Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

Reply to: Individualized cost–benefit analysis does not fit for demand-side mitigation

The Original Article was published on 02 May 2025

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Berger, S. & Creutzig, F. Individualized cost–benefit analysis does not fit for demand-side mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02330-0 (2025).

  2. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–292 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton Univ. Press, 1944).

  5. Szaszi, B. et al. No reason to expect large and consistent effects of nudge interventions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2200732119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nisa, C. F., Bélanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M. & Faller, D. G. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nat. Commun. 10, 4545 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Arrow, K. et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58, 4601–4614 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Johnston, R. J. et al. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4, 319–405 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. J., Brown, T. C. & Peterson, L. G. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation Vol. 3 (Springer, 2003).

  10. Ortega, D. L., Sun, J. Y. & Lin, W. Identity labels as an instrument to reduce meat demand and encourage consumption of plant based and cultured meat alternatives in China. Food Policy 111, 102307 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 141–166 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Van der Linden, S. Warm glow is associated with low- but not high-cost sustainable behaviour. Nat. Sustain. 1, 28–30 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lohmann, P. M., Gsottbauer, E., van der Linden, S. & Kontoleon, A. Chilling results: how explicit warm glow appeals fail to boost pro-environmental behaviour. Behav. Public Policy 8, 733–758 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Creutzig, F. et al. Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 36–46 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wynes, S. & Nicholas, K. A. The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 074024 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tan-Soo, J.-S., Qin, P., Quan, Y., Li, J. & Wang, X. Using cost–benefit analyses to identify key opportunities in demand-side mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 1158–1164 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.-S.T.-S. wrote the original draft. J.-S.T.-S. and Q.Y.F. edited the revised version. Q.P. and L.J. reviewed and provided comments.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jie-Sheng Tan-Soo, Ping Qin, Yifei Quan or Jun Li.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tan-Soo, JS., Qin, P., Quan, Y. et al. Reply to: Individualized cost–benefit analysis does not fit for demand-side mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 15, 612–613 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02331-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02331-z

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing