
water heating, lighting and electric appliances. If the focus of analyses is 
directed to non-electricity space and water heating are the main domains for 
achieving consumption patterns that are sustainable with regard to climate 
change. Cooling, e.g. using air-conditioning, is an additional domain, 
especially for the warmer parts of the EU, that is gaining importance also in 
relation of the hotter climate to be expected in consequence of climate 
change. Research has found that energy demand for space heating is positively 
related to the age of the occupants (older households consuming more 
energy), household size, income and ownership (more energy used in rented 
dwellings). Energy use for heating has been estimated to vary by the factor of 
two depending on variations in user behaviour. 
 
From a theoretical point of view, behavioural measures in relation to energy 
use in households mainly comprise two categories: so called efficiency as well 
as curtailment behaviours. The first one include one-shot behaviours like the 
decision on and investment in equipment used, i.e. the energy source and the 
appliance for generating energy. Insofar as these behaviours do not require a 
continuing change in behaviour and are already more often covered by models,  
they are not considered in this study. The second category refers to repetitive 
and, once learned, usually habitual efforts to save energy by changes in 
everyday behaviour, i.e. the operation of appliances, preferred room 
temperatures, usage patterns with regard to opening windows, etc. Some of 
these behavioural measures imply a change of routines without changing 
lifestyle (e.g. optimised operation of heating installations without reducing the 
room temperature), others imply greater changes (e.g. reduced room 
temperature). 
 
Table 17 shows the results of a literature research for behavioural change 
options in the housing sector and in non-residential buildings. More 
information on each of these options, including references and fact-sheets, 
can be found in the housing domain report. 
 

 
40 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 17 Overview of behavioural change options in the housing sector 
Behavioural measure Related factsheets 
Housing 
Bundle of heating related behaviours including reducing 
room temperatures 
Abrahamse et al., 2007 
Combined effect of reducing room temperatures and 
ventilation rates 
Öko-Institut, 2000 
Reduced use of electric ventilation BC Hydro, 2007 
Reducing space heating temperature (lowering room 
temperature) 
BC Hydro, 2007; Bohunovsky et al., 
2010; Gardner and Stern, 2008; 
Guerra Santin et al., 2009 
Reducing heated space BC Hydro, 2007; Bohunovsky et al., 
2010; Gardner and Stern, 2008;  
Guerra Santin et al., 2009 
Reduced use of space heating BC Hydro, 2007; Bohunovsky et al., 
2010; Gardner and Stern, 2008;  
Guerra Santin et al., 2009 
Optimising thermostat settings of heating, leaving room 
temperatures at the same level 
Dietz et al. (2009);  
Gardner and Stern (2008) 
Optimising water heater settings Dietz et al. (2009);  
Gardner and Stern (2008) 
Optimised air-conditioning use BC Hydro, 2007; Dietz et al., 2009 
Reduced hot water use BC Hydro, 2007 
Optimised water heater settings Dietz et al. (2009);  
Gardner and Stern (2008) 
Replacement of electrical heating/electrical water 
heaters 
Bürger, 2009; Dietz et al. (2009); 
Huenecke et al. (2010) 
Non-residential buildings 
Collective temperature adjustment - 
Keeping windows and/or doors closed Broc et al., 2006; Matthies and 
Hansmeier, 2010; Basarir and 
Overend, 2010 
Individual climate regulation Matthies and Hansmeier, 2010 
Turning off lights/computers (electricity conservation) Junilla, 2008 
3.2 GHG abatement potential of selected behavioural changes 
From the list of options reported in Section 3.1, three change options were 
selected for further analysis. The selection was based on data availability, 
mitigation potential and policy relevance. The selected change options are: 
− Reducing space heating temperature (= lowering room temperature). 
− Optimising thermostat settings of heating (e.g. leaving room temperatures 
at the same level, reducing temperature at night/if absent). And 
− Optimising ventilation behaviour. 
 
For each of these options, this section will present the maximum realistic GHG 
mitigation potential. 
 

 
41 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
For reduced space heating temperature, the maximum realistic emission 
reduction potential is the product of: 
− The relative reduction potential per dwelling (which is a function of 
heating degree days, heating days and the reduction in room 
temperature).  
− The level of insulation and the efficiency of heating systems. 
− The share of dwellings without the technical options to reduce the room 
temperature. 
− The share of dwellings with people with special needs concerning 
temperature levels. 
− The overall GHG emissions from space heating. 
 
The second and the third value are time-variant variables. Nevertheless, for 
the assessment of the reduction potential the actual values of 2010 are used. 
The effect of an ageing population in some countries is therefore neglected. 
For the EU the share of households with people with special needs (young 
children and elderly) is about 35%. It is estimated that 10% of the buildings do 
not have technical options to control room temperature. 
 
The potential decreases over time, for the overall emission of CO
2
 declines 
until 2050 due to better insulation of houses and improved heating systems. 
 
Table 18 Maximum realistic GHG mitigation potential of lowering room temperature 
 2020 2030 2050 
Reduction of maximum abatement potential (as % of total CO
2
 emissions) 
People with special needs 35% 35% 35% 
Technical constraints 10% 10% 10% 
Realistic maximum abatement potential (as Mt CO
2
) 
Reduction by 1°C 22 19 16 
Reduction by 2°C 45 38 32 
 
 
Table 19 shows the maximum realistic mitigation potential of optimising 
thermostat settings. It highly depends on the possibilities to implement the 
technical measures to enable users to control their room temperature variant 
over time. For dwellings with conventional space heating systems, the 
potential can be fully used, but technical boundary conditions may limit the 
behavioural change. The potential decreases over time, for the overall 
emission of CO
2
 declines until 2050 due to better insulation of houses and 
improved heating systems. 
 
Table 19 Maximum realistic GHG mitigation potential of optimising thermostat settings 
 2020 2030 2050 
Reduction of maximum abatement potential (as % of total CO
2
 emissions) 
People with special needs 35% 35% 35% 
Technical constraints 20% 15% 10% 
Realistic potential 52% 55% 59% 
Realistic maximum abatement potential (as Mt CO
2
) 
Absolute Potential 11 10 9 
 
 

 
42 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 20 shows the maximum realistic mitigation potential of optimising 
ventilation. The maximum realistic mitigation potential highly depends on the 
quality of the building stock. For the future development, more efficient 
houses will penetrate the market and therefore increase the (relative) effect 
of ventilation on the overall energy consumption. Nevertheless, if technically 
advanced systems for automated ventilation become more and more common, 
the effect of individual behaviour will decrease significantly. 
The theoretical reduction potential of the space heating energy demand 
depends on the composition of the building stock. This reduction mainly 
depends on the projected diffusion of ventilation technologies in the housing 
sector. If more advanced technologies would enter the market, the reduction 
potential would be lower. 
 
Table 20 Maximum realistic GHG mitigation potential of optimising ventilation  
 2020 2030 2050 
Reduction of maximum abatement potential (as % of total CO
2
 emissions) 
Share of passive houses with 
recuperative ventilation 
Not relevant Not relevant Relevant 
Realistic maximum abatement potential (as Mt CO
2
) 
Absolute Potential 43 42 <<42 
3.3 Barriers and policies related to domestic energy saving behaviour 
In this section we follow an integrated approach for the exploration and 
discussion of barriers and policy instruments. The three behavioural options at 
hand are interdependent in the sense, that they aid one another in order to 
reduce household heat energy consumption. Policy instruments are thus not 
identified per behavioural mitigation option, but for the combination of 
behaviours aiming at reducing thermal energy consumption at home. 
 
When considering energy saving behaviour on the household level, a distinction 
of curtailment and efficiency behaviours must be made, the latter addressing 
investments in usually high-cost efficiency technologies in buildings. The focus 
of the report at hand lies on curtailment behaviour, which is driven by daily 
habits and routines and manifests itself as part of people’s lifestyles: reducing 
space heating temperature; optimising thermostat settings; optimising 
ventilation behaviour. 
 
A categorisation of barriers according to a given framework was helpful for 
identifying common patterns and characteristics for the various behavioural 
mitigation options (Table 21). To the most important barriers towards 
residential energy saving belong limited cognition, as lack of knowledge and 
awareness about one´s own energy consumption. Furthermore, hindering 
factors can be worldviews that tend to preclude pro-environmental attitudes, 
comparisons with key other people (that usually act as a driver) or the 
attribution of responsibility to others, sunk energy costs, plugged-in 
behavioural routines and the lack of direct energy consumption feedback. 
Those barriers are usually strongly correlated to some demographic factors, 
e.g. low income and education or gender differences. 
 

 
43 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
It can be suggested that for several patterns (e.g. particular behavioural 
routines of different societal groups), specific policy instruments will be 
helpful; whereas for common patterns that were found to be existing among 
the public (e.g. lack of knowledge, behavioural concern, social norms, etc.) 
more general policy instruments may be preferred. As for diffusion patterns, 
governmental efforts are seen as a first step to act upon people’s resistance to 
change by means of different communication and awareness rising 
instruments. Packages of policies, including instruments like e.g. financial 
incentives or provision of consumer feedback, seem to be appropriate to 
tackle barriers towards household heating energy reduction. 
 
Table 21 Barriers to energy saving behaviour in the housing sector 
Barrier category Examples 
Individual (internal) barriers 
− No environmental concern 
− Emotions (e.g. health-related) 
− No interest in energy-related topics 
− Political attitudes 
− Risk-assessment: no threat perceived 
Psychological barriers 
− Attribution of responsibility to others  
− Low self-efficacy 
− Low behavioural control 
− Lack of adequate information 
− Overestimation of own energy savings compared to 
others 
Knowledge-based barriers 
− Limited knowledge of consumers on their own space 
heating costs 
− Believe that no significant savings will occur 
Unconscious behaviour − Strong habits and routines (e.g. no habit to turn 
down heating) 
Demographic factors − Low income 
− Younger age 
− Gender differences 
Societal (external) barriers 
Structural and physical barriers − No possibility to adjust room temperature, install 
thermostat, open the windows 
Cultural barriers − Comfort is a priority 
− No social norms towards energy saving; traditions 
− No social ‘competition’ or comparison 
− Social image not related to energy saving 
Economic barriers − Decreasing energy prices  
− Lack of incentives 
Institutional barriers − Lack of direct consumption feedback 
− Heating costs included in monthly rent 
− Incredibleness of experts and authorities 
− Political barriers 
 
 
Table 22 presents an overview of policy instruments that can in principle be 
used to overcome the barriers to energy saving behaviour in the housing 
sector. Each of these instruments, as well as their advantages and 
disadvantages, are discussed in more detail in the housing domain report. 
 

 
44 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 22 Policies addressing barriers to energy saving behaviour in the housing sector 
Policy category  Examples 
Regulative instruments − Mandatory heating energy billing at frequent intervals 
− More informative heating energy billing 
− Mandatory energy performance certificates with real 
display orientation 
− Obligation to include information in formal education 
Economic instruments − Higher energy prices 
− Taxation of high energy consumption 
− Subsidies e.g. on purchase of smart metering 
equipment or set-back thermometers 
− Incentives for energy efficient, adjustable heating 
infrastructure 
Communication   − Information campaigns (large scale; demonstration 
projects; informal advice networks; community progr.) 
− Communicate best practices  
− Communicate the direct link between GHG reduction 
and space heating consumption 
− Creating ICT-based energy efficiency evaluation tools 
Direct governmental 
expenditures 
− Public investments in infrastructure, like smart meters 
Procedural instruments − Voluntary agreements with companies, schools, etc.  
− Voluntary contracting agreements with ESCO’s  
 
 
To address the identified barriers a selection of appropriate policies has been 
defined. They cover all the instrument types mentioned above except from the 
procedural instruments (voluntary agreements might in single cases pertain to 
rendering energy bills more efficient or installing smart metering appliances, 
but they usually do not directly aim at end-users). 
 
Communication is crucial to achieve the targets; without, government 
expenditures in new technologies are without effect, for the technology itself 
does not change behaviour. Even higher energy prices as an economic 
instrument cannot be fully successful without having addressed the knowledge-
based and habitual barriers.  
 
An effective policy package therefore comprises a strong informational focus. 
The EU could be a role model by arranging wide-spread key campaigns and 
carry behavioural change messages to large samples of households; however 
nation- and especially region-wide initiatives play a major role due to their 
target-group approach. Mounting campaigns on all levels is therefore highly 
recommendable. Those communicative elements are best accompanied by 
regulatory incentives or subsidies for equipment such as smart meters which 
enhance user information as well as devices like electronic thermostats, which 
allow improved thermostat settings. 
 
The information gap can be filled by detailed billing including a benchmark of 
the individual energetic performance. 
 
Finally as an option, energy taxes can have a strong impetus on user 
behaviour. 

 
45 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
3.4 Conclusion 
Behavioural changes in housing may lead to lower GHG emissions in the EU. 
Changing room temperatures could maximally result in a reduction 45 Mt CO
2
 
in 2020, relative to the PRIMES/GAINS reference projection, and 32Mt in 2050, 
when houses will be better insulated and heating systems will have become 
more efficient. However, these figures assume that the maximum realistic 
abatement potential is reached, meaning, for example, that all consumers 
who in principle can lower their room temperature will do so. 
 
There are barriers currently withholding households to implement behavioural 
changes. The most important barriers towards residential energy saving are 
psychological ones, namely limited cognition, as lack of knowledge and 
awareness about one´s own energy consumption. 
 
To address those barriers, a policy package consisting of informational and 
regulative instruments as well as subsidies and raised energy prices has been 
defined. The impact of widespread informational policy instruments will result 
in a realisation of up to one third of the realistic potentials. The impact of 
financial Instruments on user behaviour is considered in the price sensitivity of 
the models. 
 
 

 
46 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  

 
47 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
4 Food and drink 
4.1 Overview of behavioural changes 
Behavioural change options that reduce GHG emissions fall into six categories 
(Table 23): 
1. Change to a vegetarian diet: various studies find that GHG emissions 
associated with meat are much higher than emissions associated with plant 
protein sources. Hence, a change to a vegetarian diet would reduce GHG 
emissions. 
2. Reduction of animal protein intake: dairy and egg have GHG emissions 
similar to meat. Hence, a reduction of animal protein intake would reduce 
GHG emissions. 
3. Healthy diet: fewer calories, more fruit and vegetables. EU citizens, on 
average, consume more than recommended by e.g. the World Health 
Organisation. Moreover, they consume fewer fruit and vegetables than 
recommended. Changing to a healthy diet would thus reduce the overall 
food consumption and could also reduce the consumption of animal 
products, thus lowering GHG emissions. 
4. Reducing food waste: food wastage can be divided into the category of 
unavoidable waste (unedible remains) and waste which could be avoided 
(throwing away expired food, leaving edible food on the plate). By 
reducing waste, the total food consumption is reduced and also are GHG 
emissions. 
5. A larger share of local and seasonal food, reducing food imports: a few 
literature sources pay attention to the fact that local and seasonal food 
has on average lower GHG emission intensity. Some vegetables grown in 
greenhouses and products which are transported over long distances 
require more energy input in their life cycle than locally produced and/or 
seasonal food.  
6. Reducing energy and fuel use: another set of options related to the food 
sector would be reducing energy and fuel use. Energy use related to food 
in households can be cut the most by using more energy-efficient cooling 
appliances and placing them in cool places such as a cellar. Fuel use can 
be reduced by more intensive use of the home delivery of groceries 
service. It is evident that products involving more transport, storage and 
cooling require more energy input and therefore, generate more  
GHG emissions. Likewise, food preparation methods may result in  
GHG emissions. 
 
Table 23 Overview of behavioural change options in the food domain 
Behavioural measure 
Change to a vegetarian diet 
Reduction of animal protein intake 
Healthy diet, less calories 
Reducing food waste 
More local and seasonal food, reducing import of food  
Reducing energy and fuel use during shopping, preparation and storage of food  
 
 

 
48 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
4.2 Impacts of selected behavioural changes on GHG emissions 
From the list of options reported in Section 4.1, three change options were 
selected for further analysis. The selection was based on data availability, 
mitigation potential and policy relevance. The selected change options are: 
− Vegetarian diet: no consumption of meat, fish or sea food. The  
calorie intake is constant, meat, fish and sea food are replaced by  
calorie-equivalent amounts of grains, legumes and vegetables. All other 
categories including dairy products and eggs remain unchanged. 
− Reducing all animal protein intake including dairy and eggs: one day 
without animal proteins. The consumption of meat, fish, sea food, dairy 
products and eggs is reduced by 14%. As in the vegetarian diet, the calorie 
intake is constant. Animal proteins are replaced by calorie-equivalent 
amounts of grains, legumes and vegetables. 
− Reducing intake to a healthy level (calories, overall protein): reducing 
daily intake to 2,500 kilocalories and eating 500 grams of fruits and 
vegetables, in line with WHO/FAO recommendations. This in turn limits the 
total fat to 30% of caloric intake and saturated fatty acids to 10%, reducing 
sugar intake to 10% of total caloric intake and limiting salt intake to a 
maximum of 5 grams per day. 
 
For each of these options, this section will present the maximum realistic  
GHG mitigation potential. This potential has been derived in a different way 
than in Section 1.5.1. The differences are: 
− Because there are few, if any, direct emissions associated with the 
consumption of different food items, life cycle emissions are taken into 
account. In case some of these emissions may occur from outside the EU, 
the estimated share of non-EU emissions is presented separately.  
− Because life cycle emissions are assessed, indirect effects are included and 
not reported separately.  
− There are no data on rebound effects of dietary choices within the food 
sector. Hence, they are ignored. 
− Because of lack of an agreed diet baseline, diets (in terms of kg/head) are 
assumed to remain constant. Hence, total emissions change with 
population only. 
 
The reduction potential of a vegetarian diet is larger than that of the other 
two diets, mainly because almost half of the emissions from the current diet 
are associated with meat consumption. Healthy eating results in a somewhat 
smaller reduction in emissions, while a 14% reduction in animal protein has the 
smallest abatement potential of the dietary changes considered (Figure 8). 
 

 
49 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Figure 8 Total climate impact in current and selected diets in 2020, Mt of CO
2
 eq. 
 
 
 
In all dietary changes considered, most of the emission reductions occur in the 
EU. The share of emission reductions outside the EU varies from 20% for the 
healthy diet option to 24% for the vegetarian diet. 
 
Figure 9 Total reductions in GHGs due to diet shifts in 2020, with division into EU and non-EU emissions 
 
 

 
50 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
4.3 Barriers and policies related to vegetarian and reduced animal 
protein diet 
For vegetarian and reduced animal protein diets, knowledge, habits and 
cultural barriers are the most important barriers. It is likely that, once 
knowledge levels, habits and culinary cultures have changed, products for 
meat and animal protein products will become available in the food service 
sector and in meals and products that are ready-made and easy to produce. 
Situational and infrastructural barriers are less important than knowledge, 
habits and cultural barriers. 
 
One important question is whether the barriers are equally important for a 
vegetarian diet and a reduced animal protein diet. Because changing to a 
vegetarian diet constitutes a big change as compared to most consumers’ 
current diets, whereas reducing animal protein intake to six days a week 
constitutes a more limited change and essentially leaves the diet intact on six 
out of seven days, we assume that habits and cultural barriers are slightly 
more important for a vegetarian diet than for reducing animal protein intake. 
 
Table 24 Ranking of the barriers based on their relative impact for vegetarian and reduced animal 
 protein diet 
Barrier category Examples 
Individual (internal) barriers 
Knowledge-based barriers − Consumers can sometimes be confused by the use of 
different terminologies, such as organic, green, 
natural or environmentally friendly 
− Consumers have little knowledge as to what is 
sustainable and what is not 
− Consumers are not aware of the environmental effects 
of meat consumption 
Unconscious behaviour − Dietary choices are often habitual 
Societal (external) barriers 
Structural and physical barriers − In the food-service sector (restaurants, cafés, street 
vendors) the availability of substitution products may 
be a problem 
Cultural barriers − Meat is a vital part of culinary cultures in Europe 
− Many people see meat as an essential part of the meal 
 
 
Knowledge based barriers can be addressed through communication, e.g. mass 
media campaigns and food labelling. However, there is still the fact that food 
choices are in large part habitual. A first relevant policy instrument that 
addresses this consists of school-based intervention programs. Habits develop 
early in life, and it is therefore important to help children develop healthy and 
sustainable habits at a young age. Another way in which habits can be targeted 
is by using ‘upstream’ interventions, such as charging meat/animal protein 
consumption with consumption taxes. Table 25 provides an overview of policy 
measures to overcome barriers to vegetarian diet change or reducing animal 
protein intake. 
 

 
51 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 25 Overview of policy measures to overcome barriers to vegetarian diet change or reducing 
 animal protein intake 
Policy category  Examples 
Economic instruments − Meat tax 
− Animal protein tax 
Communication  − School based interventions 
− Mass media campaigns 
− Food product labelling 
 
 
Based on the analysis of barriers and policy instruments we composed for 
further examination (in close agreement with the Commission) a policy 
package for a reduction of animal protein consumption. This policy package 
comprises two policies for which empirical evidence on effectiveness exists:  
− An animal protein tax or excise duty; 
− A label conveying information about the GHG emissions associated with the 
food product.  
 
A rough estimate of the effectiveness (in terms of CO
2
e reductions) of the 
entire policy package is presented in Table 10. Both the CO
2
 impacts of the 
individual policy instruments as the CO
2
 impact of the entire policy package is 
presented.  
 
Table 26  Rough estimation of the relative CO
2
 reductions policies to reduce animal protein consumption 
Policy (package) CO
2
 reduction due to smaller cars 
Animal protein tax or excise duty 5.0% 
GHG emissions labelling 0.5% 
Policy package  5.5% 
Note: Due to possible interaction effects, the CO
2
 impacts of individual policy instruments do 
not necessarily add up to the CO
2
 impacts of the various policy packages.  
 
 
Implementation of the proposed policy package would result in 5.5% lower life 
cycle CO
2
e emissions associated with food consumption. In 2020, this amounts 
to 3 Mt CO
2
e, of which 2 Mt CO
2
e in the EU. 
4.4 Barriers and policies related to healthy diet 
For healthy diets, knowledge about the healthiness of specific products, 
habits, socio-economic status, the obesogenic environment and economic 
barriers conspire to make healthy choices very hard. All of these barriers are 
important, although one can argue that economic barriers are less important 
than the other barriers, because food products are mostly very price-inelastic 
(OECD, 2010). 
 

 
52 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 27 Ranking of the barriers based on their relative impact for healthy consumption 
Barrier category Examples 
Individual (internal) barriers 
Knowledge-based barriers − Adequate knowledge at the product level is limited: 
consumers have difficulties determining which specific 
products are healthy and which are not 
Unconscious behaviour − Dietary choices are often habitual 
Societal (external) barriers 
Structural and physical barriers − Abundant availability of unhealthy products creates an 
‘obesogenic environment’ 
Economic barriers − Healthy diets are on average more expensive that 
unhealthy diets 
 
 
As Table 27 shows, knowledge, habits, socio-economic status, infrastructural 
and economic factors are the most important barriers for a change to a 
healthy diet. It is unlikely that these barriers can be overcome in the short 
term, but on the long-term educational interventions and laws can slowly 
nudge people in the proposed direction. Policy instruments that can be 
considered include mandatory nutrition labelling, containing nutritional 
information of all food products; school-based intervention programs; and 
consumption taxes. The latter instrument goes some way to also tackle the 
economic barriers to healthy consumption and the barrier that is posed by 
socio-economic status. 
 
Table 28 Overview of policy measures to overcome barriers to a healthy diet 
Policy category  Examples 
Economic instruments − Consumption taxes 
Communication   − Food product labelling 
− School-based interventions 
 
 
Based on the analysis of barriers and policy instruments we composed for 
further examination (in close agreement with the Commission) a policy 
package for a change to a more healthy diet. This policy package comprises 
three policies for which empirical evidence on effectiveness exists:  
− health labels; 
− mass media campaigns to promote a healthy diet; 
− school based intervention offering healthy diets in school canteens and 
educating pupils about healthy diets; 
− an differentiated tax or excise duty (lower taxes on fresh fruit and 
vegetables, higher taxes on fats). 
 
A rough estimate of the effectiveness (in terms of CO
2
e reductions) of the 
entire policy package is presented in Table 10. Both the CO
2
 impacts of the 
individual policy instruments as the CO
2
 impact of the entire policy package is 
presented. As the share of the population that has been reached by the school-
based interventions grows, the effect of the policy package increases. 
 

 
53 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Table 29  Rough estimate of the relative CO
2
 reductions policies to reduce animal protein consumption 
policy measure 2020 2030 2050 
Labelling 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 
Mass media campaigns 10% 10% 10% 
School-based intervention 3.4% 5.7% 10.4% 
VAT and excises 3% 3% 3% 
Total impact (= reduction of difference in 
consumption of food products between 
current diet and healthy diet 
20% 22% 26% 
 
 
Implementation of the proposed policy package result in 22% lower life cycle 
CO
2
e emissions associated with food consumption in 2020, increasing to 28% in 
2050. In 2020, this amounts to 44 Mt CO
2
e, of which 37 Mt CO
2
e in the EU, 
increasing to 56 Mt CO
2
e in 2050, of which 47 Mt CO
2
e in the EU. 
4.5 Conclusion 
Changes in dietary choices may lead to lower GHG emissions in the EU.  
A completely vegetarian diet could maximally result in a reduction 266 Mt  
CO
2
 eq., of which 209 Mt CO
2
 eq. in the EU. A day without animal proteins 
could reduce emissions by 50 Mt CO
2
 eq., of which 39 Mt CO
2
 eq. in the EU. 
And a shift to a healthy diet, with fewer calories and more fruit and 
vegetables than the current diet could result in a reduction of emissions of 195 
Mt CO
2
 eq., of which 200 Mt CO
2
 eq. in the EU. However, these figures assume 
that the maximum realistic abatement potential is reached, meaning, for 
example, that all consumers switch to a certain diet. 
 
There are barriers currently withholding consumers to change their diets. The 
most important barriers are a lack of knowledge on the environmental or 
health impacts of food products and the strong cultural norms that affect 
dietary choices. Moreover, diets have a strong habitual component. 
 
To address these barriers, informational and economic policies can be used. 
The assessment of policies aimed at reducing the climate impact of diets is 
hampered by the scarce availability of empirical data on their effectiveness. 
More studies are available on policies to incentivise a shift to a healthy diet. 
Based on these studies, we estimate that a policy package aimed at a more 
healthy diet could reduce the climate impact of the EU diet by about a 
quarter. 
 

 
54 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  

 
55 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
5 Conclusions 
Behavioural changes can result in a considerable reduction of GHG emissions in 
the EU. This study has assessed the maximum realistic abatement potential of 
11 behavioural changes. If implemented by all the households and/or 
consumers which can reasonably be expected to be able to do so, their impact 
on EU GHG emissions would range from 22 Mt CO
2
 in 2020 (a reduction of space 
heating temperature by 1°C) to almost 266 Mt CO
2
 in 2020 (a shift to a 
vegetarian diet). By 2050, the reduction potential would range from 10 Mt CO
2
 
(fuel efficient driving style) to 462 Mt CO
2
 (buying and using electric cars). 
 
Not all measures can be implemented simultaneously and hence the maximum 
realistic mitigation potentials are not additive. The maximum realistic 
abatement potential of the measures that can be implemented simultaneously 
amounts maximally to about 600 Mt CO
2 
in 2020, which is about a quarter of 
the projected emissions in the non-ETS sector. 
 
Many behavioural change options have negative direct costs. This study has not 
assessed the welfare costs of these measures, which would often be positive. 
 
Most behavioural changes are inhibited by barriers. In many cases, social and 
cultural norms inhibit behavioural change. For example, a change to a 
vegetarian diet is held back by norms prescribing that a meal should contain 
meat or fish. Knowledge barriers are also important. For example, the most 
important barriers towards residential energy saving are limited cognition, as 
lack of knowledge and awareness about one's own energy consumption. 
 
Barriers can be overcome partially or fully by policies. Knowledge barriers can 
be overcome by communication, voluntary agreements and regulative 
instruments such as labelling. Habits can be addressed by economic 
instruments and, in the case of dietary choices, school based intervention. 
 
In a few cases, the effects of policy packages and their costs have been 
quantified. 
 
For example, in order to increase the purchase and use of smaller cars, a 
policy package has been designed comprising of the following instruments: 
− a CO
2
 differentiated purchase tax; 
− a CO
2
 differentiated company car tax; 
− a (CO
2
 differentiated) increase of fuel taxes; 
− spatial policies favourable to smaller cars; 
− a supportive communication strategy. 
 
This policy package could in the longer term reduce CO
2
 emissions per 
passenger kilometre by 6-9%. This would correspond to 24–35 Mt in 2050.  If 
the additional effect of higher taxes on car purchases and transport demand is 
taken into account, emissions would decrease by 16-25%. 
 
This policy package relies to a large extent on tax measures, which would 
require unanimity among Member States to be introduced at an EU level, and 
whose effect may not be fully realised due to interactions with the existing 
CO2 and cars regulation. 
 

 
56 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
A policy package to incentivise a shift towards a healthy diet could comprise of 
the following instruments: 
− mandatory nutrition labelling; 
− mass media campaigns; 
− school-based intervention; 
− differentiated taxes and excise duties. 
 
This policy package could reduce dietary emissions by 22% in 2020 increasing 
to 28% in 2050 as more people have experienced the school based 
intervention. In 2020, this amounts to 44 Mt CO
2
e, of which 37 Mt CO
2
e in the 
EU, increasing to 56 Mt CO
2
e in 2050, of which 47 Mt CO
2
e in the EU. The EU 
share amounts to about 2% of non-ETS emissions. This package relies on 
various policy instruments, many of which could be introduced at an EU level. 
The differentiated tax, which would require unanimity among Member States, 
accounts for a relatively small share of the effect. 
 
In many cases, however, it has not been possible to quantitatively assess the 
impact of policy packages. There is scarce empirical evidence on the impact of 
policies on reducing room temperature, optimising ventilation, teleworking 
and reducing animal protein intake, for example.  
 
Many policy packages identified in this report would require concerted action 
at EU and Member State levels.  

 
57 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
References 
Abrahamse et al., 2005 
W. Abrahamse, L. Steg, C. Vlek, T. Rothengatter 
A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation  
In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, no.25 (2005); p. 273-291 
 
Abrahamse et al., 2007 
W. Abrahamse, L. Steg, C. Vlek, T. Rothengatter 
The effect of tailored information, goal-setting and tailored feedback on 
household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents 
In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (2207); p. 265-276 
 
ADAC, 2005 
Andrea Gärtner 
Study on the effectiveness of Directive 1999/94/EC relating to the availability 
of consumer information on fuel economy and CO
2
 emissions in respect of the 
marketing of new passenger cars, final report 
München : ADAC e.V., 2005 
 
ADEME, 2009a 
Energy Efficiency Trends and Policies in the Household & Tertiary sectors in 
the EU 27 : Lessons from the Odyssee/Mure project 
Paris : ADEMA, 2009 
 
ADEME, 2009b 
Gaël Callonnec, Isabelle Sannié 
Evaluation of the economic and ecological effects of the French ‘bonus malus’ 
Paris : ADEME, 2009 
 
AEA, 2009  
Charlotte Brannigan, Tom Hazeldine, Dominic Schofield,  
Johannes von Einem, Sarah Halsey  
EU transport GHG: Roads to 2050? Information to raise awareness and 
instruments to stimulate innovation and development: Paper 9 
London : AEA, 2009 
 
AEA et al., 2010 
Ian Skinner (AEA Associate); Huib van Essen (CE Delft); Richard Smokers (TNO); 
Nikolas Hill (AEA)  
EU Transport GHG: Routes to 2050? : Towards the decarbonisation of the EU’s 
transport sector by 2050 
London : AEA, 2010 
 
AGMEMOD, 2011 
Information about the structure of the AGMEMOD Model  
AGMEMOD  
Retrieved from: http://www.tnet.teagasc.ie/agmemod/ 
 
Ajzen, 1991  
Icek Azjen 
The theory of planned behaviour 
In : Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, Iss. 2, 
(1991); p. 179-211 
 

 
58 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Ajzen, 2006 
Homepage of Icek Ajzen, Professor of Psychology, University of Massachusetts 
Available at: http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html  
Accessed at 10/06/2011 
 
Amecke, 2011 
H. Amecke 
The relevance of the European Energy Performance Certificate for purchasing 
decisions 
Berlin : Climate Policy Initiative, 2011 
 
American Heart Association, 2011 
Vegetarian diets 
Retrieved from: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml 
?identifier=4777 
 
Andriessen, 2007 
J.H. Andriessen 
Less mobile, more virtual : Learning remote communication to save costs and 
the climate 
Delft : University of Technology, 2007 
 
Arnfalk, 2002 
P. Arnfalk 
Can virtual meetings replace business travel? 
In: D. Pamlin, (Ed.) Sustainability at the speed of light: opportunities and 
challenges for tomorrow’s society, Stockholm : WWF Sweden, 2002 
 
Antes et al., 2010 
R. Antes, I. Antoni-Komar, K. Fichter 
Diffusionspfade nachhaltiger Konsumlösungen : Fallstudien zu 
Erfolgsbedingungen der Verbreitung nachhaltiger Konsumlösungen im Bereich 
häuslicher Energieeinsatz und Ernährung 
Forschungsverbundprojekt WENKE2 – Wege zum nachhaltigen Konsum – 
Energie, Ernährung 
Oldenburg : Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, 2010 
 
Arnfalk, 2004 
P. Arnfalk 
Can virtual meetings replace business travel? 
In: D. Pamlin (Ed.), Sustainability at the speed of light : opportunities and 
challenges for tomorrow’s society 
Stockholm : WWF, 2004 
 
AVV, 2004 
A.G. Boumans, M. van Twuijver 
Telewerken : de stand van zaken revisited 
Rotterdam : Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Rijkswaterstaat, 
Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer (RWS, AVV), 2004 
 
Axsen et al., 2010 
J. Axsen, K.S. Kurani, A. Burke 
Are batteries ready for plug-in hybrid buyers? 
In: Transport Policy, No.17, p. 175-182, 2010 
 

 
59 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Bakken, 2008 
D. Bakken 
Car talk : the role and impact of word of mouth in brand choice 
Presentation at ESOMAR Automotive Conference, Lausanne, 2008 
 
Bamberg et al., 2011 
S. Bamberg, S. Fujii, M. Friman, T. Gärling 
Behaviour theory and soft transport policy measures 
In: Transport Policy, no. 18, (2011); p. 228-235, 2011 
 
Banister et al., 2007 
D. Banister, C. Newson, M. Ledbury 
The costs of transport on the environment : the role of teleworking in reducing 
carbon emissions 
Oxford : University of Oxford, 2007 
 
BarEnergy, 2010 
Sophie Emmert, Martin van de Lindt and Helma Luiten (eds.) 
Barriers to changes in energy behaviour among end consumers and households, 
final report 
Oslo : S.n., 2010 
 
Barr et al., 2005 
S. Barr, A.W. Gilg, N. Ford 
The household energy gap : examining the divide between habitual- and 
purchase-related conservation behaviours 
In : Energy Policy, vol.33, no.11(2005); p. 1425-1444 
 
Basarir and Overend, 2010 
M. Basarir and M. Overend 
Assessing the effect of open doors on energy consumption and thermal 
comfort. Interim Report on the Energy Appraisal of Retail Units 
Cambridge : University of Cambridge, 2010 
 
BC Hydro, 2007 
Conservation Potential Review by the Canadian utility BC Hydro  
Available at : 
http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/info/pdf/info_2
007_conservation_potential_review_summary_report.Par.0001.File.info_2007_
conservation_potential_review_summary_report.pdf 
Accessed at: 24/01/11 
 
Becker et al., 1981 
L.J. Becker, C. Seligman, R.H. Fazio, J.M. Darley  
Relating attitudes to residential energy use 
In: Environment and Behavior, Vol.13, No.5 (1981) p. 590–609 
 
Bertoldi, P., Rezessy, S., 2010 
Voluntary agreements in the field of energy efficiency and emission reduction: 
review and analysis of the experience in member states of the European Union 
Seville: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, 2010 
 

 
60 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Bio Intelligence Service et al., 2006 
Bio Intelligence Service, Free University Amsterdam, PSI, Ecologic, PBL, TML, 
GHK 
Designing policy to influence consumers : consumer behaviour relating to the 
purchasing of environmentally preferable goods 
London : Policy Studies Institute, 2006 
 
Biointelligence Service, 2010 
AEA Energy and Environment, UmweltBundesamt 
Preparatory Study on Food Waste across EU-27, final report for DG ENV, 
October 2010 
London : Policy Studies Institute, 2010 
 
Black et al., 1985 
J.S. Black, P. Stern and J.T. Elworth 
Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations 
In: Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.70, no.1 (1985); p. 3–21  
 
Blakemore, 2003 
Douglas Blakemore 
Impact of gender and race on attitudes toward telework  
Minneapolis : Capella University, 2003 
 
Blonk et al., 2008 
H. Blonk, A. Kool en B. Luske 
Milieueffecten van Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke  
producten : Gevolgen van vervanging dierlijke eiwitten anno 2008 
Gouda : Blonk Milieu Advies, 2008 
 
BMU, 2008 
Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2008 : Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen 
Bevölkerungsumfrage  
Berlin : Ministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), 
2008  
 
BMU, 2008-2010  
Umweltbewusstsein 2008-2010 
Berlin : Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit 
(BMU), 2008-2010 
 
BMVBS, 2007 
CO
2
 Gebäudereport 2007 
Berlin : Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS), 
2007 
 
Bohunovsky et al., 2010 
L. Bohunovsky, A. Stocker, A. Großmann, H. Hutterer, G. Arends,  
J. Haslinger, M.I. Wolter, R. Madlener, A. Endl  
Szenarien eines nachhaltigeren Energiekonsums Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien, 
Erhöhung der Energieeffizienz und Verhaltensänderungen im Energieverbrauch 
bis 2020 
Wien : SERI, 2010 
 
Booz Allen Hamilton, 2002 
The worlds most effective polices for the e-economy 
London : Booz Allen Hamilton, 2002 
 

 
61 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Borsutzky und Nöldner,1989 
D. Borsutzky und W. Nöldner 
Psychosoziale Determinanten des Energiesparverhaltens 
Regensburg : S. Roderer Verlag, 1989 
 
Bouwman and Mol, 2000 
M.E. Bouwman and H.C. Moll 
Energy use reduction potential of passenger transport in Europe 
In: Transport Reviews 20 (2), p. 191–203 
 
Branco et al., 2004 
G. Branco, B. Lachal, P. Gallinelli, W. Weber 
Predicted versus observed heat consumption of a low energy multifamily 
complex in Switzerland based on long-term experimental data 
In: Energy and Building, Vol. 36, Iss. 6, (2004); p. 543–555 
 
Brandon and Lewis, 1999 
Gwendolyn Brandon, Alan Lewis 
Reducing household energy consumption : A qualitative and quantitative field 
study  
In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19, Iss.1 (1999); p. 75–85 
 
Britz and Witzke, 2008 
W. Britz and P. Witzke (eds.) 
CAPRI model documentation 2008 : Version 2  
Retrieved from: http://www.capri-model.org/docs/capri_ 
documentation.pdf 
 
Broc et al.,2006 
Jean-Sébastien Broc, Bertrand Combes, Sandrine Hartmann,  
Bernard Bourges, Marie-Isabelle Fernandez, Jérôme Adnot 
Raising awareness for energy efficiency in the service sector:  
learning from success stories to disseminate good practices 
In: Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings, (2006); p.339-354 
 
Brohmann et al., 2000  
Zie Öko-Institut 
 
Brunata-Metrona, 2011 
1 Grad Celsius = 6 Prozent Heizkostenersparnis?, Pressemitteilung  
Hamburg : Brunata-Metrona, 2011 
Available at http://www.brunata-metrona.de/index.php?id=5849  
Accessed 03/06/2010 
 
Bürger, 2009 
V. Bürger 
Identifikation, Quantifizierung und Systematisierung technischer und 
verhaltensbedingter Stromeinsparungspotenzial privater Haushalte 
TRANSPOSE Working Paper No 3 
Münster ; Berlin : Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität ; Freie Universität Berlin, 
2009 
 

 
62 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Byrne and Polonsky, 2001 
M.R. Byrne, M.J. Polonsky 
Real and perceived impedimenta to consumer purchasing : alternative fuel 
vehicles  
Paper at: Ninth International Conference of Greening of Industry Network, 
Bangkok, January 21-25, 2001 
 
Cairns et al., 2008 
S. Cairns, L. Sloman, C. Newson, J. Anable, A. Kirkbride, P. Goodwin 
Smarter choices : assessing the potential to achieve traffic reduction using 
‘soft measures’ 
In: Transport Reviews, vol. 28, no.5 (2008); p. 593-618 
 
Cameron, 1985 
T. Cameron 
A nested logit model of energy conservation activities by owners of existing 
single family dwellings 
In: Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 67, no.2 (1985); p. 205–211 
 
Capros et al.,  
P. Capros, T. Georgakopoulos, A. Filippoupolitis, S. Kotsomiti, G. Atsaves S. 
Proost, D. Van Regemorter, K. Conrad, T. Schmidt  
The GEM-E3 model : reference manual, 
http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/manuals/GEMref.PDF; see also www.gem-e3.net 
 
Cawley Nea/TBWA and OMD, 2010 
Power for One : Energy efficiency for Ireland, Gold Winner - New Launch 
http://adfx.ie/cases/cases08/powerofone.pdf 
Accessed 31.08.2011 
 
CE, 2007  
R.T.M. (Richard) Smokers, L.C. (Eelco) den Boer, J.F. (Jasper) Faber 
State-of-the-art CO
2
 en Mobiliteit 
Deel I - Kwantitatieve gegevens sector Verkeer en Vervoer 
Deel II - Inzicht in oplossingsrichtingen en aangrijpingspunten 
Delft : CE Delft, 2007 
 
CE, 2008a 
B.E. (Bettina) Kampman, M.B.J. (Matthijs) Otten, R.T.M. (Richard) Smokers  
Duurzamer leasen : Effecten van het Duurzame Mobiliteitsplan van Athlon Car 
Lease 
Delft : CE Delft, 2008 
 
CE, 2008b 
M.J. (Martijn) Blom, A. (Arno) Schroten. L.C. (Eelco) den Boer,  
B.L. (Benno) Schepers, S.M. (Sander) de Bruyn (CE Delft),  
Prof. P. (Peter) Kavelaars en D. (Dirk) Albregtse (EUR/FEI)  
Fiscale vergroening : Effecten en beoordeling van opties ten behoeve van het 
Belastingplan 2009 
Delft : CE Delft, 2008 
 
CE, 2008c 
B.E. (Bettina) Kampman, L.C. (Eelco) den Boer, M.B.J. (Matthijs) Otten 
Kosten en effecten van beleidsmaatregelen  
Delft : CE Delft, 2008 
 

 
63 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
CE, 2009 
A. (Arno) Schroten, M.J. (Martijn) Blom, F.L. (Femke) de Jong  
Stimulering zuinige auto’s via de BPM : Een vergelijkend onderzoek van 
verschillende BPM-systemen 
Delft : CE Delft, 2009 
 
CE, 2010 
Bettina Kampman, Cor Leguijt, Dorien Bennink, Lonneke Wielders,  
Xander Rijkee, Ab de Buck, Willem Braat  
Green power for electric cars : Development of policy recommendations to 
harvest the potential of electric vehicles 
Delft : CE Delft, 2010 
 
CE, ICF, Ecologic, 2011 
Impacts of electric vehicles 
Delft : CE Delft, 2011 
 
CE Delft et al., 2011  
Huib van Essen, Bettina Kampman 
Impact of Electic Vehicles  
Delft : CE Delft, 2011 
 
CERNA, 1998 
Peter Börkey, Matthieu Glachant and François Lévêque 
Voluntary approaches for environmental policy in OECD countries: An 
assessment 
Paris : CERNA, Centre d’économie industrielle, 1998 
 
Choo and Mokhatarian, 2004 
S. Choo and P.L. Mokhtarian 
What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in 
influencing vehicle type choice 
In: Transportation Research Part A 38 (2004); p. 201-222 
 
CIP Report, 2011  
DIW, Lund University, Fraunhofer ISI, IÖW, National Consumer Research Center 
of Finland, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University 
Information tools for energy demand reduction in existing residential buildings 
S.l. : Climate Policy Initiative (CIP), 2011 
 
Clinch and Healy,2000 
J.P. Clinch and J.D. Healy 
Domestic energy efficiency in Ireland : correcting market failure 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 28, No.1(2000); p. 1-8 
 
Constanzo et al., 1986 
M. Constanzo, D. Archer, E. Aronson and T. Pettigrew 
Energy conservation behaviour : the difficult path from information to action  
In: American Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 5 (1986); p. 521–528 
 
Copenhagen Economics, 2010 
Company car taxation 
Copenhagen : Copenhagen Economics, 2010 
 
COWI, 2002 
Fiscal measures to reduce CO
2
 emissions from new passenger cars 
Copenhagen : COWI A/S, 2002 

 
64 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
CROW, 2010 
Parkeermaatregelen voor een schonere lucht 
Ede : CROW, 2010 
 
Curtis et al.,1984 
F. Curtis, P. Simpson-Housley and S. Drever 
Household energy conservation 
In: Energy Policy, vol. 12, no.4 (1984); p. 452–456 
 
Darby, 2006 
S. Darby 
Social learning and public policy: lessons from an energy conscious village  
In: Energy Policy, vol. 34, Iss. 17 (2006); p. 2929–2940 
 
DECC, 2011 
DECC lays foundations for smart meters rollout 
Press release: 11/032, 30. March 2011 
London: Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011  
Online: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_032/ 
pn11_032.aspx 
Accessed at 31.08.2011 
 
Delenay et al., 2004  
A. Delenay, B. Lough, M. Whelan, M. Cameron 
A review of mass media campaigns in road safety 
Melbourne : Monash University, Accident Research Centre, 2004 
 
Derek Halden Consultancy, 2006 
Scoping the impacts on travel behaviour in Scotland of e-working and other 
ICTs 
Edinburgh : Derek Halden Consultancy, 2006 
 
DfT, 2004 
Assessing the impact of graduated vehicle excise duty : quantitative report 
London : Department of Transport (DfT), 2004 
 
Dietz et al., 2009 
T. Dietz, G.T. Gardner, J. Gilligan, P. Stern and M.P. Vandenbergh 
Household actions can provide a behavioural wedge to rapidly reduce US 
carbon emissions  
In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), Vol. 106,  
No. 44 (2009); p. 18452-18456 
 
Dillman et al., 1983 
D.A. Dillman, E.A. Rosa and J.J. Dillman 
Lifestyle and home energy conservation in the United States : the poor accept 
lifestyle cutbacks while the wealthy invest in conservation  
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol.3, Iss. 3-4 (1983); p. 299–315 
 
Dijkgraaf et al., 2009 
E. Dijkgraaf, J.M. de Jong, M., Spijkerman and O. Tanis 
Effectiviteit convenanten energiebeleid 
Rotterdam : Erasmus University, 2009 
 

 
65 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Dwyer et al., 1993 
W.O. Dwyer, F.C. Leeming, M.K. Cobern, B.E. Porter and J.M. Jackson  
Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the  
environment : Research since 1980 
In: Environment and Behavior, Vol. 25 no. 5 (1993); p. 275–321 
 
EC, 2003 
Council Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the 
taxation of energy products and electricity 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2003 
 
EC, 2005 
Proposal for a Council Directive on passenger car related taxes 
COM(2005)/261 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2005 
 
EC, 2009 
Action Plan on Urban Mobility : Communication from the Commission to  
the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions  
COM(2009)0490 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2009 
 
EC, 2010a 
P. Bertoldi, S. Rezessy 
Voluntary agreements in the field of energy efficiency and emission reduction: 
review and analysis of the experience in member states of the European Union 
Ispra : Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC), 2010 
 
EC, 2010b 
A Digital Agenda for Europe : Communication from the Commission to the 
European the European Parliament, the Council and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the regions, COM(2010)/0245 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2010 
 
EC, 2011a 
A budget for Europe 2020 
Part II: Policy fiches, Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
regions, COM(2011)/500 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2011 
 
EC, 2011b 
Digital Agenda Scoreboard : Commission Staff Working Paper 
SEC(2011)/708 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2011 
 
EC, 2011c  
Impact Assessment : Commission staff working paper 
Accompanying document to the proposal for a council directive amending 
Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation 
of energy products and electricity 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2011 
 

 
66 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
EC, 2011e  
Impact Assessment : Commission staff working paper 
Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions 
Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050, 
SEC(2011)288 final 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2011 
 
EC, 2011d  
Communication from the Commission to the European the European 
Parliament, the Council The European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the regions 
Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 (COM(2011) 
112 final) 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2011 
 
EC, 2011f  
White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area : Towards a 
competitive and resource efficient transport system. The Transport White 
Paper (COM(2011) 144 final) 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2011 
 
EC, 2011g 
Commission Staff working paper Impact Assessment. Accompanying document 
to the White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area : Towards a 
competitive and resource efficient transport system 
SEC(2011)358 final 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2011 
 
EC, 2011h 
Commission staff working document. Consumer Conditions Scoreboard – 
Consumers at home in the single market :Monitoring the integration of the 
retail single market and consumer conditions in the 
Member States (SEC(2011)299 final 
Brussels : European Commission (EC), 2011 
 
ECMT, 2007 
Cutting Transport CO
2
 emissions : What progress? 
Paris : OECD/ECMT, 2007 
 
ECODRIVEN, 2008 
ECODRIVEN Campaign Catalogue for European Ecodriving & Traffic Safety 
Campaigns 
S.l. : ECODRIVEN, 2008 
 
Ecofys, 2008 
The potential global CO
2
 reductions from ICT use : Identifying and assessing 
the opportunities to reduce the first billion tonnes of CO
2
 
Solna : WWF Sweden, 2008 
 
Ecofys et al., 2009 
Ecofys, WWF, CONNECORE 
From workplace to anyplace : assessing the opportunities to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions with virtual meetings and telecommuting 
S.l. : S.n. 2009 
 

 
67 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Ecologic, IEEP, BIO, 2010 
Max Grünig (Ecologic), Ian Skinner (IEEP), Mary Ann Kong (BIO), Benjamin 
Boteler (Ecologic) 
Study on consumer information on fuel economy and CO
2
 emissions of new 
passenger cars  
Brussels : European Parliament, 2010 
 
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008 
Managing the company’s carbon footprint : The emerging role of ICT 
London : The Economist, 2008 
 
Ecorys, 2011 
Robert Kok, Koen Vervoort, Roelof-Jan Molemaker, Bjørn Volkerink m.m.v. 
Richard Smokers (TNO) 
Fiscale stimulering (zeer) zuinige auto’s : Onderzoek aanpassing 
zuinigheidsgrenzen 
Rotterdam : Ecorys, 2011 
 
EEA, 2009 
Wiebke Zimmer, Florian Hacker, Ralph Harthan, Felix Matthes 
Environmental impacts and impact on the electricity market of a large scale 
introduction of electric cars in Europe : Critical Review of Literature 
Copenhagen : European Environmental Agency (EEA), 2009 
 
Ekins and Potter, 2010 
P. Ekins, S. Potter 
Reducing Carbon Emissions Through Transport Taxation : Briefing Paper 6 for 
the Green Fiscal Commission 
Online: http://www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk/images/uploads/ 
gfcBriefing6_PDF_ISBN_v7.pdf 
 
Elder et al., 2004  
R.W. Elder, R.A. Shults, D.A. Sleet, J.L. Nichols, R.S. Thompson and  
W. Rajab 
Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and 
alcohol-involved crashes : A systematic review 
In: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 27, no.1 (2004);  
p. 57-65 
 
ENVert Consulting, 2011 
Daniel Lee, Tom Posavad, Paul Nowosielski and Brent Mclean 
Marketing alternative fuelled vehicles 
Waterloo, Ontario(CA) : University of Waterloo, 2011 
 
Environics, 2009 
Canadians’ perceptions of electric vehicle technology  
Toronto (CA) : Environics Research Group, 2009 
 
EST, 2002 
Soft measures and transport behaviour 
Berlin : Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST), etuc 2002 
 
ETC/ACC, 2008 
Potentials for a modal shift from road to rail and ship – A methodological 
approach 
Berlin : ETC/ACC, 2008 
 

 
68 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Ettema, 2010 
D. Ettema 
The impact of telecommuting on residential relocation and residential 
preferences 
In: The journal of transport and land use, vo. 3, no.1 (2010); p. 7-24 
 
ETUC and UNICE-UEAPME, 2002 
Framework Agreement on Telework 
Brussels : The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), 2002 
 
EU, 2010  
F. Nemry and M. Brons  
Plug-in Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles Market penetration scenarios of 
electric drive vehicles, Draft technical note  
Luxembourg : European Union, Joint Research Centre, institute for Prospective 
Technological Studies, 2010 
 
Eurofound, 2010 
Telework in the European Union, European Foundation for the Improvement of 
Living and Working Conditions 
Dublin : European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working 
Conditions (Eurofound), 2010 
 
Evans, 2003 
C. Evans 
Studying the studies : an overview of recent research into taxation operation 
costs 
In: Journal of Tax Research, vol. 1, no.1 (2003); p. 64-92 
 
Faiers et al., 2007 
A. Faiers, M. Cook and C. Neame 
Towards a contemporary approach for understanding consumer behaviour in 
the context of domestic energy use 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No. 8 (2007); p. 4381-4390 
 
Fischer, 2007 
Corinna Fischer (Hrsg.) 
Strom Sparen im Haushalt : Ein unmögliches Unterfangen?, (S. 175-192) 
München : Oekom Verlag GmbH, 2007 
 
Flade et al., 2003 
A. Flade, S. Hallmann, G. Lohmann and B Mack  
Wohnen in Passiv- und Niedrigenergiehäusern aus sozialwissenschaftlicher 
Sicht, Abschlussbericht 
Darmstadt : Institut Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH (IWU), 2003 
 
Frey et al., 1987 
D. Frey, C. Heise, D. Stahlberg and K. Wortmann 
Psychologische Forschung zum Energiesparen 
In: J. Schulz-Gambard (Hrsg.), Angewandte Sozialpsychologie. (S. 275-289) 
München : Psychologie Verlags Union, 1987 
 
FAO, 2006 
World Agriculture : towards 2030-2050 
Rome : Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2006 
 

 
69 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Gani and Toleman, 2006 
Z. Gani and M. Toleman  
Success factors and barriers to telework adoption in e-business in Australia and 
Singapore : the influence of culture and organizational culture 
In: Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research,  
vol. 1, no.3 (2006), p. 81-92  
 
Gardner and Stern, 2002 
G.T. Gardner and P.C. Stern 
Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour 
Boston : Pearson, 2002 
 
Gardner and Stern, 2008 
G.T. Gardner and P.C. Stern 
The Short List The Most Effective Actions U.S. Households Can Take to Curb 
Climate Change 
In: Environment, Sept./Oct., 2008  
Available at www.environmentmagazine.org  
 
Gareis, 2003 
Karsten Gareis 
The intensity of telework in 2002 in the EU, Switzerland and the USA, Paper 
presented at the International Congress Sustainability in the New Economy: 
Designing a New Work Space, Spain, 2003 
 
Gärling and Thøgersen, 2001 
Anita Gärlin and John Thøgersen 
Marketing of electric vehicles 
In: Business Strategy and the Environment, vol.10, (2001); p. 53-65 
 
Geller, 1981 
E.S. Geller  
Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report enough?  
In: Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 8, Iss 3,(1981); p. 331-35  
 
Giblin and McNabola, 2009 
S. Giblin and A. McNabola  
Modelling the impacts of a carbon emission-differentiated vehicle tax system 
on CO
2
 emissions intensity from new vehicle purchases in Ireland 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 37, No.4 (2009); p. 1404-1411 
 
Gifford, 2011 
R. Gifford 
The dragons of inaction : Psychological barriers that limit climate change 
mitigation and adaptation 
In: American Psychologist, Vol. 66, no.4 (2011); p. 290-302 
 
Gigli, 2008 
Michaela Gigli 
Erfolgsfaktoren und Barrieren der Realisierung von energetischen Sanierungen 
durch Eigenheimbesitzer = Success Factors and barriers of energy efficient 
refurbishments, Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit  
Trier : Universität Trier, 2008 
Avaiable at http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2009/2362/pdf/ 
M.Gigli_DiplArbeit_11.08.pdf 
Accessed 14/06/11 
 

 
70 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Gilg et al., 2005 
A. Gilg, S. Barr and N. Ford 
Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable 
consumer 
In: Futures, vol. 37, no.6 (2005); p. 481-504 
 
Gintars and Friedrich, 2003 
D. Gintars and U. Friedrich (BINE) 
Wohnen in Passivhäusern  
Karlruhe : Fachinformationszentrum (FIZ), 2003 
 
Gössling et al., 2010 
S. Gossling, C.M. Hall, P. Peeters and D. Scott 
The Future of Tourism: Can Tourism Growth and Climate Policy be Reconciled? 
: A Climate Change Mitigation Perspective.  
In: Tourism Recreation Research, vol.35 , no.2 (2010); p. 119-130 
 
Gonzales et al., 1988 
Marti Hope Gonzales, Elliot Aronson and Mark A. Costanzo 
Using social cognition and persuasion to promote energy conservation: a quasi-
experiment  
In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.18, Iss.12 (1988); p. 1049-1066 
 
Goodman et al., 2004 
J. Goodman, V. Alakeson and B. Jorgensen 
Encouraging green telework 
Prepared by forum for the future for Sun Microsystems, 2004 
 
Goudappel Coffeng, PWC, 2006 
Monitoring en evaluatie Het Nieuwe Rijden 2006 
Deventer : Goudappel Coffeng/PWC, 2006 
 
Goudappel Coffeng, CE, 2008 
Milieu- en kosteneffecten van milieuzonering voor personenauto’s 
Deventer ; Delft : Goudappel Coffeng ; CE Delft, 2008  
 
Guerra Santin et al.,2009 
O. Guerra Santin, L. Itard and H. Visscher  
The effect of occupancy and building characteristics on energy use for space 
and water heating in Dutch residential stock 
In: Energy and Buildings, Vol. 41, Iss. 11, (2009); p. 1223-1232  
 
Gynther et al., 2011 
L. Gynther, I. Mikkonen and A. Smits, 
Evaluation of European energy behavioural change programmes 
In: Energy Efficiency, Special Issue, 2011  
 
Haas and Biermayr, 2000 
Reinhard Haas and Peter Biermayr 
The rebound effect for space heating. Empirical evidence from Austria 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 28, No. 6-7 (2000); p. 403-410 
 
Hacke, 2007 
U. Hacke 
Supporting European Housing Tenants In Optimising Resource Consumption 
Deliverable 2.1: Tenant and organisational requirements 
S.l. : SAVE@WORK4HOMES, 2007 

 
71 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Hacke, 2009 
U. Hacke 
Nutzerverhalten im Mietwohnbereich, Thesenpapier  
Darmstadt : Institut für Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH (IWU), 2009 
 
Haddad and Tanzman, 2003 
Ella H Haddad and Jay S Tanzman 
What do vegetarians in the United States eat? 
In: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78 suppl. (2003), p. 626S-632S 
 
Heberlein and Warriner, 1983 
T.A. Heberlein and Warriner 
The influence of price and attitude on shifting residential electricity 
consumption from on- to offpeak periods 
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 4, Iss. 1-2(1983) p. 107–130 
 
Heiskanen et al., 2009 
E. Heiskanen, B. Brohmann, N. Schönherr, K. Aalto 
Policies to Promote Sustainable Consumption: Framework For a  
Future-Oriented Evaluation 
Paper for the Conference Proceedings of the Future of the Consumer Society, 
28-29 May (2009), Tampere, Finland 
Policies to Promote Sustainable Consumption: Framework For a Future-
Oriented Evaluation 
 
Held, 1983 
M. Held 
Social impacts of energy conservation 
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 3-4 (1983); p. 379-394 
 
Hens et al. 2010 
H. Hens, P. Wout and Deurincka 
Energy consumption for heating and rebound effects 
In: Energy and Buildings Vol.42, Iss. 1, (2010); p. 105-110 
 
Hines, 1987 
J.M. Hines, H.R. Hungerford and A.N. Tomera 
Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a 
meta analysis 
In: Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1987); p.1–8 
 
Hirst and Goeltz, 1982 
E. Hirst and R. Goeltz 
Residential energy-conservation actions: analysis of disaggregate data 
In: Energy Systems and Policy, Vol. 6, No.2 (1982); p. 135-149 
 
HM Revenue & Customs, 2006  
Report on the Evaluation of the Company Car Tax Reform: Stage 2  
London : HM Revenue & Customs  
 
HMUELV, 2011 
Lüftung im Wohngebäude : Wissenswertes über den Luftwechsel und moderne 
Lüfungsmethoden 
Wiesbaden : Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie, Landwirtschaft und 
Verbraucherschutz (HMUELV), 2011 
http://www.iwu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dateien/energie/espi/espi8.pdf 
(11/2011) 

 
72 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Hof, 2008 
Tineke Hof 
Strategies to influence habitual road user behaviour 
Paper at the 21
st
 ICTCT workshop 
Soesterberg : TNO Defence, Security and Safety, 2008 
 
Homburg and Matthies, 1998 
A. Homburg and E. Matthies 
Umweltpsychologie: Umweltkrise, Gesellschaft und Individuum 
München : Juventa, 1998 
 
Hori and Ohasi, 2004 
M. Hori and M. Ohashi 
Teleworking and mental health. Collaborative work to maintain and manage 
the mental health for women’s teleworkers  
Paper prepared to the 37
th
 Hawaii International Conference on System 
Sciences, 5-8 Jan, 2004 
 
Huenecke et al., 2010  
K. Huenecke, U.R. Fritsche and B. Brohmann 
Sustainability of consumption patterns : Historic and Future Trends in Europe 
Conference paper presented at the ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft (NL), 
October 25-29, 2010 
 
Hutton et al., 1986 
R.B. Hutton, G.A. Mauser, P. Filiatrault and O.T. Ahtola 
Effects of cost-related feedback on consumer knowledge and consumption 
behavior : A field experimental approach 
In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, (1986) p. 327–336 
 
IEA, 2008 
Outlook for hybrid and electric vehicles – 2008 
Paris : IEA, 2008 
 
IEA, 2010 
Outlook for hybrid and electric vehicles – 2010 
Paris : IEA, 2010 
 
IEEP, ABRL, COWI, 2006 
Improving the Knowledge Base on Car Purchasing : Decision Mechanisms and 
the Environmental Impact of Company Car Taxation 
London ; Brussels : IEEP et al., 2006 
 
IER, 2000 
Effective Policy Instruments for Energy Efficiency in Residential Space 
Heating : an international Empirical Analysis (EPISODE), Forschungsbericht, 
Stuttgart : Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung 
(IER), 2000 
 
Ifeu, 2007 
E. Dünnhoff und M. Duscha 
Innovative Stromrechnungen als Beitrag zur nachhaltigen Transformation des 
Elektrizitätssystems 
Heidelberg : Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung GmbH (Ifeu), 2007 
 

 
73 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Ifeu, 2008  
E. Dünnhoff und M. Gigli 
Zur Diskussion um die Einführung von Energie-Sozialtarifen in Deutschland, 
Working paper  
Heidelberg : Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung GmbH (Ifeu), 2008 
 
Ifeu und ISOE, 2009  
E. Dünnhoff, I. Stieß, M. Gigli und B. Birzle-Harder 
Evaluation des Cariteam Energiesparservice in Frnakfurt a.M., Endbericht im 
Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und 
Reaktorschicherheit  
Heidelberg : Frankfurt: Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung GmbH (Ifeu) 
; Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung GmbH (ISOE), 2009  
 
IIASA, 2005 
G. Klaassen, C. Berglund and F. Wagner  
The GAINS Model for Greenhouse Gases – Version 1.0: Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
), 
Interim report 
Laxenburg (AU) : International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 
2005 
 
IEE, 2007  
Ulrike Hacke 
Supporting European Housing Tenants In Optimising Resource Consumption 
Deliverable 2.1: Tenant and organisational requirements 
Brussels : Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE), 2007 
 
IMPACT, 2008 
Internalisation Measures and Policies of All external Costs of Transport – 
Deliverable 3 
Delft : CE Delft, 2008 
 
ISIS, PWC, 2009 
Study on urban access restrictions 
Rome : ISIS, PWC, 2009 
 
IWU, 2003  
A. Flade, S. Hallmann, G. Lohmann und B. Mack 
Wohnen in Passiv- und Niedrigenergiehäusern aus sozialwissenschaftlicher 
Sicht, Abschlussbericht  
Darmstadt : Institut Wohnen und Umwelt (IWU), 2003 
 
IWU, 2007  
T. Loga, N. Diefenbach, A. Enseling, U. Hacke, R. Born, J. Knissel und  
E. Hinz 
Querschnittsbericht Energieeffizienz im Wohngebäudebestand : Techniken, 
Potenziale, Kosten und Wirtschaftlichkeit 
Darmstadt : Institut Wohnen und Umwelt (IWU), 2007 
 
Jeeninga et al., 2001  
H. Jeeninga, M. Uyterlimde and J. Uitzinger(IVAM) 
Energy Use of Energy Efficient Residences 
Petten : ECN, 2001 
Only in Dutch 
 

 
74 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson, 2006 
O. Johansson-Stenman and P. Martinsson 
Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? 
In: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol.60, No.2 (2006);  
p. 129-146 
 
Jong and Gunn, 2001 
G. de Jong and H. Gunn 
Recent Evidence on Car Cost and Time Elasticities of Travel Demand in Europe 
In: Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 35, No.2 (2001);  
p. 137-160 
 
Junilla, 2007 
S. Junilla 
The potential effect of end-users on energy conservation in office buildings 
In: Facilities, vol. 25, no.7/8 (2007); p. 329-339 
 
Kalhammer et al., 2007 
F.R. Kalhammer, B.M. Kopf, D.H. Swan and V.P. Roan 
Status and prospects for zero emissions vehicle technology 
Report of the ARB independent expert panel 2007 
Sacramento : State of California Air Resources Board, 2007 
 
King, 2007 
J. King 
The King Review of low-carbon cars 
Part 1: the potential for CO
2
 reduction  
London : HM Treasury, 2007 
 
Kirchler, 1995 
E. Kirchler 
Wirtschaftspsychologie  
Göttingen : Hogrefe Verlag, 1995 
 
Kitamura et al., 2000 
Ryuich iKitamura, et al. 
Accessibility and Auto Use in a Motorized Metropolis 
Center for Activity Systems Analysis, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC 
Irvine 
 
Krail, 2009 
M. Krail  
System-Based Analysis of Income Distribution Impacts on Mobility Behaviour  
Baden-Baden : NOMOS-Verlag, 2009 
 
Kriström, 2008 
Residential Energy Demand 
In: Household Behaviour and the Environment : Reviewing the evidence Paris : 
OECD, 2008 
 
Kurani, et al., 2007 
K.S. Kurani, R.R. Heffner and T.S. Turrentine 
Driving plug-in hybrid electric vehicles : reports form U.S. Drivers of HEVs 
converted to PHEVs 
Davis : University of California, 2007 
 

 
75 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Labouze et al., 2003 
E. Labouze, V. Monier, Y. Le Guern and J.-B. Puyou  
Study on external environmental effects related to the lifecycle of products 
and services – Final Report 
Version 2, European Commission, Directorate General Environment, 
Directorate A –Sustainable Development and Policy support,  
Paris : BIO Intelligence Service/O2 France, 2003 
 
Lane, 2005 
B. Lane 
Car buyer research report : Consumer attitudes to low carbon and fuel 
efficient passenger cars, Final report Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership 
Bristol : Ecolane Transport Consultancy, 2005 
 
Lane and Potter, 2007 
B. Lane and S. Potter 
The adoption of cleaner vehicles in the UK: exploring the consumer attitude – 
action gap In: Journal of Cleaner Production No.15 (2007);  
p. 1085-1092 
 
Lenzen et al., 2006 
W. Lenzen, H. Cohen and S. Pachauri 
A comparative multivariate analysis of household energy requirements in 
Australia, Brazil, Denmark, India and Japan 
In: Energy, No. 31 (2006); p. 181–207 
 
Levine et al., 2007 
M. Levine, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, K. Blok, L. Geng, D. Harvey, S. Lang,  
G. Levermore, A. Mongameli Mehlwana, S. Mirasgedis, A. Novikova,  
J. Rilling, H. Yoshino 
Residential and commercial buildings 
In: Climate Change 2007 : Mitigation  
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson,  
P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)] 
Cambridge (UK), New York (USA) : Cambridge University Press, 2007 
 
Leonard-Barton, 1981 
D. Leonard-Barton 
Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation 
In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, (1981); p. 243–252 
 
Lindén et al., 2006 
A.L. Lindén, A. Carlsson-Kanyama and B. Eriksson 
Efficient and inefficient aspects of residential energy behaviour : What are the 
policy instruments for change?  
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 34, Iss. 14 (2006); p. 1918–1927 
 
London Hazards Centre, 2011 
Factsheet on Air, Light And Temperature 
Available At: http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/factsht/47fact.htm 
Accessed 15/06/2011 
 

 
76 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Magali, 2010 
Pierre Magali 
Limiting the fuel consumption of vehicles – main barriers and drivers towards a 
mobility behavioural change, WP3  
S.l. : BarEnergy, 2010 
 
Manning and Swinton, 2005 
M. Manning and M. Swinton 
Effects of Thermostat Setting on Energy Consumption 
Ontario : Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2005 
In: Research Highlight, Technical Series 05-100 
 
Matthies and Hansmeier, 2010 
Ellen Matthies and Nadine Hansemeier 
Optimierung des Energienutzungsverhaltens in Organisationen : Das Beispiel 
der Ruhr-Universität Bochum (Optimizing energy consumption in organizations- 
Ruhr-University Bochum as an example) 
In: Umweltpsychologie , Vol.14, No.2 (2010); p. 76–97 
 
McCalley and Midden, 2002 
L.T. McCalley and C.J.H. Midden 
Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback : The roles of goal-
setting and social orientation  
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 23, Iss. 2 (2002); p. 589–603 
 
McDougal et al., 1981 
G. McDougal, J. Claxton, J. Ritchie and D. Anderson 
Consumer energy research: a review 
In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.8, No. 2 (1981); p. 343–354 
 
Midden et al., 1983 
C.J.H. Midden, J.E. Meter, M.H. Weenig and H.J.A. Zieverink 
Using feedback, reinforcement and information to reduce energy consumption 
in households : A field-experiment  
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 3, Iss.1 (1983); p. 65–86 
 
Midden and Ritsema, 1983 
G.J. H. Midden and B.S.M. Ritsema 
The meaning of normative processes for energy conservation 
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1-2 (1983), 37–55 
 
Ministry of the Environment, 2001 
Eva Heiskanen, Minna Halme, Mikko Jalas, Anna Kärnä and R. Lovio 
Dematerialization : the potential of ICT and Services 
Helsinki : Ministry of the Environment, 2001 
 
Ministry of the Environment, 2008  
E. Kotakorpi, S. Lähteenoja and M. Lettenmeier 
Household MIPS Natural resource consumption of Finnish households and its 
reduction  
Helsinki : Ministry of the Environment, 2008 
 
MMG Advies, 2008 
Evaluatierapport Werkgroep evaluatie energielabel en bonus/malus regeling 
BPM 2006 
Bijlage bij Kamerstuk 31492, nr.2  
Den Haag : Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2008 

 
77 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Moll et al., 2004 
S. Moll, J. Acosta and A. Villanueva 
Environmental implications of resource use –insights from input-output 
analyses 
Copenhagen : the European Topic Centre on Waste and Material flows (ETC 
WMF), 2004 
 
Monsivais and Drewnowski, 2007 
Monsivais, P. and A. Drewnowski 
The Rising Cost of Low-Energy-Density Foods 
In: Journal of American Dietetic Association 107:2071-207 
 
Moser and Bamberg, 2008 
G. Moser and S. Bamberg 
The effectiveness of soft transport policy measures : a critical assessment and 
meta-analysis of empirical evidence 
In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28, No.1 (2008); p. 10-26 
 
Moussaoui, [n.d.] 
Isabelle Moussaoui 
Appliances: Shifting for renewable, refurbishment, purchase and use  
WP3: Specifications of the empirical studies, D15 from the BARENERGY project 
Available at: http://www.barenergy.eu/uploads/media/D15_ 
Appliances.pdf  
Accesed 24/01/2011 
 
Nathanail and Eliou, 2008  
Eftihia Nathanail and Nikolaos Eliou 
Road user attitude and behaviour: evaluation of the effectiveness of a mass 
media campaign on road safety 
Presentation on the 4
th
 International Conference on Traffic & Transport 
Psychology, Washington, August 31–September 4, 2008  
 
Nemry et al., 2002  
Zie EU, 2010 
 
Nijdam en Wilting, 2003 
D.S. Nijdam and H.C. Wilting 
Milieudruk consumptie in beeld (A view on environmental pressure on 
consumption) 
Bilthoven : Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (National Institute for 
Public Health and Environment), 2003 
 
Nilsson and Küller, 2000 
Maria Nilsson and Rikard Küller 
Travel behaviour and environmental concern 
In: Transportation Research D 5 (2000); p. 211-234 
 
Nordic Council, 2010 
EA comparative analysis of taxes and CO
2
 emissions from passenger cars in the 
Nordic countries 
Copenhagen : Nordic Council, 2010 
 
Nuyts and Van Hout, 2007  
E. Nuyts and K. Van Hout 
Bicycle or car? : The potential for cycling in Flanders 
Diepenbeek : Regional University College of Limburg, 2007 

 
78 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
NVV, 2011 
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Veganisme (NVV) 
Wat is veganisme?  
Retrieved from: http://www.veganisme.org/?over_veganisme 
 
OECD, 1999 
Involving international business : voluntary agreements and competitiveness, 
Background paper 
Paris : OECD Round table on Sustainable Development, 1999 
 
OECD, 2003 
Voluntary approaches for environmental policy : Effectiveness, efficiency and 
usage in policy mixes  
Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2003 
 
OECD, 2007 
Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy  
Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2007 
 
OECD, 2008a 
Household behaviour and the environment: Reviewing the evidence 
Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2008 
 
OECD, 2008b 
Promoting sustainable consumption. Good practices in OECD countries Paris: 
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2008 
 
OECD, 2008c 
Broadband and the Economy, Ministerial Background Report 
Presented at the OECD Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet 
Economy, Seoul, Korea, 17-18 June 2008 
 
OECD, 2010a 
Consumer Policy Toolkit 
Chapter 4: Consumer Policy Instruments  
Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2010 
 
OECD, 2010b 
Obesity and the economics of prevention : Fit not Fat 
Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2010 
 
Ofgem, 2011  
Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) update 12 - August 2011 (revised) 
London : Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets, 2011 
Online: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment 
/EnergyEff/CU/Pages/CU.aspx 
Accessed 30-08-2011 
 
Öko-Institut, 2000  
B. Brohmann, M. Cames and A. Herold  
Klimaschutz durch Minderung von Treibhausgasemissionen im Bereich 
Haushalte und Kleinverbrauch durch klimagerechtes Verhalten 
Forschungsbericht 20401120. Umweltforschungsplan des BMU. 
Darmstadt : Öko-Institut, 2000 
 

 
79 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Olsen, 1981 
M. Olsen 
Consumers attitudes toward energy conservation 
In: Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37, No. 2 (1981); p. 108–131 
 
Olsen, 1983 
M. Olsen 
Public acceptance of consumer energy conservation strategies 
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 4, No.1–2 (1983); p. 183–196 
 
Ory and Mokhtarian, 2006 
D.T. Ory and P.L. Mokhtarian 
Which came first, the telecommuting or the residential relocation? An 
empirical analysis of causality 
Davis : University of California, 2006  
 
Ose, 2010 
Tommy Ose (SIFO) 
Energy Saving 
In: BarEnergy : Barriers to changes in energy behaviour among end consumers 
and households, final report: Integration of three empirical studies; p. 29-70 
 
Painter et al., 1983 
J. Painter, R. Semenik and R. Belk 
Is there a generalized conservation ethic? A comparison of the determinants of 
gasoline and home heating energy conservation 
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 3-4 (1983); p. 317–331 
 
PBL, 2009 
S.F. Kieboom and K.T. Geurs  
Energielabels en autotypekeuze : Effect van het energielabel op de aanschaf 
van nieuwe personenauto’s door consumenten 
Bilthoven : Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL), 2009 
 
PBL and CE, 2010 
G.P. Geilenkirchen, K. Geurs (PBL); H.P. van Essen, A. Schroten, B. Boon (CE 
Delft) 
Effecten van prijsbeleid in verkeer en vervoer 
Bilthoven ; Delft : Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL) ; CE Delft, 2010 
 
PBL, 2011 
Henk Westhoek, Trudy Rood, Maurits van den Berg, Jan Janse,  
Durk Nijdam, Melchert Reudink, Elke Stehfest 
The Protein Puzzle : The consumption and production of meat, dairy and fish 
in the European Union 
Bilthoven : PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2011 
 
Perez et al., 2002 
M.P. Perez, A.M. Sanchez and M.P. De Luis Carnicer 
Benefits and barriers of telework: perception differences of human resources 
managers according to company’s operations strategy 
In: Technovation, No.22, (2202); p. 775-783 
 

 
80 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Peters and Den Dulk, 2003 
Pascal Peters and Laura Den Dulk 
Cross cultural differences in managers’ support for home-based telework :  
a theoretical elaboration 
In: International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 3, No.3 (2003); p. 
329-346  
 
Peters and Van der Lippe, 2004 
P. Peters and T. Van der Lippe 
Who can telework? : The influence of job category and individual job traits on 
employees’ access to weekly home-based telework: a multi-actor perspective 
Nijmegen : Radboud University Nijmegen, 2004 
 
Peters et al., 2010 
A. Peters, E. Dütschke and C. Dol 
Consumer and user preferences towards electric mobility 
Paper at the 12th WCTR, July 11-15, 2010, Lisbon 
 
Peters and Heusinkveld, 2010 
P. Peters and S. Heusinkveld 
Institutional explanations for managers’ attitudes towards telehomeworking  
In: Human Relations, Vol. 63, No.1 (2010); p. 107-135 
 
Pitts and Wittenbach, 1981 
R.E. Pitts and J.L. Wittenbach 
Tax credits as a means of influencing consumer behaviour 
In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, No.3 (1981); p. 335–338 
 
Pligt, 1985 
Joop van der Pligt 
Energy conservation : Two easy ways out 
In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.15, No.1 (1985); p. 3-15 
 
Poortinga et al., 2003 
W. Poortinga, L. Steg, C. Vleg and G. Wiesma 
Household preferences for energy-saving measures : A conjoint analysis  
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1 (2003); p. 49–64 
 
PRIMES, 2010  
Primes Model: Version used for the 2010 scenarios for the European 
Commission including new sub-models 
Available at: http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab/PRIMES%20Manual/ 
The_PRIMES_MODEL_2010.pdf 
 
PSI et al., 2006 
PSI, Bio Intelligence Service, Free University Amsterdam,, Ecologic, PBL, TML, 
GHK 
Designing policy to influence consumers : consumer behaviour relating to the 
purchasing of environmentally preferable goods  
London : Policies Studies Institute (PSI), 2006 
 
PWC, 2011 
Een verkenning van macro-economische effecten van Het Nieuwe Werken  
Amsterdam : PWC, 2011 
 

 
81 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Raaij and Verhallen, 1983 
W.F. Van Raaij and T.M.M. Verhallen 
A behavioral model of residential energy use 
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol.3, No.1 (1983); p. 39-63 
 
Ricardo et al., (ongoing) 
Ricardo, TNO, AEA, CE, Ökopol, IHS, TML  
Support for the revision of regulation (EC) No 443/2009 on CO
2
 emissions from 
cars 
Cambridge, ongoing 
 
Rijal et al., 2007 
H.B. Rijal, P. Tuohy, M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, A. Samuel, J. Clarke 
Using results from field surveys to predict the effect of open windows on 
thermal comfort and energy use in buildings 
In: Energy and Buildings, Vol. 39, No.7 (2007); p. 823–836 
 
Rijkswaterstaat, 2010 (uit Transport) 
Beleidsevaluatie TaskForce Mobiliteitsmanagement 2010 
Den Haag : Rijkswaterstaat, 2010 
 
Ritchie et al., 1981 
J.R.B. Ritchie, G.H.G. McGougall and J.D. Claxton 
Complexities of household energy consumption and conservation 
In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, No.3 (1981); p. 233–242 
 
Roetzel et al., 2010  
A. Roetzel, A. Tsangrassoulis, U. Dietrich and S. Busching 
A review of occupant control on natural ventilation  
In: Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol.14, Iss.3 (2010);  
p.1001–1013 
 
Sadalla and Krull, 1995 
E.K. Sadalla and J.L. Krull 
Self-presentational barriers to resource conservation 
In: Environment and Behavior, Vol.27, No.3 (1995); p. 328–353 
 
Samuelson and Biek, 1991 
C.D. Samuelson and B.S.M. Biek 
Attitudes toward energy conservation: a confirmatory factor analysis 
In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 7 (1991); p. 549–568 
 
Sardianou, 2007 
E. Sardianou 
Estimating energy conservation patterns of Greek households 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No.7 (2007); p. 3778-3791 
 
Sasu and Ariton, 2011 
C. Sasu and M.V. Ariton 
Factors influencing passenger car consumer behaviour and their use in the 
environmental public policy 
In: EuroEconomica, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011); 7 p. 
 

 
82 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Sauerborn, 2005 
K. Sauerborn 
Motive und Handlungsbedingungen für ein ökologisches Bauen und  
Wohnen : Eine handlungstheoretische Erklärung und empirische Untersuchung 
für die Akteurgruppe der privaten Bauherren 
Hamburg : Verlag Dr. Kovac, 2005 
 
Schade, 2005 
W. Schade  
Strategic Sustainability Analysis : Concept and application for the assessment 
of European Transport Policy  
Baden-Baden : NOMOS-Verlag, 2005 
 
Scharp, 2008 
M. Scharp, (ed)  
Energy Services : Service Inventory Europe, working paper 
Berlin : Institute for Futures Studies and Technology Assessment GmbH, 2008 
 
Scherbaum et al., 2008 
C.A. Scherbaum, P.M. Popovich and S. Finlinson 
Exploring Individual-Level Factors Related to Employee Energy Conservation 
Behaviours at Work 
In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2008); p. 818-835 
 
Schipper and Hawk, 1991 
L. Schipper and D. Hawk 
More efficient household electricity use: an international perspective  
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1991); p. 244–265 
 
Schlomann et al., 2004 
B. Schlomann et al.  
Energieverbrauch der privaten Haushalte und des Sektors Gewerbe, Handel, 
Dienstleistungen (GHD), Abschlussbericht 
Karlsruhe, et al. : Fraunhofer ISI, et al., 2004 
 
Schuler et al., 2000 
A. Schuler, C. Weber and U. Fahl 
Energy consumption for space heating of west-German household : empirical 
evidence, scenario projections and policy implications  
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 28, Iss. 12 (2000); p. 877–894 
 
Scott, 1993 
S. Scott 
Energy conservation in the home : are we contrary?  
In: Issues in Irish energy policy, J. FitzGerald and D. McCoy (Eds.) 
Dublin : Economic and Social Research Institute, 1993 
 
Seligman and Darley, 1977 
C. Seligman and J. M. Darley 
Feedback as a means of decreasing residential energy consumption 
In: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 4 (1977); p. 363–368  
 
Seligman et al., 1979 
C. Seligman, M. Kriss, J.M. Darley, R.H. Fazio, L.J. Becker and J.B. Pryor 
Predicting Summer Energy Consumption from Homeowners’ Attitudes 
In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1979); p. 70–90 
 

 
83 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Shemesh and Zapatero, 2011 
J. Shemesh and F. Zapatero  
Thou shalt not covet thy (suburban) neighbor’s car 
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1805206 
 
Siikavirta, 2003 (uit Transport) 
Hanne Siikavirta, Mikko Punakivi, Mikko Kärkkäinen, 
and Lassi Linnanen 
Effects of E-commerce on greenhouse gas emissions : A case study of grocery 
home delivery in Finland 
In: Reprint from Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 6, no.2 (2003); p. 83-97  
 
Sloman, 2003 
L. Sloman 
Less traffic where people live : how local transport schemes can help cut 
traffic 
London : University of Westminster, 2003 
 
Sloman et al., 2004 
L. Sloman, S. Cairns, J. Anable, A. Kirkbridge and P. Goodwin 
Smarter choices : changing the way we travel 
London : Department for Transport, 2004 
 
Smart, 2010 
Plugged-in report : How consumers in the UK view electric cars 
S.l. : S.n., 2010 
 
Snyder, 2007 
L.B. Snyder 
Health Communication Campaigns and their impact on behaviour 
In: Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, vol. 39, no.2S (2007);  
p. 32-40 
 
Sopha et al., 2010 
B.M. Sopha, C.A. Klöckner, G. Skjevrak, E.G. Hertwich 
Norwegian households’ perception of wood pellet stove compared to air-to-air 
heat pump and electric heating 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 38, No. 7 (2010); p. 3744-3754 
 
Sorrell et al., 2000 
S. Sorrell, J. Dimitropoulos and M. Sommerville 
Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: A review 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 37, No.4 (2000); p. 1356–1371 
 
Sorrell, 2007 
S. Sorrell 
The rebound effect : an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy 
savings from improved energy efficiency 
London : UK Energy Research Centre, 2007 
 
Spitsmijden, 2009  
De effecten van belonen in Spitsmijden 2. Hoe verleid je automobilisten? 
S.l. : Samenwerkingsverband Spitsmijden, 2009 
 

 
84 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Staats et al., 1996 
H.J. Staats, A.P. Wit and C.Y.H. Midden 
Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public : Evaluation of a mass 
media campaign from a social dilemma perspective  
In: Journal of Environmental Management, No. 45 (1996); p. 189–203 
 
Steg, 1996 
Linda Steg 
Gedragsverandering ter vermindering van het autogebruik 
Groningen : Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1996 
 
Steg, 2005 
Linda Steg 
Car use : lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car 
use 
In: Transportation Research A 39 (2005); p.147-162 
 
Steg, 2008 
Linda Steg 
Promoting household energy conservation  
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Iss. 12, (2008) ; p. 4449-4453 
Foresight Sustainable Energy Management and the Built Environment Project 
 
Steg and Vlek, 2009 
L. Steg and C. Vlek  
Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour : an integrative review and research 
agenda 
In: Journal of Environmental Psychology, No. 29 (2009); p. 309–317 
 
Stern et al., 1982 
P.C. Stern, J.S. Black and J.T. Elworth 
Influences on household energy adaptation : Investments, modifications, 
sacrifices 
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, 1982 
 
Stern, 1992 
P.C. Stern 
Psychological dimensions of global environmental change  
In : Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 43 (1992); p.269-302 
 
Stern, 2002 (main) 
Zie Gardner en Stern  
 
Stough and Button, 2006 
R. Stough and K. Button 
Final report of ITS Center project: Telework 
Fairfax (VA) : Transportation Policy, Operations and Logistics Center, 2006 
 
Sustel, 2004 
Is teleworking sustainable? : An analysis of its economic, environmental and 
social impacts  
S.l. : Sustainable Teleworking (Sustel), EU project, 2004 
 
Swedish Energy Agency, 2009 
Knowledge base for the market in electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids 
Stockholm : Swedish Energy Agency, 2009 

 
85 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Synovate, 2011 
Synovate survey reveals whether consumers will stay away from electric 
powertrain vehicles because they don’t understand how they work 
Press release Synovate, 9 March 2011 
 
TAPASTRY, 2003 
Campaign solutions for transport : Cross-site Analysis, final version 
S.l. : S.n., 2003 
 
Tay, 2005 
R. Tay 
Mass media campaigns reduce the incidence of drinking and driving 
In: Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public health, Vol. 9, No.1 (2005);  
p. 26-29 
 
The Climate Group, 2008 
SMART 2020 : Enabling the low carbon economy in the information age 
S.l. : The Climate Group, 2008 
 
TIAX, 2007 
The energy and greenhouse gas emissions impact of telecommuting and  
e-commerce 
Cambridge (MA) : TIAX LLC, 2007 
 
Tikka, 2009 
K. Tikka 
Developing a teleworking pilot project through the participants’  
socio-demographic aspects 
Laurea Lohja : Laurea University of Applied Sciences, 2009 
 
TML, 2007 
Griet De Ceuster, Bart van Herbruggen, Olga Ivanova, Kristof Carlier (TML); 
Angelo Martino, Davide Fiorello (TRT) 
TREMOVE: Service contract for the further development and application 
of the transport and environmental TREMOVE model  
Lot 1: Improvement of the data set and model structure, final report 
Leuven : Transport and Mobility Leuven (TML), 2007 
 
TNO, 2009 
G.A. Klunder, K. Malone, J. Mak, I.R. Wilmink, A. Schirokoff, N.Sihvola,  
C. Holmén, A. Berger, R. de Lange, W. Roeterdink, E. Kosmatopoulos 
Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Energy Efficiency in 
Road Transport, final report 
Delft : TNO, 2009 
 
TNO, IEEP, LAT, 2006 
Review and analysis of the reduction potential and costs of technological and 
other measures to reduce CO
2
 emissions from passenger cars 
Delft : TNO Science and Industry ; Institute for European Environmental Policy 
(IEEP) ; Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics (LAT), 2006 
 
TNS Automotive, 2011 
De auto: elektrisch, hybride of plugin? : Kennis, houding en gedragsintentie 
van de Nederlandse autobezitter 
Amsterdam : TNS Automotive, 2011 
 

 
86 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
TNS NIPO, 2006 
Trackingonderzoek Het Nieuwe Rijden 
Amsterdam : TNS NIPO, 2006 
 
Tukker et al., 2006 
A. Tukker, G. Huppes, J. Guinée, R. Heijungs, A. de Koning, L. van Oers,  
et al. 
Environmental impact of products (EIPRO); analysis of the life cycle 
environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25.  
Brussels : European Commission, DG JRC, Institute for Prospective 
Technological Studies, 2006 
 
Turrentine and Kurani, 2006 
T.S. Turrentine and T.S. Kurani 
Car buyers and fuel economy? 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 35 (2007); p. 1213-1223 
 
UBA, 2010 
Stefan Rodt et al. 
CO
2
-Emissionsminderung im Verkehr in Deutschland : Mögliche Maßnahmen und 
ihre Minderungspotenziale 
Dessau-Roßlau : Umweltbundesamt (UBA), 2010 
 
UKERC, 2007 
Steve Sorrell 
The Rebound Effect : an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy 
savings from improved energy efficiency 
London : University of Sussex ; UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), 2007 
 
UNEP, 2007  
S. Koeppel and D. Ürge-Vorsatz 
Assessment of policy instruments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 
buildings, Report for the UNEP-Sustainable Buildings and Construction 
Initiative 
Budapest : Central European University, 2007 
 
U.S. Department of Energy, 2011 
Website on Energy Savers 
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/
mytopic=12720  
Accessed at 04/06/2011 
 
Vlierden, 2007 
Karin van Vlierden 
Snelheidsgedrag : motieven en beïnvloedende factoren  
Diepenbeek : Steunpunt verkeersveiligheid, 2007 
 
Verhallen en Van Raaij, 1981 
T.M.M. Verhallen and W.F. Van Raaij 
Household behavior and the use of natural gas for home heating 
In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, No.3 (1981); p. 253–257 
 
Van Raaij, W.F. and Verhallen, T.M.M., 1983 
A behavioral model of residential energy use 
In : Journal of Economic Psychology, 3 (1), 39-63 
 

 
87 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT  
  
Visser and Ramos Martin, 2008 
J. Visser and N. Ramos Martin 
Expert Report on the Implementation of the social partner’s Framework 
Agreement on Telework 
Amsterdam : University of Amsterdam, 2008 
 
Weidema et al., 2005 
B.P. Weidema, M. Wesnaes, J. Hermansen, T. Kristensen and N. Halberg, 
Environmental Improvement Potentials of Meat and Dairy Products, JRC (IMPRO 
Study) 
Seville : European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for 
Prospective Technological Studies, 2005 
 
WHO/FAO, 2002 
Joint WHO/FAO expert consultation on Diet, nutrition and the prevention of 
chronic diseases 
Geneva : WHO/FAO, 2002 
 
Wilhite et al., 1996 
H. Wilhite, H. Nagakami, T. Masuda, Y. Yamaga and H. Haneda 
A cross-cultural analysis of household energy use behaviour in Japan and 
Norway 
In: Energy Policy, Vol. 24, No. 9 (1996); p. 795–803 
 
Winett et al., 1979 
R.A. Winett, M.S. Neale and H.C. Grier 
Effects of selfmonitoring and feedback on residential electricity consumption 
In: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol. 12, No.2 (1979); p. 173–184 
 
WWF, 2009 
Virtual meetings and Climate innoVation in the 21st Century : Can offsetting 
CO
2
 emissions from flights by investing in videoconferencing be a way to 
support transformative change? 
Stockholm : WWF, 2009