Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation/Atıf: Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365. Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
Research Article/Araştırma Makalesi
From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges Influence Pro-
Environmental Behaviors
Teoriden Eyleme: (Dijital) Dürtmelerin Çevre Yanlısı Davranışları Nasıl
Etkilediğinin Değerlendirilmesi
Havva SERİM TORO
1
, Seda AKSÜMER
2
Abstract
Everyday actions of people across various settings can lead to environmental issues. These automatically
performed actions are overlooked in the traditional economics. Therefore, it is crucial to identify and understand
pro-environmental behaviors. On the other hand, behavioral economics offers insights into cognitive constraints
affecting these kinds of behaviors and develops nudges that take human beings' limited rationality into account.
Therefore the study underscores the significance of nudges as empirical tools in behavioral economics for
building a sustainable world and laying the foundation for pro-environmental behaviors. In this context, it
examines the emerging significance of nudges in digital settings, analyzing their applications in this domain.
Conducting an extensive literature review, this study categorizes pro-environmental behaviors as energy
conservation, waste reduction & recycling, and sustainable consumption. Sustainable consumption is divided
into grocery shopping, travel decisions, fashion & makeup choices. The research makes the importance of
behavioral economics apparent by acknowledging the automatic nature of many pro-environmental behaviors
and addressing the pervasive attitude-behavior gap. Consequently, by investigating the impact of both physical
and digital nudges, this article offers a practical response to empirical evidence on promoting pro-environmental
behavior responsible actions.
Jel Codes: D9, Q5, J18
Keywords: Pro-environmental behavior, (Digital) Nudges, Policy Review, Sustainability, Literature Review.
1
Assist. Prof., Ankara Haci Bayram Veli University, Department of Economics, havva.serim@hbv.edu.tr. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4222-4670.
2
Phd Candidate, Ankara Haci Bayram Veli University, Department of Economics, seda.aksumer@hbv.edu.tr.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9516-1226.
Fiscaoeconomia
E-ISSN: 2564-7504
2024, Volume 8, Issue 3, 1335-1365
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/fsecon
Submitted/Geliş: 03.04.2024
Accepted/Kabul: 23.07.2024
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1336
Öz
İnsanların çeşitli ortamlardaki gündelik eylemleri çevresel sorunlara yol açabilmektedir. Otomatik olarak
gerçekleştirilen bu eylemler, geleneksel iktisatta göz ardı edilmektedir. Bu nedenle, çevre yanlısı davranışları
tespit etmek ve anlamak çok önemlidir. Öte yandan, davranışsal iktisat bu tür davranışları etkileyen bilişsel
kısıtlamalara ilişkin içgörüler sunmakta ve insanların sınırlı rasyonelliğini dikkate alan dürtmeler geliştirmektedir.
Bu nedenle çalışmada, davranışsal iktisattaki dürtmelerin sürdürülebilir bir dünya inşa etme ve çevre dostu
davranışların temelini atma konusundaki önemi vurgulanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda dürtmelerin dijital ortamlarda
ortaya çıkan önemi incelenerek bu alandaki uygulamaları analiz edilmiştir. Kapsamlı bir literatür taraması yapılan
bu çalışmada, çevre yanlısı davranışlar enerji tasarrufu, atık azaltma, geri dönüşüm ve sürdürülebilir tüketim
olarak kategorize edilmektedir. Sürdürülebilir tüketim ise market alışverişi, seyahat kararları, moda ve makyaj
tercihleri olarak ayrılmaktadır. Araştırma, birçok çevre yanlısı davranışın otomatik doğasını kabul ederek ve
yaygın tutum-davranış farkını ele alarak, davranışsal iktisatın önemini belirgin hale getirmektedir. Sonuç olarak,
hem geleneksel hem de dijital dürtmelerin etkisini araştıran bu çalışma, çevre yanlısı davranışların teşvik
edilmesine ilişkin ampirik kanıtlara pratik bir yanıt sunmaktadır.
Jel Kodları: D9, Q5, J18
Anahtar Kelimeler: Çevre Yanlısı Davranışlar, (Dijital) Dürtmeler, Politika İncelemesi, Sürdürülebilirlik, Literatür
Taraması.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1337
1. Introduction
Encouraging consumers to adopt sustainable behaviors is critical to protecting the
environment and maintaining the planet's limited resources. The understanding that our
natural resources are finite is at the core of this necessity. The Earth's limited resources,
including raw materials, electricity, and water, are becoming more and more stressed as a
result of rising population density and changing consumer habits (Chu & Karr, 2017). Reducing
waste, conserving energy, and engaging in responsible consumption are examples of
sustainable habits that are essential to easing these pressures. Through conscientious
decision-making in their everyday lives, consumers can minimize resource depletion, minimize
ecological footprints, and mitigate environmental deterioration. Furthermore, sustainable
development is also promoted by sustainable consumer practices (Yildirim, 2020). In essence,
the collective adoption of sustainable behaviors by consumers represents a crucial step
towards ensuring a balanced and resilient future for generations to come.
However, conscientious decision-making in our daily lives proves challenging from a
behavioral economics perspective due to the prevalence of automatic behaviors and the
existence of an attitude-behavior gap. Behavioral economics posits that individuals often rely
on heuristics and cognitive shortcuts, leading to the automatic execution of routine actions
without deliberate thought. This automaticity is rooted in the human tendency to conserve
cognitive resources, and as a result, individuals may default to familiar, less pro-environmental
behaviors. Additionally, the attitude-behavior gap, a phenomenon where individuals'
intentions and beliefs do not consistently translate into corresponding actions, further
complicates conscientious decision-making (Wintschnig, 2021). While people generally have
strong attitudes towards sustainability, they have difficulty translating their intentions into
action because of automatic habits or external factors that influence their decisions.
Therefore, in the modern environment, the combination of nudge theory and behavioral
economics is particularly important for encouraging pro-environmental habits. Behavioral
economics, which is based on an understanding of how people make decisions, offers a
perspective through which (non-price) interventions, or "nudges," can be created to favorably
affect outcomes. Whether they take the shape of digital or traditional nudges, they operate
as low-cost strategies to encourage activities that are environmentally friendly (Newell &
Siiamaki, 2014; Weinmann et al., 2016; Schneider et al., 2018; Gillingham & Tsvetanov, 2018;
Grebitus et al., 2020). In this manner, these key research questions (R.Q.) guide our
exploration:
R.Q.1. What is the current understanding of the use of nudges and digital nudges to bring
about changes in pro-environmental behavior?
R.Q.2. How do traditional and digital nudges influence pro-environmental behavior, and what
are the differences in effectiveness between traditional and digital nudges in promoting pro-
environmental behavior?
To answer these questions, we conducted an extensive literature review, drawing on
reputable databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, AIS eLibrary, EconLit, and other
electronic databases, as well as relevant journals and citations referenced in included papers.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1338
Although our primary focus is on studies published in peer-reviewed journals, we also included
studies and conference papers from active researchers in the field. We limited our
examination to studies utilizing experimental designs to establish relationships between
interventions and behavioral outcomes on pro-environmental behavior with the
categorisation of energy conservation, waste reduction and recycling, and sustainable
consumption. Our review adhered to three specific criteria: 1) inclusion of experiments, 2)
emphasis on pro-environmental behavior changes, 3) relevance to our three specified
domains. We also categorized sustainable consumption into three behaviors: grocery
shopping habits, travel decisions, and fashion & make-up choices based on the literature. To
provide a comprehensive survey across multiple domains and interventions, we imposed
certain constraints on our review such as we opted not to report study effect sizes or weigh
them by quality due to variations in behavioral outcomes. Despite these constraints, we
believe that our analysis provides a precious insight into the current state of evidence.
Our research extends the scope of earlier reviews, which concentrated solely on either energy
conservation (Andor & Fels, 2018; Buckley, 2020; Chatzigeorgiou & Andreou, 2021), or other
related pro-environmental behaviors (Lehner et al., 2016; Varotto & Spagnolli, 2017; Barker
et al., 2021). There are studies that specifically examine traditional nudges (Osbaldiston &
Schott, 2012; Byerly et al., 2018; Wee et al., 2021; van Valkengoed et al., 2022) or digital
nudges (Zimmermann et al., 2021; Berger et al., 2022; Beermann et al., 2022; Zawieska et al.,
2022) within this domain as a policy comparison and analysis. Hence, our research endeavors
to analyze nudges and digital nudges, aligning them with distinct pro-environmental
behaviors, allowing us to assess their efficacy in promoting sustainable actions within each
behavior category.
It is essential to recognize that, although core principles of nudging remain consistent across
physical and digital platforms, the changes in choice architecture and subsequent effects can
vary significantly. For example, bringing nudging principles into the digital space, such as
featuring sustainable products prominently in online stores, introduces complexities that
require separate evaluation. The work of Meske & Amojo (2019) highlights the complications
of this shift, emphasizing the need to examine the effects of digital nudges independently from
their offline counterparts. Therefore, we analyzed related nudges separately by providing
foremost examples. By exploring the details of nudging mechanisms and their implications in
both traditional and digital settings, this study aims to contribute valuable insights to the
ongoing academic discussions on environmentally friendly behavior.
The rest of this article is arranged as follows. Section 2 summarized the theoretical background
of nudge theory and its relation to pro-environmental behavior. Section 3 provides the
prominent traditional and digital nudges applications for energy conservation, recycling &
waste reduction, and sustainable consumption behavior. Section 4 presents discussions and
concludes the study.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1339
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Behavioral Economics and Nudge
As Richard H. Thaler (2016), winner of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics and one of the
pioneers of the adoption and popularization of (modern) behavioral economics in the
economics literature, emphasizes, calling economics behavioral is not about the opposition
that it is a non-behavioral discipline: Both neoclassical and behavioral economics are about
understanding and investigating economic behavior. The contrast stems mainly from the
differences in the assumptions that these two approaches make about human behavior. While
neoclassical economics models humans as homo economicus, behavioral economics seeks to
understand and describe homo sapiens.
Homo economicus models a human being who acts 100% in his/her own self-interest, makes
decisions 100% isolated from his/her environment, is 100% rational, has 100% willpower,
temporal coherence and foresight. However, when these assumptions are stretched, in other
words, when it is assumed that human beings possess these qualities with less than 100%
probability, the structure of economic analysis diversifies and changes (Rabin 2002). In this
regard, behavioral economics study human behavior without priori assumptions, accepting
that a human being might display bounded rationality, bounded self-control and bounded self-
interest depending on the context (Mullainathan & Thaler, 2001). That way, behavioral
economics brings those main insights together by drawing on psychology, cognitive sciences
and other related social sciences. Accordingly, behavioral economics’ policies, or nudges, are
a set of interventions based on these insights. So, how can we define a “nudge”? The presence
of various explanations for a behavior complicates the design of interventions for behavior
change. Additionally, differences in decision environments and contexts across studies make
it challenging to agree on a clear definition of what qualifies as a nudge. Nevertheless, Thaler
& Sunstein’s (2008:6) definition provides a general framework for nudging: Nudging is the use
of a choice architecture that aims to change individuals' behavior in a predictable way, without
prohibiting any choice or drastically altering economic incentives. From this perspective,
nudges directly target individuals' decision-making mechanisms, unlike neoclassical
economics' policies that only intervene in market failures.
The reason for the effectiveness of nudges, which have been successfully applied in many
economic areas in recent years, is basically the fact that, as the mind uses System 1 to save
time and energy, choices and behaviors are often made automatically, without thought. This
often leads to suboptimal "errors". Note that behavioral economics models the "dual way of
thinking" of the mind: The way of thinking represented by System 1 is fast, intuitive, emotional
and therefore automatic, while the way of thinking represented by System 2 is slow, cautious,
analytical and therefore conscious (Stanovich & West, 2000). In other words, nudges are
successful because they are designed taking into account that behavior is the result of the
interaction of two systems, but mostly with System 1. For sustainability research, one of the
results of dual way of thinking is that attitude-behavior gap which represents the discrepancy
of willingness to support pro-environmental behaviors and actual purchasing or adopting
behaviors (Terlau & Hirsch, 2015). In this manner, nudges help individuals or businesses to
adopt sustainable behaviors by steering them towards what's best for them and the
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1340
environment without changing financial incentives significantly but preserving the autonomy
of decision-making. Accordingly, digital nudges are defined as choice architecture to influence
decision making in digital settings, especially in online buying behavior (Weinmann et al.,
2016; Schneider et al., 2018). When we consider the rapid growth of online shopping, digital
nudges seem to be doing as good as other nudges for desired behaviors such as sustainable
grocery & apparels shopping and travel decisions (Berger et al., 2020; Roozen et al. 2021;
Meske et al., 2022).
2. 2. Pro-environmental Behavior (PEB) and Nudge
The ecosystem, encompassing the shared living space for all organisms, is characterized as the
biological, physical, social, economic, and cultural environment where living entities interact.
In this interconnected web of relationships, addressing environmental challenges involves
collective endeavors to enhance pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) (Environment Law, 1983).
The day-to-day actions of individuals play a pivotal role in shaping the current state and future
trajectory of the environment. Consequently, it is asserted that individual consumption
patterns significantly contribute to climate change, biodiversity decline, and water resource
depletion. With the human population on Earth expected to keep growing, these impacts are
anticipated to worsen. Therefore, encouraging improved pro-environmental behavior is
essential to preventing environmental disasters (Byerly, 2018: 159) and it's essential to assess
pro-environmental behaviors using a conceptual framework by exploring the definition of pro-
environmental behavior, considering its sustainable and behavioral aspects from various
perspectives in different disciplines.
Investigating individuals' environmental behavior has been a significant focus in psychology
and sociology. A central question in this exploration is: "why do some people engage in pro-
environmental behavior while others do not?" To address this, we must first understand the
definitions of pro-environmental behavior. PEB involves actions that minimize the impact of
human activities on nature (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002: 240). These behaviors fall into
categories such as non-activist behaviors in the public space, environmental activism, and
individual environmentalism (Stern, 2000), tied to altruistic, biospheric, and pro-social
behavior patterns. Such factors, influencing individuals' PEB, contribute to heightened
environmental concerns and awareness (Steg & Vlek, 2009: 311; Groot & Steg, 2008). On the
other hand, Kennedy et al., (2009) define pro-environmental behaviors as supportive actions
for the environment, such as green consumption habits, public transportation use, recycling,
and conscious use of energy and water. These behaviors result from individuals' personal
efforts in both public and private life (Li et al., 2019: 29). According to Ramus & Killmer (2007),
pro-environmental behavior includes ecological actions that benefit society or overall welfare.
For this reason scholars generally agree on the definition of PEB, emphasizing actions that
minimize one's negative impact on the environment, with some extending it to include
behaviors that benefit the environment and society. The focus is on improving environmental
conditions while reducing harmful impacts like greenhouse gas emissions and resource waste.
Various terms, such as "ecological behavior", "sustainable behavior," and “green behavior”
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1341
are used interchangeably, sharing common ground in specific actions and influences (Tian &
Liu, 2022).
Enhancing and improving these behaviors requires identifying the cognitive biases that play a
determining role in individuals' behavior patterns. Consequently, this discussion will delve into
assessing the obstacles to pro-environmental behavior through the lens of behavioral
economics. Broadly, the key determinants of this behavior, a significant domain in economics
and psychology, can be categorized into four factors (Blankenberg & Alhusen, 2019: 1):
● Socio-demographic factors (personal capabilities)
● Contextual factors (individual, social, and institutional)
● Attitudinal (psychological) factors
● Habits
The interplay of individual and social factors is critical in shaping pro-environmental behavior.
On the other hand, cognitive biases and heuristics pose barriers to PEB, diminishing
environmental awareness. Cognitive biases hindering pro-environmental behavior include the
difficulty in perceiving environmental problems, the slow pace of ecological changes, and the
inherent complexity of environmental issues. Many individuals are unaware of the severity of
problems like nuclear radiation, the ozone hole, and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the
potential devastating consequences they may have in the future (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002:
253-254).
One of the cognitive biases linked to PEB is loss aversion which relates to how people assess
possibilities in loss and gains domains (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Many studies support
the idea that humans tend to react more strongly to negative feelings associated with losses
than positive feelings from gains (Levy, 1996: 181). Recognizing the significance of loss
aversion as a cognitive bias, efforts have been made to understand and improve barriers to
pro-environmental behavior. Research demonstrated that using loss framing, rather than gain
framing, positively influenced individuals' pro-environmental decisions (Homar & Cvelbar,
2021). This finding was supported by a quasi-experiment measuring household energy
consumption, where a decrease was observed with the use of loss framing intervention
(Gonzales et al., 1988). Field experiments exploring the impact of loss- and gain-framed
messages on behavior concluded that loss-framed messages positively influence behavior
(Lord, 1994; White et al., 2011; Grazzini et al., 2018).
Another cognitive bias influencing PEB is the status quo bias. This bias makes people less
inclined to change their current situation due to the belief that the present state is certain and
involves fewer risks (Kahneman et al., 1991: 197-198). The inclination to stick with the status
quo and face social dilemmas is one reason for resistance to environmentally friendly changes
(Johnsen, 2016: 406). For example, Frederiks et al., (2015) argue that automatic and habitual
behaviors in household energy consumption contribute to maintaining the status quo, but
they suggest that appropriate nudges can change individuals' energy consumption behavior.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1342
Finally, it's important to highlight the present bias as a potential source of cognitive biases.
The present bias denotes individuals' inclination to assign greater significance to rewards
occurring in the near future when assessing trade-offs between two future instances
(O’Donoghue & Rabin, 1999). This also may lead to gaps between intention and action, and a
tendency to procrastinate. This bias helps explain some current behaviors (Kremer et al., 2019:
380). For instance, a study in India found that individuals who are more patient and have lower
present bias are more likely to invest in energy-saving devices, addressing the gap between
energy-saving intentions and actions (Fuerst & Singh, 2018). That’s because sustainable
behaviors are usually linked to future benefits, representing abstract and uncertain processes
in the human mind. Similarly, when deciding on environmentally friendly purchases, people
often prefer outcomes closer to the present (Trudel, 2019: 88). These kinds of cognitive biases
create challenges to individuals’ PEB. Therefore, recognizing and understanding these biases
is crucial for bridging the gap between intention and behavior. In the following section, we
will assess the impact of appropriate choice architectures and behavioral interventions on PEB
from a nudge perspective which takes these biases into consideration.
3. Action: Nudges & Digital Nudges for PEB
3.1. Energy Conservation
In the realm of energy conservation behavior, denoting the deliberate reduction of energy
consumption within households, commonly used policies for influence include the strategic
deployment of social norms, informational nudges, default options, framing effect, and goal-
setting mechanisms. So, energy conserving behavior implies mainly two ways that households
can save energy: first, by altering how much energy they consume, such as by using less light.
Second, they can invest in energy efficiency and change the way they acquire things, like
getting a really effective washing machine (Andor & Fels, 2018).
Numerous experimental approaches employing social norm nudges have demonstrated the
capacity to effectuate changes in energy-saving attitudes and behaviors (Gillingham &
Tsvetanov, 2018: 305). Social norms are significantly influenced by the social group in which
the individual resides and are defined as a persuasive tool for improving behavior (Sherif,
1937; Cialdini & Goldstein 2004). Therefore, a message such as “A majority of your neighbors
have adopted energy-efficient lighting” or “Your current energy consumption is above the
neighborhood average” has the potential to motivate individuals to align their behavior with
perceived communal standards.
The effectiveness of the social norm intervention used in field experiments aiming to improve
the energy saving behavior of households was measured by energy consumption in electricity
meters. The common finding of the studies is that interventions using social norms
significantly encourage energy saving behavior of individuals (Schultz et al., 2007; Nolan et al.,
2008; Alcott, 2011; Edirneligil, 2021). On the other hand, studies investigating the role of social
norms on energy consumption behavior were conducted with university students. It was
discovered that when the phrase "other university students save more energy" was applied
to voluntary thermostat use within the context of social norms, behaviors improved (Liu, et
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1343
al., 2016). Interventions with feedback messages within the scope of social norms have been
implemented in university campuses in South Korea, New Zealand, the USA and Thailand.
These studies revealed that interventions employing social norms resulted in a significant
improvement of students' energy consumption behavior (Petersen et al., 2007; Bekker et al.,
2010; Delmas & Lessem, 2014; Anderson et al., 2017; Chongwilaikasae & Ayaragarnchanakul,
2023).
In this field, the effectiveness of nudges goes beyond social norms to include the influence of
informational nudges and default options. For example, Cardella et al., (2022) investigated the
extent to which informational nudges influence participants' choice preferences. This study
investigated whether providing information about the efficiency, cost and environmental
impacts of different energy sources influences consumers' voluntary choice of green energy
plans. The results from two different samples show that informational nudges significantly
influence participants' choice of plan. Showing pro-green choices as the default increased
individuals' choice by 6%-8% according to this plan. The results showed the potential for
information nudges to be a more understandable and less costly mechanism to increase the
adoption of voluntary green energy plans. In another study similar to these findings, Ghesla
et al., (2020) observed that the tendency towards green preferences increased when the
informational nudge was presented as the default option in a field experiment with
households.
Default options can be defined as rules that are valid and may persist in situations where
individuals do not take any steps to change their current behavior. The green energy category
presented as a default option makes the environmental and economic consequences of
energy sources visible for individuals. Individuals are expected to take these factors into
account when making choices (Sunstein & Reisch, 2020: 144). One of the important studies in
this field is the study by Pichert et al., (2008), which investigated the tendency of individuals
towards default green options by conducting 2 field and 2 laboratory experiments. In the
laboratory experiment, the decision-making behaviors of individuals encountering different
electricity usage options were examined. As a result of the study, it was determined that 68%
of the participants changed their preferences in this direction when green energy was
presented as the default option despite its higher pricing. The defaulted green energy
programme was as follows: EcoEnergy company sells clean electricity generated from
renewable energy sources. Contribute to climate protection and environmental protection!.
In the field experiment, electricity consumption in households was measured with the
assistance of an electricity meter, and green energy plans were presented as default options
to individuals. The green (water energy) tariff is used by default. 4.3% of customers decided
to switch to the economic tariff, less than 1% switched to the premium-priced green tariff,
and 0.7% reacted by switching to a different supplier. Around 94% of customers stayed with
the default option.
Apart from the evidence supporting the impact of nudges on behavior change, there are
studies indicating their limited effectiveness. Research on the ineffectiveness of nudges in
energy saving behavior emphasizes that in practical applications, dense text formats, legal
statements, and information with multiple messages do not sufficiently support individual
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1344
efforts (Ölander & Thøgersen, 2014). Similar results were observed in field experiments
investigating the effects of informational and social norm nudges on household energy savings
(Ata & Erdogan, 2020). The experiments revealed that nudges, delivered through feedback
and visual information, either had minimal effects on energy conservation in households or
failed to bring about significant changes (Bittle et al., 1970; Hayes & Cone, 1981; Abrahamse
et al., 2005; Nilsson et al., 2014). The delayed response of individuals and the difficulty in
understanding savings strategies lead to a limited impact of these nudges on behavior change.
On the other hand, new smart home-connected energy-efficient technologies are emerging
more frequently and have the potential to significantly impact consumer decisions. Therefore,
it appears that behavioral interventions such as digital nudging will have an impact on
behavior. Although the use of nudging to encourage energy conservation behavior has been
studied in a number of settings, little is known about how effective it is in digital choice
environments that encourage everyday energy conservation behavior, particularly when it
comes to mobile applications. In this manner, Berger et al., (2022) tested the framing and
default nudges, as well as their combination, with an online survey of 231 private household
participants. The authors found that framing and default nudges in a smart home app can
significantly influence energy conservation behavior. This is in line with the potential of
feedback technology to change energy consumption behavior, as outlined by Froehlich (2009).
Schweizer et al., (2015) further supports this by discussing the use of consumer behavior data
and machine learning to reduce energy consumption in smart homes. Jahn (2010) emphasizes
the importance of integrating energy efficiency features in smart home systems, including
transparent and intuitive user interfaces. These findings highlight the potential of digital
nudging and smart home technology in promoting energy conservation behavior. In this
manner, goal-setting is also a promising strategy, however the research on this digital nudging
mechanism produced inconsistent outcomes (Zimmermann et al., 2021). Goal-setting nudges
for energy-saving behavior could involve encouraging individuals to set specific and achievable
energy conservation targets such as sending personalized messages suggesting that residents
set a goal to reduce their monthly energy consumption by a certain percentage over the next
three months. According to Loock et al., (2013), default goal settings significantly influence
the promotion of energy saving on residents' energy use. In contrast, goal-setting techniques
have been studied by Brandsma and Blasch (2019) to lower energy and water consumption,
their results were mixed, with the exception of when they produced more financial incentives.
Lastly, according to Han et al., goal-setting processes did not appear to have a significantly
beneficial effect on energy savings. (2013).
3.2. Recycling and Waste Reduction
In our pursuit of sustainability, it is necessary to distinguish between waste reduction and
recycling. Both behavior patterns are related to each other but differ in some aspects. Waste
reduction behavior refers to a complex process as part of people's daily life practice and is
considered as an output of individual consumption. Recycling behavior relates to the
separation of waste into different categories (Milford et al., 2015: 3). The experimental
literature on recycling behavior dates back to the 1980s. These studies, which initially
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1345
approached recycling behavior from a sociological perspective, later became more concerned
with identifying and improving individual behavior (Gould et al., 2016: 269). It should be noted
here that nudges are seen as crucial interventions to enhance recycling behavior.
Experimental studies showing behavior changes related to recycling and waste reduction,
typically provide clear evidence of informational (mostly visual), social norm, social
comparison& feedback, and framing effect interventions.
Field experiments with households in different countries have examined recycling and waste
reduction behavior. The common aim of these studies was whether informational nudges
change behavior. In these experiments, households in the treatment groups were given
information about recycling or waste reduction, while the control group received no
information. In the field experiment phase of the studies, households' own waste sorting data,
narratives highlighting the benefits of recycling, and information such as "if you recycle, you
will benefit the ecosystem in this way" were employed. After the nudges, it was tested whether
the waste in the bins changed by measuring. The common finding of the studies is that
informational nudges are effective in improving recycling and waste reduction behavior in
households (Milford et al., 2015; Linder et al., 2018; Zhang and Wang, 2020). Another field
experiment testing the effects of nudges on dietary change and food waste reduction
observed the actual behavior of 481 participants. In the experimental group where the social
cost of food waste was presented as information (In the United States, an estimated 40% of
all food produced is wasted), vegetable preference increased by 50% and food waste
decreased significantly (Qi et al., 2022).
In addition to process-related informational nudges, visual information nudges are also
commonly used in these studies. Visual nudges, which incorporate graphics, highlights, or
callouts are applied to prompt individuals to exhibit desired behaviors and are characterized
as simple reminders (Chui et al., 2015). Some studies in this field show that visual prompts can
be effective in increasing recycling behavior (Arbuthnot et al., 1976; Spaccarelli et al., 1989).
For example, Sussman et al., (2013) investigated the effects of two different visual stimuli on
individuals' solid waste sorting behavior. In the standard visual stimulus brochure, waste was
categorized and visualized, while in the second type of brochure prepared with the behavioral
intervention method, messages such as "Please Compost Your Leftovers" were used with real
information. As a result of the field experiment, it was found that informative visual stimuli
significantly changed solid waste sorting behavior. In a study testing similar hypotheses, a
randomized field trial with households in the UK investigated the effectiveness of visual
nudges to encourage the correct sorting of food waste. For the experimental groups, posters
were placed over bins with the messages "PLEASE NO FOOD WASTE" and "Remember to use
the food recycling bin". The results revealed a behavioral change of 20.74% in the
experimental group compared to the control group. Additionally, in a field experiment with
students on a university campus, it was investigated whether visual stimuli change recycling
behavior. A pair of human eye posters placed on recycling bins were used as visual stimuli.
Accordingly, it was concluded that waste sorting behavior increased significantly in the
experimental group where information and visual stimuli were used together (Shearer et al.,
2017; Lotti et al., 2023).
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1346
On the other hand, a review of field experiments using descriptive (indicating what the
majority does) and prescriptive (indicating what the majority approves of) social norms reveals
the importance of norms in driving behavior change (Cialdini et al., 1990; Cialdini & Goldstein,
2004). For instance, Schultz (1999) conducted a 17-week field experiment with households,
suggesting that appropriate norms could enhance recycling behavior. The use of descriptive
norms, delivered through group feedback in the experimental groups, resulted in a
noteworthy increase in overall recycling behavior. On the other hand, Cosic et al., (2018)
explored the impact of social norm nudges on recycling behavior in a field experiment
conducted on a university campus in Italy. Employing the descriptive norm approach, they
crafted a message stating, "Almost 70% of Harvard students RECYCLE. Do you want to be left
behind?" The study revealed a significant increase in recycling behavior within the
experimental group exposed to the descriptive norm message. Dupre & Meineri (2016)
investigated the effects of social comparative feedback, group feedback and persuasive
communication nudges on recycling behavior in field experiments conducted on university
campuses in France. For the experimental group in which social comparative feedback nudge
was used, a graph showing the three-week recycling data of the students in the other cafe was
prepared as a poster. In addition, the message "nothing is lost, working together and
everything is transformed" was given. According to the empirical analyses conducted before
and after the experiment, it was found that the recycling rate in the group in which social
comparative feedback was used increased more than the other nudges. Despite the strong
influence of social norms, some research argues that these nudges may not sustainably alter
behavior in the long term. An investigation into the impact of social norm messages on waste
prevention in Chinese households, aligned with existing literature, found that individuals did
not show sustained improvement in behavior after the intervention (Ling et al., 2023).
Therefore, the ongoing effectiveness of social norm nudges post-treatment remains a debated
issue, with some scholars, such as Constantino et al., (2022), questioning whether their effects
endure.
It can be expressed that social norms have a significant impact on reducing food waste in
public settings such as restaurants where people's behavior is visible to others. In this context,
Kallbekken & Sælen (2013) conducted a field study on the extent to which normative-based
messages ("Welcome back! Again! And again! Visit our buffet many times. That's better than
taking a lot once.") are effective on customers' food waste in a hotel restaurant. It was
concluded that the use of these normative message prompts reduced customers' food waste
by 20% (Kallbekken & Sælen, 2013; Templeton et al., 2016). Geislar (2017), investigated the
effect of nudges on individuals' food waste sorting behavior in a field experiment conducted
in households in Southern California. The results of the study revealed that the explanatory
social norm messages used ("75% of households in Costa Mesa sorted all food waste this
week") were able to change food waste sorting behavior for longer than the control group and
the other treatment group. Kameke & Ficher (2018) analyzed the possible effects of nudges
on reducing household food waste. The results of a survey of 101 consumers in Germany show
that feedback, social interaction, and advice on meal planning can often change intentions
towards food waste.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1347
Chakravartya & Mishrab (2019), in a different field of study with three different companies in
India, tested whether the social norm drive changes the behavior of office workers towards
paper waste. As a result of the study, it was found that the injunctive social norm (reduce-
reuse-recycle and use less paper) messages significantly changed the paper consumption
behavior of office workers, but the behavior did not change in the control group where no
nudge was applied.
Numerous studies have explored the impact of framing on inducing desired behaviors (Spence
& Pidgeon, 2010; Kim & Kim, 2014). While both positive and negative framing can be effective,
prevailing literature suggests a tendency for negatively framed messages to have a stronger
influence (Cialdini et al., 2006). This efficacy is often attributed to loss aversion, wherein
negative frames are perceived as more compelling due to the emphasis on potential losses.
White et al., (2011) observed the superiority of negatively framed messages in influencing
consumers' recycling behavior. Similarly, a field experiment by Poortinga and Whitaker (2018)
involving 12 universities and business cafe sites demonstrated that framing options as losses
(3 billion takeaway cups go to landfill every year in the UK and fight the waste), increasing
individual's preference for disposable cups. While the literature mostly provides experimental
evidence supporting the potential of the framing effect to induce behavior change, Nelson et
al., (2021) found no significant difference between negative and positive framed messages on
the use of plastic bags in supermarkets. Conversely, Zheng et al., (2023) discovered nuances
in the effectiveness of framing combined with different behavioral norms. Their survey study
on food waste reduction revealed that negatively framed messages are more impactful when
paired with injunctive norms, whereas positively framed messages are more effective
alongside descriptive norms. Notably, negative descriptive norms were found to increase food
waste tendencies in individuals.
While the related literature on traditional nudges is extensive, there are few prominent
examples that employing digital nudging in the contexts of food waste reduction (Ong et al.,
2023), paper waste reduction (Egebark & Ekström 2016; Degirmenci & Recker, 2018), and
sustainable packaging (Wensing et al., 2020)
3
. In Ong et al.'s (2023) investigation on digital
nudging and waste reduction, positive reinforcement through digital tent cards is found to
effectively modify food waste behavior. Notably, the study demonstrates that digital nudging
is three times more effective in reducing food waste compared to a control group without
nudging, with positive messaging proving more influential than negative counterparts. Gentle
reminders, framing individuals as "warriors" or "heroes" against global food waste,
significantly enhanced altruistic motivation. The studies by Egebark & Ekström (2016) and
Degirmenci & Recker (2018) find out digital interventions (via email campaigns and
3
While academic studies exploring the use of digital nudges to encourage recycling behavior are
currently limited, notable technological solutions offered by companies like Routeware Inc have
demonstrated practical applications. For instance, Routeware Inc has developed waste sorting games
for items such as batteries and plastic straws, as well as conveying recycling notifications. These
technological interventions have proven effective in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the
recycling value chain, contributing to the management of approximately 90 million tons of materials.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1348
informative platforms) are effective for promoting double-sided printing. Wensing et al. 's
(2020) study addresses consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for bio-based packaging as an
alternative to plastic. Integrating environmental psychology and behavioral economics, the
research tests four green nudging strategies: providing nature images, reflection questions,
information on bio-based plastics, and normative information. Results from a study of 1019
German consumers show that the effectiveness of nudge strategies depends on consumers'
cognitive styles. For instance, nature pictures increase WTP for bio-base packaging for
emotionally driven decisions, while strategies providing normative information are more
effective for consumers who engage in cognitive deliberation.
3.3. Sustainable Consumption
The conceptual definition of sustainable consumption includes the criteria for fulfilling the
social and environmental needs of sustainable development (WCED, 1987). The concept of
sustainable consumption generally encompasses goals such as equity, resource efficiency,
waste minimization, quality of life, consumer health, and safety. Therefore, it can be stated
that individual actions have a critical importance in the concept of sustainable consumption
in terms of improving lifestyles and consumption habits (Monts & Plepys, 2008). Here, we
categorized sustainable consumption into three subcategories in order to assess the (digital)
nudges since the concept is notably broad.
Grocery Shopping Habits
The environmental sustainability of a product depends on the production methods and origins
of its components (Meybeck & Gitz 2017). Regional production, with its shorter transport
distances and reduced storage, cooling, and packing requirements, tends to result in lower
pollutant emissions and energy consumption. As reflected in the European organic label,
organic farming emphasizes a holistic approach to soil, animals and plants, providing benefits
such as reduced nitrate pollution, soil erosion and greenhouse gas emissions, while making
regional products more preferable to conventional products (Schlich & Fleissner 2005).
Therefore, as Berger et al., (2022) emphasizes, more sustainable practices are possible with
the pressure from demand side and this is possible with the help of (digital) nudges among
other critical efforts
4
.
Accordingly, the literature on grocery shopping habits reveals a growing interest in employing
digital nudges to promote sustainable behaviors. Berger et al. (2020) carried out a study
4
The literature focusing on sustainable grocery shopping through field or lab experiments is limited,
but it highlights the effectiveness of social norm nudges in promoting plant-based diets that are
healthier and more sustainable. For example, placing social norm messages inside shopping baskets or
carts has been shown to increase customers' purchasing behavior towards fruits and vegetables by
over 10% (Niculescu et al., 2016; Wansink et al., 2017; Bauer et al., 2022; McGrath, 2023). Additionally,
experiments comparing environmental informational nudges to economic messages found that
environmental messaging led to decreased meat consumption compared to economic messaging
(Fredholm & Karlsson, 2020).
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1349
examining the effectiveness of three digital nudges (simplification, default options, and social
norms) on 291 participants in an online grocery store. The findings demonstrated that the
simplification nudge appealed to environmentally conscious consumers, default options were
effective for a widespread segment of consumers, and social norms did not have a significant
impact. De Bauw et al., (2022) conducted two successive user studies, focusing on highlighting,
defaults, social information, and warnings in online users' decision-making processes. Their
hybrid nudge, incorporating social information and setting a default, significantly increased
the probability of item selection without negatively impacting decision time, confidence, or
satisfaction. In another study by Valenčič et al., (2022), analysis of fifteen documents revealed
four common nudging techniques in the grocery domain: utilizing alternative labels,
suggesting healthier swaps, employing default choices, and raising salience. Despite nudging's
positive association with improved nutritional outcomes, the studies often lacked detailed
descriptions of the visual user interface features, hindering the understanding of factors
influencing consumer behavior. This gap in knowledge underscores the need for insights into
unsuccessful nudging techniques to inform the design of online platforms for sustainable and
healthier food selection. Furthermore, researchers emphasize the importance of integrating
digital environments into theoretical frameworks guiding nudging actions in the grocery
domain. Overall, these studies collectively contribute to the understanding of digital nudges
in shaping sustainable grocery shopping habits, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches
and consideration of the digital context in designing effective interventions.
Sustainable Travel Decisions
Websites that book flights online allow users to compare prices, convenience, and other
features that are important to them. Despite the fact that aircraft is the most emission-
intensive form of transportation, environmental issues are usually ignored. In this manner,
Meske et al., (2022) illustrates how digital nudges could help users of online travel booking
platforms make more ecologically friendly decisions. Using a digital nudge design approach,
the authors implemented two different nudge interventions in an experimental setting on a
hypothetical flight reservation website. First, an understanding mapping displayed as an
emission converter and second, an informative warning displayed as an emission label were
implemented as nudges. The paper concludes that while emission labels are a more successful
means of promoting sustainable booking behavior, both digital nudges are helpful treatments
in online choice environments.
On the other hand, the majority of mobility-related issues are brought on by regular usage of
private vehicles for transportation, such as commuting. Using digital nudging in the form of
trip suggestions to encourage commuters to use public transit is one strategy to alter their
patterns of mobility. Therefore, Zimmermann et al. (2022) conducted a choice-based conjoint
analysis to investigate the impact of recommendations. With this study, they aimed to reveal
how often the participants preferred the recommended travel option and to what extent this
had an impact on their public transportation preferences. Based on commuters' trip times and
usage of mobility apps, their results revealed differences. Commuters who typically do not
utilize mobility apps and have short transit times experienced significant beneficial results.
Those results are compatible with the findings of both Anagnostopoulou (2020) and Gabrielli
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1350
(2013) who discovered that tailored interventions, such goal-setting and persuasive
messaging, can significantly raise the adoption of sustainable transportation options.
According to Anagnostopoulou (2020), these treatments worked especially well when
customized to the mobility type and personality of the users via applications on smartphones.
Sustainable Fashion and Make-up Choices
It should be noted that sustainable fashion refers to clothing that is: (1) sourced in a way that
helps to decrease poverty and improve labor conditions; and (2) made with eco-friendly
materials and produced with little harm to the environment (Garg, 2020). Similarly,
sustainable make-up products are the ones produced by biodegradable, organic ingredients,
and recyclable materials and prioritizing fair trade and ethical conditions.
A literature review shows that there are a number of promising studies conducted to date
related to digital nudging for sustainable fashion products. Additionally, despite the fact that
each study's methodology and digital nudges were different, the majority of this research
concentrated on T-shirt purchase decisions. For instance, Amatulli et al., (2019) discovered
that negative framing increased the likelihood of buying organic cotton t-shirts relative to
positive or neutral framing in four experimental studies about the effects of message framing
on sustainable consumer behavior. Lee et al., (2020) used neuromarketing approaches to find
that a simplifying nudge framed in green colors, which stand for organic cotton, enhanced
brain activity. This helped with decision-making and improved the possibility that the
consumer would choose the product with the green logo. Roozen et al., (2021) looked into
how information and visual priming nudges affected people's decisions to buy sustainable
clothing. They found that both nudge types were successful, with the information-based
nudge having a greater impact because it provided more positive environmental impact
information. However, Mirbabaie et al., (2021) discovered negligible results when using social
norm and digital default nudges to encourage green fashion in online shopping. Lastly, by
taking into account subsequent sustainable behavior, Schürmann et al., (2023) investigated
the impacts of simplification and social norm nudges to promote sustainable t-shirt decisions
against conventional ones. The results show that the simplification nudge increases the
selection of sustainable items.
Antonides & Welvaarts (2020) looked into whether choosing a default option and presenting
items lateral to one another—that is, from left to right or left to left—influenced consumers'
decisions on sustainable makeup options. Subsequently, 330 Dutch women participated in an
online quantitative experiment where they selected 1094 hypothetical makeup products.
More sustainable decisions were made when the default was set to a sustainable option rather
than an unsustainable one. The presentation of products in a left-right or right-left orientation
did not significantly affect the decisions made by customers. Moreover, consumers with
greater levels of education and those who value sustainability were more likely to select
sustainable makeup. People who wear makeup regularly and those who consider cost to be a
factor in purchasing decisions frequently select non-sustainable makeup. According to the
results of their experiment, choosing sustainable products by default increases the likelihood
of making a sustainable decision by roughly 8%. The authors suggested that even though 14%
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1351
of the participants buy their make-up products online, since online purchasing will become
more common in the future, digital nudging in this domain will gain importance, as well.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
The study aimed to assess the influence of both traditional and digital nudges in promoting
pro-environmental behaviors (PEB), specifically focusing on energy conservation, recycling &
waste reduction, and sustainable consumption practices, including grocery shopping, travel
choices, and fashion/makeup choices. Utilizing a comprehensive review of relevant literature,
the research examined the impact of nudges on PEB by each behavior category, considering
shared and distinct characteristics employed in traditional and digital contexts. Now, we are
prepared to offer insights into the questions that originally sparked our research and
motivated our study.
R.Q.1. What is the current understanding of the use of nudges and digital nudges to bring
about changes in pro-environmental behavior?
Regarding our first research question, findings indicate that both traditional and digital nudges
demonstrate effectiveness in encouraging pro-environmental behaviors across the studied
categories, although with mixed or insignificant results in certain cases. In energy
conservation, whether it is physical or digital settings, the most commonly employed nudges
include social norms and social comparison& feedback, followed by informational nudges
(Schultz et al., 2007; Nolan et al., 2008; Alcott, 2011; Anderson et al., 2017; Edirneligil, 2021;
Chongwilaikasae & Ayaragarnchanakul, 2023). However, some complexities arise, with certain
approaches showing mixed or insignificant results. While informational nudges positively
influence preferences for green power plans and default options sustainably increase green
energy adoption (Pichert et al., 2008; Ghesla et al., 2020; Cardella et al., 2022), challenges
persist in comprehending saving strategies, leading to limited impacts on behavior
(Abrahamse et al., 2005; Ölander & John Thøgersen, 2014; Nilsson et al., 2014; Ata & Erdogan,
2020). Emerging smart home technologies offer promising avenues (Schweizer et al. 2015;
Berger et al., 2022), with framing and default nudges showing potential in influencing energy
conservation behavior. Yet, inconsistencies exist in the effectiveness of goal-setting
mechanisms.
In recycling and waste reduction, various nudges, including informational, social norms, social
comparison, and framing interventions play critical roles. Informational nudges, especially
visual reminders, effectively enhance recycling behavior (Sussman, et al., 2013; Milford et al.,
2015; Linder et al., 2018; Zhang & Wang, 2020; Lotti et al., 2023) while social norms and
framing strategies also contribute positively (Cialdini et al.,1990; Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004;
Cosic et al., 2018; Poortinga & Whitaker, 2018; Chakravartya & Mishrab, 2019), though
debates persist regarding their long-term sustainability (Constantino et al., 2022). Despite
conflicting findings, digital nudges hold promise, although research in this area remains
limited, particularly in food, paper, and package waste reduction contexts.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1352
In grocery shopping, digital nudges demonstrate efficacy, with default options and
simplification nudges catering to different consumer segments (Berger et al., 2020). Hybrid
nudges incorporating social information and defaults show effectiveness in online decision-
making processes (De Bauw et al., 2022). However, a lack of detailed interface descriptions
prevents understanding, highlighting the need for insights into unsuccessful techniques.
Integrating digital environments into theoretical frameworks is crucial for designing effective
interventions in promoting sustainable food selection. In transportation, digital nudges like
trip suggestions effectively encourage public transit use, especially for commuters not
accustomed to mobility apps (Meske et al., 2022; Zimmermann et al., 2022). Tailored
interventions based on users' mobility types and personalities through smartphone
applications significantly boost the adoption of sustainable transportation options (Gabrielli,
2013; Anagnostopoulou, 2020). In sustainable fashion, digital nudges influence purchase
decisions, with negative framing and informational & simplification nudges showing promise
(Amatulli et al., 2019; Roozen et al., 2021; Schürmann et al., 2023). Setting sustainable options
as defaults increases the likelihood of making sustainable decisions, particularly in online
makeup markets (Antonides & Welvaarts, 2020).
While the literature predominantly reports significant effects of nudges and digital nudges on
pro-environmental behavior, it's essential to acknowledge the potential presence of
publication bias. Studies with insignificant results may often remain unpublished, potentially
skewing the overall perception of the effectiveness of these interventions. Therefore, future
research should consider addressing this bias to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the true impact of nudges and digital nudges in promoting pro-
environmental behavior.
R. Q. 2. How do traditional and digital nudges influence pro-environmental behavior, and
what are the differences in effectiveness between traditional and digital nudges in
promoting pro-environmental behavior?
Before delving into our R.Q. 2 regarding how nudges influence PEB, we should note that, we
purposely skipped explaining the intricate psychology behind nudges, except briefly explaining
the background theory at the beginning. Because human behavior is complex, and there are
various reasons for behavior change. Therefore, we chose to look at the types of nudges
instead of the psychological mechanisms. This decision was because nudges hold design
information that makes replication easier, unlike psychological mechanisms. For example, as
Beermann et al., (2022) states the status quo bias can be a default nudge or countered by a
feedback nudge at different contexts.
(Digital) nudges exert influence on PEB through various mechanisms. Social norm and social
comparison nudges (commonly employed with feedback), a prominent nudge, have shown
significant efficacy in shaping energy-saving, recycling & waste reduction behaviors. Messages
conveying information about neighbors adopting energy-efficient lighting, individuals
exceeding the neighborhood's average energy consumption or students making recycling have
proven motivational, aligning behavior with perceived social norms (Cialdini & Goldstein,
2004; Alcott, 2011; Liu et al., 2016; Anderson et al., 2017; Cosic et al., 2018; Chongwilaikasae
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1353
& Ayaragarnchanakul, 2023). Because individuals often look to others in their social groups as
a reference point for appropriate behavior.
On the other hand, informational nudges play a critical role in promoting pro-environmental
behavior across various domains by providing individuals with relevant information about the
benefits of sustainable actions. These nudges work by increasing awareness and
understanding of environmental issues, highlighting the positive impacts of adopting green
practices, and empowering individuals to make informed choices. Whether it's encouraging
energy conservation (Geshla et al., 2020; Cardella et al., 2022), promoting recycling and waste
reduction (Susmann et al., 2013; Milford et al., 2015; Linder et al., 2018; Zhang & Wang, 2020;
Qi et al., 2022), or influencing sustainable consumption habits (Berger et al., 2020; Meske et
al., 2022; Roozen et al., 2021; Schürmann et al., 2023), informational nudges effectively
leverage knowledge to drive behavior change towards more environmentally friendly
practices. Unlike conventional education, which often requires active engagement and
conscious effort from individuals to absorb and apply the information provided, informational
nudges work by embedding key messages within the environment or decision-making process,
making them more salient and likely to influence behavior without demanding significant
cognitive resources. Similarly, default options seem to be a powerful tool across various
behavior categories by leveraging inertia and guiding individuals towards more sustainable
choices without requiring active decision-making. For instance, presenting green energy
options as default choices significantly influences consumers' preferences, as observed in
studies examining energy plan selections (Pichert et al., 2008; Loock et al., 2013; Sunstein &
Reisch, 2020; Ghesla et al., 2020; Berger et al., 2022) or making sustainable consumption
default increases the selection of them (Berger et al., 2020; Antonides & Welvaarts (2020).
Likewise, loss- and gain-framed of the information often results in desired behavior change
depending on the context. Especially for recycling& waste reduction behavior, most of the
studies highlight the effectiveness of negative framing (Cialdini et al., 2006; White et al., 2011;
Poortinga & Whitaker, 2018). For sustainable consumption, as Amatulli et al., (2019) showed,
information in terms of negative frames (if you buy this conventional t-shirt, you actively will
contribute to the collapse of the environment) stimulates PEB by evoking negative emotions
like guilt or shame. However, the utilization of negatively framed messages for social or green
marketing purposes should be approached with caution, as it carries the risk of inducing
avoidance behaviors or causing psychological reactance, both of which could undermine the
intended effectiveness of the message.
While the effectiveness of goal-setting nudges may vary, they are particularly successful when
tailored to individual preferences and accompanied by personalized feedback, particularly for
energy conservation (Loock et al., 2013; Brandsma & Blasch, 2019) and sustainable travel
choices (Gabrielli, 2013; Anagnostopoulou, 2020).
As it is obvious, the effectiveness of traditional nudges and digital nudges on PEB can vary
based on several factors. One of the factors is related to its setting. Traditional nudges, such
as physical cues and incentives (placing visual prompts on recycling bins) may excel in contexts
where tangible, immediate prompts are necessary, leveraging real-world visibility and direct
impact on the senses. On the other hand, digital nudges, which often utilize online platforms
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1354
and personalized feedback, may offer advantages in terms of accessibility, scalability, and real-
time information delivery. As decision-making processes have increased, nudges and
Information Systems have become more frequently used in digital environments. Used in
apps, online stores or web pages, digital nudges include user interface elements to guide
online behavior. While digital nudging mechanisms have similar characteristics to traditional
nudges, there are differences in terms of choice architectures and effects. For instance,
grocery stores can adjust their nudge strategy to the digital environment by ranking
sustainable products first. However, the effects of similar measures in offline and online
spaces may not be the same in all cases. Therefore, the impacts of digital nudges should be
evaluated separately from traditional nudges, with personalized feedback and goal-setting
mechanisms showing immediate impact by leveraging big data and smart applications
(Beerman et al., 2022; Berger et al., 2022).
Last but not least, the impact of nudges differs depending on the context and timing of the
behavior. Certain nudges are better suited for instilling new behaviors, whereas others excel
at modifying existing ones. For example, while providing social comparison and feedback
seems more effective for altering existing behaviors, default nudges are often used to form
new behaviors such as contract with a green energy program (Beermann et al., 2022).
Additionally, it's essential to evaluate nudges based on their timing, whether they are
implemented before, during, after, or throughout the action (Zimmermann et al., 2021; Berger
et al., 2022).
In conclusion, the article highlights the varying effectiveness of traditional and digital nudges
in promoting pro-environmental behavior, with energy conservation being the most
researched area. In waste reduction and sustainable consumption, grocery and food choices
are the research area that become prominent. However, there remains a notable gap in
experimental research for underrepresented areas such as electronic products, sustainable
fashion, and personal care products. Despite the adoption of digital nudges by recycling firms,
academic research in this domain is limited, suggesting a need for further exploration.
Moreover, for already represented areas, digital nudges like gamification hold promise for
evoking pro-environmental behaviors, indicating a potential direction for future research and
practical applications in promoting sustainability.
References
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A Review of Intervention Studies
Aimed at Household Energy Conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3),
273-291.
Allcott, H. (2011). Social Norms and Energy Conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-
10), 1082-1095.
Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Peluso, A. M., Soscia, I., & Guido, G. (2019). The Effect of Negative
Message Framing on Green Consumption: An Investigation of The Role of Shame.
Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 1111-1132.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1355
Anagnostopoulou, E., Urbančič, J., Bothos, E., Magoutas, B., Bradesko, L., Schrammel, J., &
Mentzas, G. (2020). From Mobility Patterns to Behavioural Change: Leveraging Travel
Behaviour and Personality Profiles to Nudge for Sustainable Transportation. Journal of
Intelligent Information Systems, 54, 157-178.
Anderson, K., Song, K., Lee, S., Krupka, E., Lee, H., & Park, M. (2017). Longitudinal Analysis of
Normative Energy Use Feedback on Dormitory Occupants. Applied Energy, 189, 623-
639.
Andor, M. A., & Fels, K. M. (2018). Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation–A
Systematic Review of Non-Price Interventions and their Causal Effects. Ecological
Economics, 148, 178-210.
Antonides, G., & Welvaarts, M. (2020). Effects of Default Option and Lateral Presentation on
Consumer Choice of The Sustainable Option in an Online Choice Task. Sustainability,
12(13), 5484.
Arbuthnot, J., Tedeschi, R., Wayner, M., Turner, J., Kressel, S., & Rush, R. (1976). The Induction
of Sustained Recycling Behavior through The Foot-In-The-Door Technique. Journal of
Environmental Systems, 6(4), 355- 383.
Ata, O., & Erdoğan, M. (2020). Geri Bildirim ve Sosyal Normların Hanehalkı Elektrik Enerjisi
Tasarrufuna Etkileri: Deneysel Bir Çalışma. Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştırmaları Dergisi,
12(1), 1-34.
Barker, H., Shaw, P. J., Richards, B., Clegg, Z., & Smith, D. (2021). What Nudge Techniques Work
for Food Waste Behaviour Change at The Consumer Level? A Systematic Review.
Sustainability, 13(19), 11099.
Bauer, J. M., Aarestrup, S. C., Hansen, P. G., & Reisch, L. A. (2022). Nudging More Sustainable
Grocery Purchases: Behavioural Innovations in A Supermarket Setting. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 179, 121605.
Beermann, V., Rieder, A., & Uebernickel, F. (2022). Green Nudges: How to Induce Pro-
Environmental Behavior Using Technology. ICIS 2022 Proceedings, Copenhagen
Denmark, December.
Bekker, M. J., Cumming, T. D., Osborne, N. K. P., Bruining, A. M., McClean, J. I., & Leland, L. S.
(2010). Encouraging Electricity Savings in A University Residential Hall Through A
Combination Of Feedback, Visual, Prompts, and Incentives. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 43(2), 327–331.
Berger, M., Greinacher, E., & Wolf, L. (2022). Digital Nudging to Promote Energy Conservation
Behavior-Framing and Default Rules in A Smart Home App. ECIS 2022 Research Papers.
92. Last accessed December 11, 2023. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2022_rp/92/.
Berger, M., Lange, T., & Stahl, B. (2022). A Digital Push with Real Impact–Mapping Effective
Digital Nudging Elements to Contexts to Promote Environmentally Sustainable
Behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134716.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1356
Berger, M., Müller, C., & Nüske, N. (2020). Digital Nudging in Online Grocery Stores-Towards
Ecologically Sustainable Nutrition. In The Forty-First International Conference on
Information Systems, India.
Bittle, R. G., Valesano, R. M., & Thaler, G. M. (1979). The Effects of Daily Feedback on
Residential Electricity Usage As A Function of Usage Level and Type of Feedback
Information. Journal of Environmental Systems, 9(3), 275-287.
Blankenberg, A. K., & Alhusen, H. (2019). On the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior:
A Literature Review and Guide for The Empirical Economist. Center for European,
Governance, and Economic Development Research (CEGE), (350).
Brandsma, J. S., and Blasch, J. E. 2019. One for All? The Impact of Different Types of Energy
Feedback and Goal Setting on Individuals’ Motivation to Conserve Electricity. Energy
Policy, (135), 110992.
Buckley, P. (2020). Prices, Information and Nudges for Residential Electricity Conservation: A
Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics, 172, 106635.
Byerly, H., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Hammond Wagner, C., Palchak, E., Polasky, S., & Fisher,
B. (2018). Nudging Pro‐Environmental Behavior: Evidence and Opportunities. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment, 16(3), 159-168.
Cardella, E., Ewing, B. T., & Williams, R. B. (2022). Green is Good—The Impact of Information
Nudges on The Selection of Voluntary Green-Power Plans. The Energy Journal, 43(1).
1- 42.
Chakravarty, S., & Mishra, R. (2019). Using Social Norms to Reduce Paper Waste: Results from
A Field Experiment in The Indian Information Technology Sector. Ecological Economics,
164, 106356.
Chatzigeorgiou, I. M., & Andreou, G. T. (2021). A Systematic Review on Feedback Research for
Residential Energy Behavior Change through Mobile and Web Interfaces. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 135, 110187.
Chongwilaikasaem, S., & Ayaragarnchanakul, E. (2023). Electricity Saving Behavior in Student
Dorms: What Message Framing Works? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental
Economics, 107, 102088. 1-9.
Chu, E. W., & Karr, J. R. (2017). Environmental Impact: Concept, Consequences, Measurement.
Reference Module in Life Sciences, 1-22.
Chui, W. S., Wai, C. W., & Ahmad, R. (2015). Local and Global Messages for Prompting Energy
Conservation Behaviour: An Experimental Study in University. J. Teknologi, 74, 87-92.
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barret, D. W., Rhoads, K. & Winter, P. L. (2006).
Managing Social Norms for Persuasive Impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3-15.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus Theory of Normative Conduct:
Recycling The Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1357
Cialdini, Robert B. and Noah J. Goldstein (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–622.
Constantino, S., Sparkman, G., Kraft-Todd, G., Bicchieri, C., Centola, D., ShellDuncan, B., Vogt,
S., & Weber, E., (2022). Scaling up Change: A Critical Review and Practical Guide to
Harnessing Social Norms for Climate Action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 23, 50–97.
Cosic, A., Cosic, H., & Ille, S. (2018). Can Nudges Affect Students’ Green Behaviour? A Field
Experiment. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2(1), 107-111.
De Bauw, M., De La Revilla, L. S., Poppe, V., Matthys, C., & Vranken, L. (2022). Digital Nudges
to Stimulate Healthy and Pro-Environmental Food Choices in E-Groceries. Appetite,
172, 105971.
De Groot, J. I. & Steg, L. (2008). Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmental
Significant Behavior: How to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic, and Biospheric Value
Orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330-354.
Degirmenci, K., & Recker, J. (2018). Creating Environmental Sensemaking Through Green is:
An Experimental Study on Eco-Nudging Paper Printing Behavior. In Proceedings of the
24th Americas Conference on Information Systems (Pp. 1-10). Association for
Information Systems (AIS).
Delmas, M., & Lessem, N. (2014). Saving Power to Conserve Your Reputation? The
Effectiveness of Private Versus Public Information. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 67(3), 353-370.
Dupré, M., & Meineri, S. (2016). Increasing Recycling Through Displaying Feedback and Social
Comparative Feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 101-107.
Edirneligil, A. (2021). Davranışsal İktisat Bağlamında Hanehalkı Elektrik Tüketiminin
Belirleyicileri: Konya Örneği. Doktora Tezi. Selçuk Üniversitesi. 1-204.
Egebark, J., & Ekström, M. (2016). Can Indifference Make The World Greener?. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 76, 1-13.
Environmental Law. (1983). The Organizing Principle of The Publication: 5(22), 499.
FHWA (2019). Applying Incentives to Shift Mode of Travel. In Expanding Traveler Choices
Through The Use of Incentives: A Compendium of Examples (Chapter 4).
Frederiks, E.R., Stenner, K. & Hobman, E.V. (2015). Household Energy Use: Applying
Behavioural Economics to Understand Consumer Decision-Making and Behaviour.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 4, 1385–1394.
Fredholm, S., & Karlsson, E. (2020). Are you Cheap or Climate Friendly? Applying Nudge Theory
to Lower Meat Purchasing in Grocery Stores. Master Thesis. 1-53.
Friis, R., Skov, L. R., Olsen, A., Appleton, K. M., Saulais, L., Dinnella, C., & Perez-Cueto, F. J.
(2017). Comparison of Three Nudge Interventions (Priming, Default Option, and
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1358
Perceived Variety) to Promote Vegetable Consumption in A Self-Service Buffet Setting.
PloS One, 12(5), 1-16.
Froehlich, J. (2009, February). Promoting Energy Efficient Behaviors in The Home Through
Feedback: The Role of Human-Computer Interaction. In Proc. HCIC Workshop (Vol. 9,
pp. 1-11).
Fuerst, F. & Singh, R. (2018). How Present Bias Forestalls Energy Efficiency Upgrades: A Study
of Household Appliance Purchases in India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186, 558–
569.
Gabrielli, S., & Maimone, R. (2013). Digital Interventions or Sustainable Urban Mobility: A Pilot
Study. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous
Computing Adjunct Publication (pp. 119-122).
Garg, P. (2020). Introduction to Fast Fashion: Environmental Concerns and Sustainability
Measurements. Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Development. Biodiversity,
Soil and Waste Management, (2), 409-427.
Geislar, S. (2017). The New Norms of Food Waste at The Curb: Evidence-Based Policy Tools to
Address Benefits and Barriers. Waste Management, 68, 571-580.
Ghesla, C., Grieder, M., & Schubert, R. (2020). Nudging The Poor and The Rich–A Field Study
on The Distributional Effects of Green Electricity Defaults. Energy Economics, 86,
104616.1-15.
Gillingham, K., & Tsvetanov, T. (2018). Nudging Energy Efficiency Audits: Evidence from A Field
Experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 90, 303-316.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A Room with A Viewpoint: Using Social
Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35(3), 472-482.
Gonzales, M. H., Aronson, E. & Costanzo, M. A. (1988). Using Social Cognition and Persuasion
to Promote Energy Conservation: A Quasi‐Experiment 1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 18(12), 1049-1066.
Gould, R. K., Ardoin, N. M., Biggar, M., Cravens, A. E., & Wojcik, D. (2016). Environmental
Behavior’ S Dirty Secret: The Prevalence of Waste Management in Discussions of
Environmental Concern and Action. Environmental Management, 58, 268-282.
Grazzini, L., Rodrigo, P., Aiello, G., & Viglia, G. (2018). Loss or Gain? The Role of Message
Framing in Hotel Guests’ Recycling Behaviour. J. Sustain. Tour., 26 (11), 1944–1966.
Grebitus, C., Roscoe, R. D., Van Loo, E. J., & Kula, I. (2020). Sustainable Bottled Water: How
Nudging and Internet Search Affect Consumers’ Choices. Journal of Cleaner Production,
267, 121930.
Han, Q., Nieuwenhijsen, I., De Vries, B., Blokhuis, E., & Schaefer, W. (2013). Intervention
Strategy to Stimulate Energy-Saving Behavior of Local Residents. Energy Policy, (52),
706-715.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1359
Hayes, S. C. & Cone, J. D. (1981). Reduction of Residential Consumption of Electricity Through
Simple Monthly Feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14(1), 81–88.
Homar, A. R. & Cvelbar, L. K. (2021). The Effects of Framing on Environmental Decisions: A
Systematic Literature Review. Ecological Economics, 183, (106950), 1-18.
Jahn, M., Jentsch, M., Prause, C. R., Pramudianto, F., Al-Akkad, A., & Reiners, R. (2010). The
Energy Aware Smart Home. In 2010 5th International Conference on Future
Information Technology, (pp. 1-8).
Johnsen, S. Å. K. (2016). Inertia Processes and Status Quo Bias in Promoting Green Change.
Human Affairs, 26(4), 400-409.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.
Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. & Thaler, R.H (1991). Anomalies the Endowment Effect, Loss
Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.
Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2013). “Nudging” Hotel Guests to Reduce Food Waste as A Win–
Win Environmental Measure. Economics Letters, 119(3), 325–327.
Kennedy, E. H., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L. & Nadeau, S. (2009). Why We Don't" Walk The
Talk": Understanding The Environmental Values/ Behaviour Gap in Canada. Human
Ecology Review, 151-160.
Kim, S. B., & Kim, D. Y. (2014). The Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on Green
Messages in Hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. 55 (1), 64–75.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and
What Are The Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior?. Environmental Education
Research, 8(3), 199-260.
Kremer, M., Rao, G., & Schilbach, F. (2019). Behavioral Development Economics. In Handbook
of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations, 1(2), 345-458.
Lee, E. J., Choi, H., Han, J., Kim, D. H., Ko, E., & Kim, K. H. (2020). How to “Nudge” Your
Consumers Toward Sustainable Fashion Consumption: An Fmri Investigation. Journal
of Business Research, 117, 642-651.
Lehner, M., Mont, O., & Heiskanen, E. (2016). Nudging–A Promising Tool for Sustainable
Consumption Behaviour?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 166-177.
Levy, J. S. (1996). Loss Aversion, Framing, and Bargaining: The Implications of Prospect Theory
for International Conflict. International Political Science Review, 17(2), 179–195.
Li, D., Zhao, L., Ma, S., Shao, S. & Zhang, L. (2019). What Influences an Individual’s Pro-
Environmental Behavior? A Literature Review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
(146), 28–34.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1360
Linder, N., Lindahl, T., & Borgström, S. (2018). Using Behavioural Insights to Promote Food
Waste Recycling in Urban Households—Evidence from A Longitudinal Field
Experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(352), 1-13.
Ling, M., Xu, L., & Yang, H. (2023). Direct and Spillover Effects of Social Norm Nudges for
Household Recycling: A Longitudinal Field Experiment. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 42, 423-433.
Liu, Y., Veríssimo, D., & Farhidi, F. (2016). Using Social Norm to Promote Energy Conservation
in A Public Building. Energy and Buildings, 133, 32-36.
Loock, C.-M., Staake, T., & Thiesse, F. (2013). Motivating Energy-Efficient Behavior with Green
is: An Investigation of Goal Setting and The Role of Defaults. MIS Quarterly. 1313-1332.
Lord, K.R. (1994). Motivating Recycling Behavior: A Quasi Experimental Investigation of
Message and Source Strategies. Psychol. Mark., 11 (4), 341–358.
Lotti, L., Barile, L., & Manfredi, G. (2023). Improving Recycling Sorting Behaviour with Human
Eye Nudges. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 10127.
McGrath, G. M. (2023). Using Social Norm Nudges in Supermarket Shopping Trolleys to
Increase Fruit and Vegetable Purchases. Nutrition Bulletin, 48(1), 115-123.
Meske, C., & Amojo, I. (2019). Status Quo, Critical Reflection and Road Ahead of Digital
Nudging in Information Systems Research--A Discussion with Markus Weinmann and
Alexey Voinov. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08202. pp. 402 – 420.
Meske, C., Amojo, I., & Müller, C. (2022). Online Flight Booking: Digital Nudging to Decrease
Aviation-Related Carbon Emissions. Information Technology & People. Vol. Ahead-Of-
Print No. Ahead-Of-Print. Https://Doi.Org/10.1108/ITP-03-2021-0172
Meybeck, A., & Gitz, V. (2017). Sustainable Diets Within Sustainable Food Systems.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 76(1), 1-11.
Milford, A. B., Øvrum, A., & Helgesen, H. (2015). Nudges to Increase Recycling and Reduce
Waste. Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute. 1- 27.
Mirbabaie, M., Marx, J., & Germies, J. (2021). Conscious Commerce--Digital Nudging and
Sustainable E-Commerce Purchase Decisions. Australasian Conference on Information
Systems, Sydney, (pp.1-11).
Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable Consumption Progress: Should We be Proud or
Alarmed?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 531-537.
Mullainathan, S., R.H. Thaler (2001), "Behavioral Economics", Smelser N., P. Bates (Ed.),
International Encyclopedia of Social, Pergamon Press, 1094-1100.
Nelson, K. M., Bauer, M. K., & Partelow, S. (2021). Informational Nudges to Encourage Pro-
Environmental Behavior: Examining Differences in Message Framing and Human
Interaction. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 610186, 1-15.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1361
Newell, R. G., & Siikamäki, J. (2014). Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of
Information Labels. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists, 1(4), 555-598.
Niculescu, M., Payne, C. R., & Just, D. (2016). Using Mirrors and Social Norms to Improve Fruit
and Vegetable Purchases in Grocery Stores. In The Proceedings of the International
Conference" Marketing-from Information to Decision" (p. 69). Babes Bolyai University.
Nilsson, A., Bergstad, C. J., Thuvander, L., Andersson, D., Andersson, K., & Meiling, P. (2014).
Effects of Continuous Feedback on Households’ Electricity Consumption: Potentials
and Barriers. Applied Energy, 122, 17-23.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative
social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7),
913-923.
O'donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later. American Economic Review, 89(1),
103-124.
Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 37, 341-356.
Ong, D., Chiu, S., Andrews, E., & Nadarajan, G. (2023). One Needs to be Reminded and
Motivated: Mediating Role of Digital Nudging for Food Waste Reduction. Journal of
Social Marketing, 13(3), 449-471.
Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental Sustainability and Behavioral Science:
Meta-Analysis of Pro environmental Behavior Experiments. Environment and Behavior,
44(2), 257-299.
Petersen, J. E., Shunturov, V., Janda, K., Platt, G., & Weinberger, K. (2007). Dormitory Residents
Reduce Electricity Consumption When Exposed to Real-Time Visual Feedback and
Incentives. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(1), 16–33.
Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green Defaults: Information Presentation and Pro-
Environmental Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63-73.
Poortinga, W., & Whitaker, L. (2018). Promoting The Use of Reusable Coffee Cups Through
Environmental Messaging, The Provision of Alternatives and Financial Incentives.
Sustainability, 10(3), 873, 1-10.
Qi, D., Li, R., Penn, J., Houghtaling, B., Prinyawiwatkul, W., & Roe, B. E. (2022). Nudging Greater
Vegetable Intake and Less Food Waste: A Field Experiment. Food Policy, 112, 102369.
Rabin, M. (2002). A Perspective on Psychology and Economics. European Economic Review.
46(4–5),657–85.
Ramus, C.A. & Killmer, A.B.C. (2007). Corporate Greening Through Prosocial Extra Role
Behaviours- A Conceptual Framework for Employee Motivation. Business Strategy and
the Environment, (16), 554-570.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1362
Riggs, W., & Kuo, J. (2015). The Impact of Targeted Outreach for Parking Mitigation on The Uc
Berkeley Campus. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 3(2), 151–158.
Roozen, I., Raedts, M., & Meijburg, L. (2021). Do Verbal and Visual Nudges Influence
Consumers’ Choice for Sustainable Fashion?. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing,
12(4), 327-342.
Schlich, E., & Fleissner, U. (2005). The Ecology Of Scale: Assessment of Regional Energy
Turnover and Comparison with Global Food (5 Pp). The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 10, 219-223.
Schneider, C., Weinmann, M., & Vom. Brocke, J. (2018). Digital Nudging: Guiding Online User
Choices Through Interface Design. Communications Of The ACM, 61(7), 67-73.
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing Behavior with Normative Feedback Interventions: A Field
Experiment on Curbside Recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25-36.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The
Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological
Science, 18(5), 429-434.
Schürmann, C. L., Helinski, C., Koch, J., Westmattelmann, D., & Schewe, G. (2023). Digital
Nudging to Promote Sustainable Consumer Behavior? An Experimental Analysis in
Online Fashion Retail. European Conference on Information Systems, Norway.
Schweizer, D., Zehnder, M., Wache, H., Witschel, H. F., Zanatta, D., & Rodriguez, M. (2015).
Using Consumer Behavior Data to Reduce Energy Consumption in Smart Homes:
Applying Machine Learning to Save Energy Without Lowering Comfort of Inhabitants.
In 2015 IEEE 14th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications
(ICMLA) (pp.1123-1129).
Shearer, L., Gatersleben, B., Morse, S., Smyth, M., & Hunt, S. (2017). A Problem Unstuck?
Evaluating The Effectiveness of Sticker Prompts for Encouraging Household Food
Waste Recycling Behavior. Waste Management, 60, 164-172.
Sherif, M. (1937). An Experimental Approach to The Study of Attitudes. Sociometry, 1(1/2),
90-98.
Spaccarelli, S., Zolik, E., & Jason, L. A. (1989). Effects of Verbal Prompting and Block
Characteristics on Participation in Curbside Newspaper Recycling. Journal of
Environmental Systems, 19(1), 45-57.
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and Communicating Climate Change: The Effects of
Distance and Outcome Frame Manipulations. Global Environ. Change, 20(4), 656-667.
Stanovich, K.E., & West. R.F. (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for The
Rationality Debate?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review
And Research Agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1363
Stern, P. (2000). Toward A Coherent Theory of Environmentally-Significant Behaviour. Journal
of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2019). Trusting Nudges: Toward A Bill of Rights for Nudging.
Routledge, 1-145.
Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2020). “Climate-Friendly Default Rules”. Sustainable
Consumption and Production, Volume Ii: Circular Economy And Beyond. Swain, R. B.,
& Sweet, S. (Eds.). Springer Nature, 1-447.
Sussman, R., Greeno, M., Gifford, R., & Scannell, L. (2013). The Effectiveness of Models and
Prompts on Waste Diversion: A Field Experiment on Composting by Cafeteria Patrons.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 24-34.
Templeton, E. M., Stanton, M. V., & Zaki, J. (2016). Social Norms Shift Preferences For Healthy
And Unhealthy Foods. Plos One, 11(11), e0166286.
Terlau, W., & Hirsch, D. (2015). Sustainable Consumption and The Attitude-Behaviour-Gap
Phenomenon-Causes and Measurements Towards A Sustainable Development.
Proceedings in Food System Dynamics, 199-214.
Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future. American Economic
Review, 106(7),1577-1600.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein C.R (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, And
Happiness. USA: Yale University Press.
Tian, H., & Liu, X. (2022). Pro-environmental Behavior Research: Theoretical Progress and
Future Directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
19(11), 6721.
Torma, G., Aschemann‐Witzel, J., & Thøgersen, J. (2018). I Nudge Myself: Exploring ‘Self‐
Nudging’strategies to Drive Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 42(1), 141-154.
Trudel, R. (2019). Sustainable Consumer Behavior. Consumer Psychology Review, 2(1), 85-96.
Valenčič, E., Beckett, E., Collins, C. E., Seljak, B. K., & Bucher, T. (2022). Digital Nudging in Online
Grocery Stores: A Scoping Review on Current Practices and Gaps. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 131, 151-163.
van Valkengoed, A. M., Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2022). To Select Effective Interventions for
Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change, We Need to Consider Determinants of
Behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(11), 1482-1492.
Varotto, A., & Spagnolli, A. (2017). Psychological Strategies to Promote Household Recycling.
A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Validated Field Interventions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 51, 168-188.
Von Kameke, C., & Fischer, D. (2018). Preventing Household Food Waste Via Nudging: An
Exploration of Consumer Perceptions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 32-40.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1364
Wansink, B., & Hanks, A. S. (2013). Slim by Design: Serving Healthy Foods First in Buffet Lines
Improves Overall Meal Selection. PLoS One, 8(10), 1-5.
Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Ittersum, K. V. (2001). Descriptive Menu Labels’ Effect on Sales.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 68-72.
Wansink, B., Soman, D. & Herbst, K.C. (2017) Larger Partitions Lead to Larger Sales: Divided
Grocery Carts Alter Purchase Norms and Increase Sales. Journal of Business Research,
75(C), 202–209.
WCED, S. W. S. (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common
Future, 17(1), 1-91.
Wee, S. C., Choong, W. W., & Low, S. T. (2021). Can “Nudging” Play A Role to Promote Pro-
Environmental Behaviour?, Environmental Challenges, 5, 100364.
Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., & Brocke, J. V. (2016). Digital Nudging. Business & Information
Systems Engineering, 58, 433-436.
Wensing, J., Caputo, V., Carraresi, L., & Bröring, S. (2020). The Effects of Green Nudges on
Consumer Valuation of Bio-Based Plastic Packaging. Ecological Economics, 178,
106783.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It's the Mind-Set That Matters: The Role of
Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and
Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472-485.
Wintschnig, B. A. (2021). The Attitude-Behavior Gap–Drivers and Barriers of Sustainable
Consumption. Junior Management Science, 6(2), 324-346.
Yildirim, S. (2022). The Consumer Role for Sustainable Development: How Consumers
Contribute Sustainable Development Goals. In Research Anthology on Measuring and
Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 872-888). IGI Global.
Zawieska, J., Obracht-Prondzyńska, H., Duda, E., Uryga, D., & Romanowska, M. (2022). In
Search of the Innovative Digital Solutions Enhancing Social Pro-Environmental
Engagement. Energies, 15(14), 5191.
Zhang, Z., & Wang, X. (2020). Nudging to Promote Household Waste Source Separation:
Mechanisms and Spillover Effects. Resources, Conservation And Recycling, 162,
105054, 1-10.
Zheng, H., Chen, K., & Ma, Z. (2023). Interactive Effects of Social Norms and Information
Framing on Consumers' Willingness of Food Waste Reduction Behavior. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 103525.
Zimmermann, S., Hein, A., Schulz, T., Gewald, H., & Krcmar, H. (2021). Digital Nudging Toward
Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Literature Review. PACIS, 226.
Serim Toro, H. & Aksümer, S. (2024). From Theory to Action: Evaluating How (Digital) Nudges
Influence Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1335-1365.
Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1464126
1365
Zimmermann, S., Schulz, T., Hein, A., Gewald, H., & Krcmar, H. (2023). Motivating Change in
Commuters’ Mobility Behaviour: Digital Nudging for Public Transportation Use. Journal
Of Decision Systems, 1-27.
Çıkar Beyanı: Yazarlar arasında çıkar çatışması yoktur.
Etik Beyanı: Bu çalışmanın tüm hazırlanma süreçlerinde etik kurallara uyulduğunu yazarlar beyan eder.
Aksi bir durumun tespiti halinde Fiscaoeconomia Dergisinin hiçbir sorumluluğu olmayıp, tüm
sorumluluk çalışmanın yazarlarına aittir.
Yazar Katkısı: Yazarların katkısı aşağıdaki gibidir;
Giriş: 1. yazar
Literatür: 2. yazar
Metodoloji: 1. yazar
Sonuç: 2. yazar
1. yazarın katkı oranı: %. 50, 2. yazarın katkı oranı: % 50.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethical Approval: The authors declare that ethical rules are followed in all preparation processes of
this study. In the case of a contrary situation, Fiscaoeconomia has no responsibility, and all
responsibility belongs to the study's authors.
Author Contributions: author contributions are below;
Introduction: 1. author
Literature: 2. author
Methodology: 1. author
Conclusion: 2. author
1st author's contribution rate: % 50, 2nd author's contribution rate: % 50.
