Nudging and other behaviorally informed interventions have gained increasing traction in public administration as easy, light-touch governance tools. But outside the spotlight, nudging has also been the subject of critique particularly from scholars aligned with practice theory. From a practice-theoretical perspective, the nudging approach is seen as overly reductive, framing human behavior as a series of isolated individual decision moments and ignoring the social and material embeddedness of practices. For practice theorists, interventions should instead target the structures of practices, though practical strategies for doing so have been limited.
Does this mean conflict is inevitable when a behavioral economist and a practice theorist collaborate on a nudging intervention? On paper, yes. The assumptions underpinning behavioral economics and practice theory are often said to be in tension. To exaggerate slightly:
- The behavioral scientist focuses on individual choice, whereas the practice theorist examines socially and materially structured practices.
- The practice theorist may wince when the behavioral scientist discusses rationality and cognitive biases, as action is viewed through the former lens as unfolding according to the internal logic of a practice not equal to rational logic.
- The behavioral scientist emphasizes data and measurable change, while the practice theorist seeks to trace long-term shifts across networks of practice.
Starting from these contrasting assumptions, a pilot intervention involving electric bicycles was carried out in fall 2024, as part of CLIMATE NUDGE’s sister project, the 1.5 Degree City initiative funded by the EU’s NetZeroCities program. In this project, the City of Turku and its university of Turku aimed to promote sustainable and active lifestyles. The experiment offered e-bikes as a substitute for courtesy cars to customers of a car repair shop, and used a survey to assess the perceived effects of the experience.
While the pilot unfortunately yielded limited quantitative data and lacked a design for tracking qualitative impact over time, it provided valuable insights into the development of a practice-informed behavioral science approach. Key takeaways included the layered nature of interventions within practices, the need to refine impact assessment methods, the emergence of unexpected network effects, and the importance of continuous development.
The intervention was embedded in a moment of disruption, a break in established practices (car in repair), and employed nudging techniques (providing an expensive mobility option for free, simplifying the choice). While the nudge itself got participants to try cycling, the crucial element became the users’ reflections and realizations: from a behavioral perspective, trying the bike may lower the threshold for future mobility decisions. From a practice-theoretical perspective, the embodied experience of speed and ease could make it easier to adopt new practices. Both lenses suggest that the trial may foster integration of the e-bike into everyday mobility practices.
Despite positive feedback, survey responses were sparse and mainly from those who didn’t use the bike. This made evaluating the intervention’s direct impact difficult. Indeed, criticism of nudging’s effectiveness and measurement frameworks has pointed to the need for new approaches to impact assessment. In this experiment, impacts were observed in unexpected forms, such as increased customer satisfaction (leading to demand) and interest from another bike rental company in the intervention concept. These ripple effects suggest potential for gradual practice change beyond the original intervention.
Perhaps the most important insight from the intervention’s development process was the potential of approach alignment: while the theoretical languages of behavioral science and practice theory may differ, in practice they aim to understand and reshape the same phenomena. Moreover, applying service design tools in the planning of the intervention provided concrete methods for nudging design, but more importantly, fostered an attitude of continuous development and experimentation.
Building on these learnings, the project continues to develop tools and approaches that make nudging toward sustainable mobility not just possible, but mutually enriching across disciplinary divides: Step by step in collaboration, through curious experimentation and expanded modes of impact assessment.