I like your example, but here's some of my own: I was told as a child not to leave the tap on when brushing my teeth. There was a campaign to put a brick in your toilet cistern to reduce the amount of water used on each flush. I take more showers than baths. I have a low-flow shower, I turn it off for the bit in the middle where I'm applying the soap/gel, and I've now read an article saying that a mist shower would be even better at saving water.

None of these items is in any way quantified or measured - but all of them have or could contribute to me saving water even if none of them has a measuring device attached.

I've gone through many of the same things, up to the point where I had to beg my father to remove some of the stones because it was uncomfortable that the toilet wouldn't actually flush.

I think that one-time-actions like these are easier to do without constant feedback. Somebody measures it, explains the savings to you, you do it once, done. Usage-based savings likely require more frequent feedback unless you're somebody that has a very fine-tuned habit system.

It’s kind of gamification, at least the bit about explicit positive reinforcement. But “neutral” feedback loops are inherently positively reinforcing, as your anecdote indicates.

I don’t like the gamification of everything either, but if the fate of the planet hinges on it (it doesn’t), I suppose I could stomach it.

I don't mind gamification personally. I'll do it to myself, even if it's just the harmless kind of "just keep running until you've reached that tree ... now that tree over there" to keep me going. Gamification works even if you know that it's gamification.

I agree that it brings up ethical issues when you're using gamification for behavior modification of others, but on the other hand it's also a bit like communication (as in "you cannot not communicate", the absence of a signal is a signal as well), when you choose not to gamify something, you're choosing to strengthen the habits that are currently in place.