by Phillip Ward
3 minute read
Some interesting new research by Brook Lyndhurst, published by Defra, explores whether adopting one pro-environmental behaviour will catalyse individuals subsequently to make further “green” changes in their lives.
This is an important question because, while most people accept that many environmental objectives require wholesale behaviour change from consumers, Governments are understandably reluctant to ask voters to make big, uncomfortable lifestyle changes. The idea that they can achieve change by getting people started on the path to sustainability and allowing the momentum to build will therefore always be appealing. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to work like that.
What’s my motivation?
People are complicated. The reasons they do or don’t do certain things are a complex amalgam of personal values, practicalities, rewards or disbenefits, social or family pressures, the resolution of which is seldom fully rational. A civil servant may see that, in carbon terms, saving water is similar to insulating a home or recycling aluminium. But this is no reason to expect an eager loft insulator to see it that way and start turning off the taps while cleaning his teeth in the dark.. They may not be concerned whether their actions are consistent – particularly if saving carbon was not what motivated them to begin with. The same seems to be true across a range of behaviours that can be described as good for the environment – because people take idiosyncratic views about what is covered by that.
The picture is not entirely bleak, though. The report does identify some “spillover” from one positive behaviour to others. People can be educated to understand connections and many like to be consistent in what they do, so long as it is not too difficult for them. That fits with everyday experience: people who are “green” can be seen doing more than one environmental behaviour – they may ride a bike and put effort into recycling – but there is no automatic connection between the two. Indeed, there is even a risk of negative spillover – “I’ve reused my shopping bag so I’ve done my bit.”
There is room for more research, but I would be tempted to draw some preliminary conclusions:
- We should not waste money producing lists of “10 things you can do to help the environment” or campaigns like “Act on CO2”, which depend on the public getting and sharing the interconnectedness of a range of different actions;
- We should focus efforts on single activities which will make a real difference – like getting people to recycle through the Recycle Now campaign or to reduce food waste;
- “Iconic” campaigns like that on carrier bags can be successful in their own right but probably not as a step to promoting wider waste reduction – which is how they are often sold.
It seems there are no short cuts. For the best chance of success, specific behaviours need to be addressed using established social marketing techniques and a proper understanding of what drives them. When it comes to changing behaviour, you rarely get something for nothing.
Leave A Comment