Non-technological and behavioral options for decarbonizing buildings – A review of global topics, trends, gaps, and potentials
Érika Mata, Jacob Kihila, Joel Wanemark, Samantha H. Cheng, S. E. Harris, Filip Sandkvist, Theo Nyberg, Katarina Yaramenka
Abstract
Worldwide, energy use in buildings with the same function differed by a factor of 3–10, owing to behavioral issues. Future lifestyle changes in developed countries are expected to result in significant energy use reductions of up to 50% by 2050, with a correspondingly large impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, neither clear categorizations of behavioral or nontechnological (NT) climate mitigation solutions (CMS), nor corresponding estimates of global potentials for energy savings and GHG mitigation are available. Using a systematic map methodology, review of frameworks, and topic modeling, we propose a taxonomy that conceptually covers various demands (maintained/reduced), perspectives (individual/collective), and direct energy use (yes/no), resulting in five types of NT solutions: active and passive management and operation (MO), demand flexibility, sufficient comfort levels, circular and sharing economy, and organizational and social innovations. A knowledge glut for active and passive MO has been identified, with clusters in Europe and North America. Furthermore, evidence gaps were discovered in terms of geographical scope (with very little literature available about Africa and the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe and West-Central Asia), stakeholder perspectives, and some measures (circular and sharing economy, flexibility of demand over time, social and organizational innovations). There was insufficient evidence on current NT CMS adoption and implementation costs. Quantified potentials were mostly found for developed countries and residential buildings, with more energy savings than GHG mitigation studies. Whereas these potentials are substantial, they vary largely among regions and solutions. The potential energy-saving ranges between 5% and 40% for most regions and CMS. The greatest potential GHG emissions reductions are seen in the circular and sharing category (25% to 70%). For other actions, most potentials range from 5% to 30%. More research is needed to provide evidence on rebound effects that can offset the climate benefits of NT solutions, business models that demonstrate their financial viability, and policy actions that trigger the already identified climate mitigation potentials of NT solutions.