Search

The objective of this systematic review (SR) is to identify, assess and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of feedback, reminders, salience (communication), salience (experience design), and goal-setting interventions conducted in developing countries on environmental/climate and development outcomes. We conducted 12 meta-analyses. The most effective intervention type is feedback, particularly in relation to electricity and water consumption. We identified an overall pooled effect estimate of 0.26 (CI: 0.13 to 0.39). A similar pattern emerges for reminders, specifically on acquisition of knowledge, where we identify an overall pooled effect estimate of 0.87 (CI: 0.34 to 1.41). We find no significant effects on goal-setting interventions based on a limited number of meta-analyses. For salience (experience design) and salience (communication) interventions identified in this SR, the heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes does not allow for a meta-analysis and rigorous synthesis of effects. The SR aims to facilitate the use of evidence in informing policy and practice decisions within the environmental/climate and development fields, particularly in the GCF and IFAD

This evidence gap map (EGM) presents a landscape of studies on the effectiveness of behavioural science interventions in non-Annex I settings, a group of mainly developing countries within the context of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The EGM summarizes causal evidence from development and environmental interventions. Understanding what is effective in changing behaviour in these countries is important for both adaptation and mitigation purposes. Although the evidence base is thin, the EGM reveals that the most commonly evaluated interventions are reminders, feedback, micro-incentives, salience of communication, commitment devices, salience of experience design (how individuals interact with their physical or digital environment), goal setting, rules of thumb, social norms and social benchmarking. The impact evaluations are relatively skewed towards sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia and the Pacific. A limited number of impact evaluations have been conducted in Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. A majority of the studies included in the EGM emanate from the water, sanitation and hygiene sector, the financial sector, the energy and extractives sector and the agricultural sector

The apparent mismatch between countries receiving Adaptation-related Climate Change Financing (ACCF) and those most vulnerable to climate change is a concern which is the motivation for this research. This paper examines the determining factors of receiving ACCF for sub-Saharan African countries and finds that the recipient policy and an existing aid relationship are significant determinants of funding. ACCF therefore appears to be contingent on democratic characteristics of the recipient and prevailing a donor-recipient relationship, with vulnerability not being a factor. Our research draws a parallel between ACCF and traditional, bilateral aid allocation, and stresses the importance of accurate climate finance allocation practices.