Abstract Achieving climate change mitigation targets necessitates individual consumption and lifestyle changes that are both highly effective at cutting emissions and broadly accepted by the public. Yet, precisely which changes fit the effectiveness-acceptability criteria remains unclear. We systematically map the effectiveness-acceptability frontier with a novel priority evaluator method, an individually‑parameterized scenario generator that pinpoints which actions satisfy both crucial conditions, using a representative sample of the Swiss population ( n = 2793). We find that people favor mitigation options that are both financially cost-effective and require fewer behavioral changes. The adoption of effective but more expensive technologically-driven mitigation options is strongly influenced by income levels. Policy should, therefore, support the most accepted low‑cost actions, make high‑impact technologies affordable for lower‑income households, and avoid politically costly measures that deliver little emission reduction.
Lichtin et al. (2026) studied this question.