Analyzing citizens' preferences for sufficiency policy in municipalities — An experimental approach

Sufficiency policies address unsustainable consumption and production patterns by promoting ways of living and economies that prioritize “enough” over “more,” reducing resource use while safeguarding fundamental human needs. Public support is crucial for the effective implementation of sufficiency policies, yet empirical research on citizens' preferences and their underlying mechanisms remains scarce—particularly concerning quantitative studies and with respect to the municipal level. Thus, this study investigates public support for sufficiency policies in municipalities, focusing on governable factors that shape citizens' preferences. Taking Switzerland as a case study, a nationwide representative online survey ( N = 1052) was conducted that combined a discrete choice and a framing experiment. Our results suggest that citizens' preferences for implementing sufficiency policies depend on the targeted policy sector, measure type, and procedural fairness. First, respondents indicated low support for housing sufficiency measures, opting instead for food or mobility sufficiency measures. Second, preferences related to measure type depend on the designation and selection of specific policy measures, which makes general conclusions about type alone difficult. Third, respondents placed considerable emphasis on procedural fairness, favoring passive involvement (being kept informed) in the implementation process. In terms of strategically employing co-benefit framing to increase policy support, evidence on framing effects is mixed but indicates that social co-benefits must be chosen carefully. Overall, we conclude that there is a modest but consistent majority in favor of implementing sufficiency policies at the municipal level. • Sufficiency policy aims to reduce resource use while fundamental human needs are met. • The study analyses preferences for sufficiency policies at the municipal level. • Public support exists, even when behavioral or financial costs are made explicit. • Citizens prefer sufficiency measures related to food or mobility over housing. • Whether social co-benefits raise policy support depends on their specific nature.