Despite the importance of evaluating all mitigation options to inform policy decisions addressing climate change, a comprehensive analysis of household-scale interventions and their emissions reduction potential is missing. Here, we address this gap for interventions aimed at changing individual households’ use of existing equipment, such as monetary incentives or feedback. We have performed a machine learning-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis to comparatively assess the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing energy demand in residential buildings. We extracted 360 individual effect sizes from 122 studies representing trials in 25 countries. Our meta-regression confirms that both monetary and non-monetary interventions reduce the energy consumption of households, but monetary incentives, of the sizes reported in the literature, tend to show on average a more pronounced effect. Deploying the right combinations of interventions increases the overall effectiveness. We have estimated a global carbon emissions reduction potential of 0.35 GtCO2 yr−1, although deploying the most effective packages of interventions could result in greater reduction. While modest, this potential should be viewed in conjunction with the need for de-risking mitigation pathways with energy-demand reductions.
Despite the importance of evaluating all mitigation options so as to inform policy decisions addressing climate change, a systematic analysis of household-scale interventions to reduce carbon emissions is missing. Here, we address this gap through a state-of-the-art machine-learning assisted meta-analysis to comparatively assess the effectiveness of a range of monetary and behavioral interventions in energy demand of residential buildings. We identify 122 studies and extract 360 effect sizes representing trials on 1.2 million households in 25 countries. We find that all the studied interventions reduce energy consumption of households. Our meta-regression evidences that monetary incentives are on an average more effective than behavioral interventions, but deploying the right combinations of interventions together can increase overall effectiveness. We estimate global cumulative emissions reduction of 8.64 Gt CO2 by 2040, though deploying the most effective packages and interventions could result in greater reduction. While modest, this potential should be viewed in conjunction with the need for de-risking mitigation with energy demand reductions and realizing substantial co-benefits.