At Nesta, we advocate for this “individual” approach to be supplemented with a “coordinated” one, which would give many people the option to switch to low-carbon heat alongside their neighbours. We call this approach clean heat neighbourhoods. This approach would enable many households to switch at a similar time, and would likely be led by a local body that would coordinate the switch at street or neighbourhood level.

We have been exploring this approach, but little evidence exists about whether it would actually appeal to households, or about the offers that would most resonate with consumers. We have partnered with the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) to test the effect a coordinated approach might have on low-carbon heating uptake and the characteristics that would make such an approach more appealing to households.

What we did

• We designed a randomised controlled trial that asked people to choose between a boiler and a low-carbon heating system. The control group were presented with the current individual pathway to a low-carbon heating system. Other participants were shown one of four variations to a coordinated approach.
• We know cost impacts uptake of low-carbon heating: to isolate this factor from the effectiveness of a coordinated scheme, we used a two-round system: first, participants were asked to make their choice assuming cost parity between a boiler and a low-carbon heating system; then, they were asked to make their choice in a scenario where a boiler cost £3,000 and a low-carbon heating system £5,000.
• The coordinated approach included features such as a vetted supplier, reduced hassle and additional guidance.
• We also tested the effectiveness of different financial incentives, including group buying discounts and spreading costs over time.
• Users were then asked what had led them to their choice. Given that a coordinated scheme needs to ensure local participation to be successful, we also asked them what they thought their neighbours might do if faced with the same choice.

Our key findings

• The ease resulting from a coordinated approach alone does not increase the uptake of low-carbon heating; participants were more likely to opt for a coordinated low-carbon heating scheme if it involved financial incentives such as spread costs with 0% interest.
• Offers such as cashback can also drive uptake among low-income households compared to an individual-led approach.
• Few participants who opted for the low-carbon heating system mentioned prior experience with the technology as their reason, instead indicating environmental impact and the UK’s plans to transition away from fossil fuels. In contrast, many individuals who selected a boiler cited a lack of knowledge and the need for reassurance about the technology as key factors influencing their decision. To reach beyond early adopters, policymakers will need to hone in on their engagement strategy.
• Participants thought their neighbours were less likely to opt for a coordinated scheme than they were themselves, which might have impacted uptake. However, they also assumed that their neighbours would be more swayed by financial support than they were themselves.

• Introduce flexible financing options, with financial support to aid equitable uptake.
• Enhance communication and transparency in order to counter scepticism and uncertainty.
• Leverage social norms to encourage uptake, showing positive examples of community adoption.
• Address performance concerns directly to build trust among potential adopters.
• Use clear messaging to amplify perceived neighbour interest, emphasising the financial and collective benefits of coordinated adoption.

Project team: Toby Park, Ed Whincup, Tu Vy Do, Ambika Bhura, Abigail Mottershaw and Elena Meyer zu Brickwedde (BIT), Marine Furet, Adrian Stymne, Andrew Sissons, Andy Marsden (Nesta).