Advertisement

Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 53–95 | Cite as

Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change

  • Chad M. BaumEmail author
  • Christian Gross
Article

Abstract

International climate accords like the Paris agreement set the broad agenda for climate action. To realize their potential however, it is vital to ‘get the context right’ so that environmentally significant behaviors can be repeated over time. This paper reviews the extant interdisciplinary literature to outline how a richer understanding of the interrelationships between individual and contextual factors is required to cultivate behavioral change. In this manner, 18 distinct behavioral determinants are identified. We argue that the likelihood of behavioral change and overall environmental impact are thereby reliant on the complex interaction between individual behavior and the multiple distinct layers of context that frame its expression. Our behavior-informed approach thus helps to explain processes of behavioral change more fully, establish the types of obstacles that exist, and delineate a fuller and more substantial role for individual-driven behavioral change that is able to build on the initial impetus of global-level frameworks.

Keywords

Sustainability policy Individual behavior Rebound effects Behavioral spillovers Contextual determinants 

JEL Classification

A12 O33 P28 P36 Q01 Q58 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lucy O’Shea and Paolo Zeppini for helpful comments. In addition, we are very grateful for the detailed and insightful comments from three anonymous reviewers. Christian Gross acknowledges funding from the 7th Framework Programme of Research and Innovation, (Area: Environment) of the European Commission—Period 2011–2013, within the project “Green Lifestyles, Alternative Models, and Upscaling Regional Sustainability” (GLAMURS). Participants: University of A Coruña (coordinator), University of Bath, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, The Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Delft University of Technology, Otto von Guericke Universität, University of Roma Tre, The James Hutton Institute, University of Tilburg, West University of Timişoara, Sustainable Europe Research Institute (Grant Agreement No 265155). Chad M. Baum is grateful for support provided by the Federal Programme “ProExzellenz” of the Free State of Thuringia. He is also very thankful to James S. Cutsinger for inviting him to consider a different path. Finally, we wish to thank Judith Hillen for her help formatting the document.

References

  1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aichele, R., & Felbermayr, G. (2012). Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63, 336–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akerlof, G., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antal, M., Gazheli, A., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2012). Behavioral foundations of sustainability transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper Series no 3. Vienna: WWEforEurope.Google Scholar
  6. Antal, M., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2014). Re-spending rebound: A macro-level assessment for OECD countries and emerging economies. Energy Policy, 68, 585–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antal, M., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2016). Green growth and climate change: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Climate Policy, 16(2), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aronson, E., & O’Leary, M. (1983). The relative effectiveness of models and prompts on energy conservation: A field experiment in a shower room. Journal of Environmental Systems, 12, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Fehr, B. (2012). Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Constanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C. S., Perrings , M. C., & Pimentel, D. (1995). Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological Economics, 15, 91–95.Google Scholar
  11. Asensio, O. I., & Delmas, M. A. (2015). Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(6), E510–E515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Attari, S. Z. (2014). Perceptions of water use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(14), 5129–5134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., & Bruine De Bruin, W. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16054–16059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baiocchi, G., Minx, J., & Hubacek, K. (2010). The impact of social factors and consumer behavior on carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bamberg, S. (2006). Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change people’s travel behavior? Results from a theory-driven intervention study. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 820–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Barbier, E. (2012). The green economy post Rio+20. Science, 338(6188), 887–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Barkenbus, J. N. (2006). Putting energy efficiency in a sustainability context: The cold facts about refrigerators. Environment, 48(8), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Barr, S., Shaw, G., Coles, T., & Prillwitz, J. (2010). ‘A holiday is a holiday’: Practicing sustainability, home and away. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 474–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Berger, I. E. (1997). The demographics of recycling and the structure of environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. BIO Intelligence Service (2012). Policies to encourage sustainable consumption. Technical Report—2012—061, Final report prepared for European Commission (DG ENV), Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eussd/pdf/report_22082012.pdf.
  23. Bolderdijk, J. W., Steg, L., Geller, E. S., Lehman, P. K., & Postmes, T. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nature Climate Change, 3, 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bolton, L. E., Cohen, J. B., & Bloom, P. N. (2006). Does marketing products as remedies create “get out of jail free cards”? Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bord, R., O’Connor, R. E., & Fisher, A. (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science, 9, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bowles, S. (2008). Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine ‘the moral sentiments’: Evidence from economic experiments. Science, 320(5883), 1605–1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bowles, S., & Polanía-Reyes, S. (2012). Economic incentives and social preferences: Substitutes or complements? Journal of Economic Literature, 50(2), 368–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D. J., & von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics, 92, 1–15.Google Scholar
  29. Bratt, C. (1999). Consumers’ environmental behavior: Generalized, sector-based, or compensatory? Environment and Behavior, 31(1), 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Brencic, V., & Young, D. (2009). Time-saving innovations, time allocation, and energy use: Evidence from Canadian households. Ecological Economics, 68, 2859–2867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Brons, M., Nijkamp, P., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline demand. A SUR approach. Energy Economics, 30, 2105–2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cardenas, J.-C., Stranlund, J., & Willis, C. (2000). Local environmental control and institutional crowding-out. World Development, 28(10), 1719–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Carroll, C. D. (2000). Solving consumption models with multiplicative habits. Economics Letters, 68, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., & Bonnes, M. (2008). Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Chai, A., Bradley, G., Lo, A., & Reser, J. (2015). What time to adapt? The role of discretionary time in sustaining the climate change value-action gap. Ecological Economics, 116, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Chalkley, A. M., Billett, E., & Harrison, D. (2001). An investigation of the possible extent of the re-spending rebound effect in the sphere of consumer products. Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 1, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S. K., & Jackson, T. (2013). Turning lights into flights: Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households. Energy Policy, 55, 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Clayton, S., Koehn, A., & Grover, E. (2013). Making sense of the senseless: Identity, justice, and the framing of environmental crises. Social Justice Research, 26(3), 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Climate Action Tracker (2015). Tracking INDCs: Assessment of contributions in the way to Paris. Retrieved July 6, 2016, from http://climateactiontracker.org/indcs.html.
  43. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Cornelissen, G., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L., & Dewitte, S. (2008). Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2014). Public engagement with climate climate: The role of human values. WIREs Climate Change, 5, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). The costs and benefits of consuming. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Csutora, M. (2012). One more awareness gap? The behaviour-impact gap problem. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., & Wheeler, D. (2002). Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. De Bruijn, G. J., Kremers, S. P. J., Vet, E., Nooijer, J., Mechelen, W., & Brug, J. (2007). Does habit strength moderate the intention-behaviour relationship in the theory of planned behaviour? The case of fruit consumption. Psychology and Health, 22, 899–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 318–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Devetter, F.-X., & Rousseau, S. (2011). Working hours and sustainable development. Review of Social Economy, 69(3), 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56, 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (1998). Environmental behavior: Discrepancies between aspirations and reality. Rationality and Society, 10, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15(4), 441–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Dietz, T. (2010). Narrowing the US energy efficiency gap. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(37), 16007–16008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 450–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Druckman, A., Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., & Jackson, T. (2011). Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households. Energy Policy, 39, 3572–3581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Druckman, A., & Jackson, T. (2010). The bare necessities: How much household carbon do we really need? Ecological Economics, 69, 1794–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  62. Faruqui, A., & Sergici, S. (2010). Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: A survey of 15 experiments. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 38(2), 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Fielding, K. S., & Hornsey, M. J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 318–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Fountain, H. (2016). Global temperatures are on course for another record this year. The New York Times 19 July 2016. Retrieved July 29, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/science/nasa-global-temperatures-2016.html?_r=0.
  67. Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Frey, B. S. (1997). A constitution for knaves crowds out civic virtues. The Economic Journal, 107(443), 1043–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. American Economic Review, 87(4), 746–755.Google Scholar
  70. Fujii, S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Development of script-based travel mode choice after forced change. Transportation Research Part F, 6, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Fujii, S., Gärling, T., & Kitamura, R. (2001). Changes in drivers’ perceptions and use of public transport during a freeway closure: Effects of temporary structural change on cooperation in a real-life social dilemma. Environment and Behavior, 33, 796–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Gallagher, K. S., & Muehlegger, E. (2011). Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Gardner, B., & Abraham, C. (2008). Psychological correlates of car use: A meta-analysis. Transportation Research Part F, 11, 300–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). The short list: The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment, 50, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Geden, O. (2015). Climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature, 52, 27–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Geden, O. (2016). Paris climate deal: the trouble with targetism. The Guardian 14 December 2015. Retrieved June 18, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/dec/14/the-trouble-with-targetism.
  78. Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33, 897–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 541–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Gigerenzer, G. (2015). On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6, 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Gillingham, K., Kotchen, M. J., Rapson, D. S., & Wagner, G. (2013). The rebound effect is overplayed. Nature, 493, 475–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Paying to be nice: Consistency and costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, 58(1), 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., & Menard, S. (1997). The impact of behavioral difficulty on the salience of the association between self-determined motivation and environmental behaviors. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Grolleau, G., Ibanez, L., Mzoughi, N., & Teisl, M. (2015). Helping eco-labels to fulfil their promises. Climate Policy, 1–11.Google Scholar
  87. Gross, C. (2012). Explaining the (non-) causality between energy and economic growth in the U.S.—A multi-variate sectoral analysis. Energy Economics, 43(2), 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Habermas, K. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, W. Rehg (trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. Hansen, J., Kharecha, P., & Sato, M. (2013). Climate forcing growth rates: Doubling down on our Faustian bargain. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining pro environmental behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505–2528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Harvey, F. (2015). Paris climate change agreement: the world’s greatest diplomatic success. The Guardian 14 December 2015. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-cop-diplomacy-developing-united-nations.
  93. Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2002). Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the use of public transportation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2154–2185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Hertwich, E. G., & Peters, G. P. (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(16), 6414–6420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Hirschman, A. O. (1985). Against parsimony: Three easy ways of complicating some categories of economic discourse. Economics and Philosophy, 1(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Holdren, J. P., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Human population and the global environment. American Scientist, 62, 282–292.Google Scholar
  97. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Hunecke, M., Haustein, S., Grischkat, S., & Böhler, S. (2007). Psychological, sociodemographic, and infrastructural factors as determinants of ecological impact caused by mobility behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Sustainable Research Development Network. Accessed May 24, 2014, from http://www.sustainablelifestyles.ac.uk/sites/default/files/motivating_sc_final.pdf.
  100. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  101. Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1994). The energy-efficiency gap: What does it mean? Energy Policy, 22, 804–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Jones, C. M., & Kammen, D. M. (2011). Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S. households and communities. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(9), 4088–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424.Google Scholar
  104. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Kahn, M. E. (2002). Demographic change and the demand for environmental regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Jacowitz, K. E., & Grant, P. (1993). Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological Science, 4(5), 310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., & Schkade, D. (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 220–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Kahneman, D., & Sudgen, R. (2005). Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 32, 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Kates, R. W., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2003). Making the global local: Responding to climate change concerns from the ground Up. Environment, 45(3), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Knussen, C., Yule, F., MacKenzie, J., & Wells, M. (2004). An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: The roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Leary, M. R., Toner, K., & Gan, M. (2011). Self, identity, and reactions to distal threats: The case of environmental behavior. Psychological Studies, 56(1), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Linares, P., & Labandeira, X. (2010). Energy efficiency: Economics and policy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(3), 573–592.Google Scholar
  115. Lo, A. Y. (2014). Negative income effect on perception of long-term environmental risk. Ecological Economics, 107, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Lo, A. Y. (2016). National income and environmental concern: Observations from 35 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 873–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy—Beyond green growth and green economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Mann, M. E., Rahmstorf, S., Steinman, B. A., Tingley, M., & Miller, S. K. (2016). The likelihood of recent record warmth. Journal of Scientific Reports, 6, 19831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Manstead, A. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude-behaviour relation. In D. Terry & M. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behaviour, and social context: The role of norms and group membership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  120. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F. D., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1741–1747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Martinsson, J., Lundqvist, L. J., & Sundström, A. (2011). Energy saving in Swedish households. The (relative) importance of environmental attitudes. Energy Policy, 39, 5182–5191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Mazar, N., & Zhong, C. (2010). Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science, 21, 494–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT: Sustainability Institute.Google Scholar
  125. Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., Fein, S., Savitsky, K. K., Tuller, D. M., & Monin, B. (2012). The strategic pursuit of moral credentials. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 774–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2007). Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Milman, O. (2015). James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ’a fraud’. The Guardian 12 December 2015. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud.
  129. Morren, M., & Grinstein, A. (2016). Explaining environmental behavior across borders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Moser, S. C., & Ekstrom, J. A. (2010). A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change and adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(51), 22026–22031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Murray, C. K. (2013). What if consumers decided to all ‘go green’? Environmental rebound effects from consumption decisions. Energy Policy, 54, 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Nuccitelli, D. (2016). We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times. The Guardian 11 July 2016. Retrieved July 28, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/11/we-just-broke-the-record-for-hottest-year-9-straight-times.
  134. Obama, B. (2015). Statement by the President on the Paris Climate Agreement [Press release]. Washington: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved February, 18, 2016, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/12/statement-president-paris-climate-agreement.
  135. Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (2006). The A-B-C of recycling. European Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 297–302.Google Scholar
  136. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2011). Towards green growth: monitoring progress. Paris: OECD. Accessed May 10, 2016, http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/48224574.pdf.
  137. O’Rourke, D., & Lollo, N. (2015). Transforming consumption: From decoupling, to behavior change, to system changes for sustainable consumption. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40, 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory, 49, 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Ostrom, E. (2014). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Annals of Economics and Finance, 15(1), 97–134.Google Scholar
  140. Ostrom, V. (1999). Polycentricity—Part 1. In M. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies (pp. 52–74). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  141. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305, 968–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S., Tuson, K. M., & Green-Demers, I. (1999). Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2481–2504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Peters, J. C. Minx, Weber, C. L., & Edenhofer, O. (2011). Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(21), 8903–8908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Pieters, R. G., Bijmolt, T., van Raaij, F., & de Kruijk, M. (1998). Consumers’ attributions of pro-environmental behavior, motivation, and ability to self and others. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 215–225.Google Scholar
  146. Reisch, L. A. (2001). Time and wealth: The role of time and temporalities for sustainable patterns of consumption. Time Society, 10(2–3), 367–385.Google Scholar
  147. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F, I. I. I., & Nykvist, B. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.Google Scholar
  148. Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (1998). Climate change and society: Speculation, construction and scientific investigation. International Sociology, 13, 421–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Saletan, W. (2006). Planet of the Indoor People. The Washington Post 6 August 2006. Retrieved July 20, 2016, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401754.html.
  151. Schellnhuber, H. J., Rahmstorf, S., & Winkelmann, R. (2016). Why the right climate target was agreed in Paris. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 649–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Schmalensee, R. (2012). From “green growth” to sound polices: An overview. Energy Economics, 34, S2–S6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2005). Consumers, food and convenience: The long way from resource constraints to actual consumption patterns. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Schwartz, D., Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B., & Lave, L. (2015). Advertising energy saving programs: The potential environmental cost of emphasizing monetary savings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 158–166.Google Scholar
  157. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  158. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision-making model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  159. Shapiro, S., & Krishnan, H. S. (1999). Consumer memory for intentions: A prospective memory perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(2), 169–189.Google Scholar
  160. Sheeran, P., & Abraham, C. (2003). Mediator of moderators: Temporal stability of intention and the intention-behavior relation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  162. Sherman, S. J. (1980). On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Sherrill, M. (2008). Self-serving bias. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.Google Scholar
  164. Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., Siegrist, M., & Arvai, J. (2016). Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change, 6, 759–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2010). Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy, 39(4), 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Smith, P., Davis, S. J., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J., Gabrielle, B., et al. (2015). Biophysical and economic limits to negative \({\rm CO}_{2}\) emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Sorrell, S., Dimitropoulos, J., & Sommerville, M. (2009). Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: A review. Energy Policy, 37, 1356–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Sovacool, B. K., & Brown, M. A. (2009a). Scaling the policy response to climate change. Policy and Society, 27, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Sovacool, B. K., & Brown, M. A. (2009b). Addressing climate change: Global vs. local scales of jurisdiction? In F. P. Sioshansi (Ed.), Generating electricity in a carbon constrained world? (pp. 109–124). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  170. Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-Identity and the theory of planned behavior: Assessing the role of identification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Staats, H., Harland, P., & Wilke, H. (2004). Effecting durable change: A team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2, 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., & van der Werff, E. (2015). Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Stern, P. C. (1997). Toward a working definition of consumption for environmental research and policy. In P. C. Stern, T. Dietz, V. R. Ruttan, R. H. Socolow, & J. L. Sweeney (Eds.), Environmentally significant consumption: Research directions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  176. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Stern, P. C. (2014). Individual and household interactions with energy systems: Toward integrated understanding. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Stern, P. C., Aronson, E., Darley, J. M., Hill, D. H., Hirst, E., Kempton, W., et al. (1986). The effectiveness of incentives for residential energy conservation. Evaluation Review, 10(2), 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
  181. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Stern, P. C., Janda, K. B., Brown, M. A., Steg, L., Vine, E. L., & Lutzenhiser, L. (2016). Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nature Energy, 1, 16043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Swim, J. K., Clayton, S., & Howard, G. S. (2011). Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist, 66, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  185. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  186. Thøgersen, J. (1999). Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Thøgersen, J. (2014). Unsustainable consumption. European Psychologist, 19, 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Thøgersen, J., & Noblet, C. (2012). Does green consumerism increase the acceptance of wind power? Energy Policy, 51, 854–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K., & Sachs, O. (2013). For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Tukker, A., & Jansen, B. (2006). Environmental impacts of products: A detailed review of studies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. United Nations (UN) (2016). Paris Agreement ’decisive turning point’ on climate change, says new UN senior adviser. UN News Centre 29 January 2016. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53126#.VsxvjPnhDct.
  196. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2015). Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions. United Nations FCCC/CP/2015/7, Bonn: UNFCCC. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf.
  197. Vandenbergh, M. P., & Steinemann, A. C. (2007). The carbon-neutral individual. New York University Law Review, 82, 1673–1745.Google Scholar
  198. Van der Linden, S. (2015). Intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behavior. Nature and Climate Change, 5(7), 612–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2014). I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 626–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Verplanken, B. (2010). Old habits and new routes to sustainable behavior. In L. Whitmarsh, S. O’Neill, & I. Lorenzoni (Eds.), Engaging the public with climate change (pp. 17–30). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  201. Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., van Knippenberg, A., & Moonen, A. (1998). Habit versus planned behaviour: A field experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., & Jurasek, M. (2008). Context change and travel mode choice: Combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Verplanken, B., & Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25, 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Victor, D. G., & Kennel, C. F. (2014). Ditch the warming \(2^{{\circ }}{\rm C}\) goal. Nature, 514, 30–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2009). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: The role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Willis, M. M., & Schor, J. B. (2012). Does changing a light bulb lead to changing the world? Political action and the conscious consumer. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 160–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Wood, W., Tam, L., & Witt, M. G. (2005). Changing circumstances, disrupting habits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 918–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. World Bank (2015). World Development Indicators: CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 1960-2013. Accessed February 4, 2015, from http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.
  210. Zelezny, L. C. (2010). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Zhong, C.-B., Liljenquist, K. A., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation: Licensing & compensation. In D. de Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 75–89). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Secretariat of the Advisory Council for Consumer AffairsFederal Ministry of Justice and Consumer ProtectionBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations