Reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires behavioural change. But how do we get individuals into this habit or, for that matter, any habit that reduces energy consumption?
Two academic disciplines concern themselves with habits – a branch of sociology, practice theory, and social psychology.
Practice theory argues that routine behaviours (such as cooking, showering) are enacted in particular ways that are shared across people, time, and space. As a result,they are maintained and reproduced. For example, showering in the developed world has includes the use of a modern bathroom, a reticulated water supply, and particular norms regarding cleanliness that “demands” daily showering. It also argues that practices change when people become fully aware of them.
But awareness does not guarantee behaviour change: only some individuals consciously change them.
There is also more at stake than “deciding” to change. People’s ability to deal with appliances that have wasteful standby features is shaped by the design of houses (where power outlets are), how we live (we tend to put furniture against walls), and, crucially, that manufactures assume that we want the “convenience” of standby mode. So, when an appliance is plugged into a power outlet that is behind a piece of furniture, turning it on and off at the wall is unlikely – it’s simply too difficult.
Research has established that habits change when people’s environments change. For example, recycling increases when we are given recycling bins.
They also change if people form explicit intentions about what they will do in specific situations. For example, using public transport is more likely when people make concrete plans about how and when they will use it. If we don’t make these plans, behaviour is unlikely to change.
As Gina McColl wrote recently in the Sunday Age, given consumers’ problems with standby power devices, “there is a simple human equivalent: getting into the habit of turning appliances off at the wall”.
Changing individuals’ environment or getting them to form explicit intentions work equally well. However, these can’t be used to change behaviour on the scale needed to reduce carbon emissions. Our existing homes set up patterns of energy-consuming behaviours and these happen without our thinking about them.
Our research has provided a solution to this problem.
We have integrated practice theory and social psychological approaches in the Model of Recursive Cultural Adaptation. This, like practice theory, sees behaviour as a function of interdependent “aspects”; the physical, social and psychological factors that allow a practice to happen.
However, the model goes beyond practice theory, drawing on social psychological approaches that propose that much behaviour is aconscious. It argues that change happens when what is required is aligned with an existing practice but resisted when there is a mismatch – because we value our practices.
Using this model, we examined Melburnian’s responses during the recent drought. The target of reducing daily water consumption to 155 litres per person was very successful and achieved quite quickly. This was facilitated by giving individuals an aspirational goal along with strategies and tools to change. This included providing timers to use in the shower, water usage feedback, and rebates for products like rain water tanks.
Importantly, nobody doubted the need to adapt to the chronic water shortage.
So, the interplay of factors led to practice modifications (taking shorter showers or collecting grey water with a bucket in the shower) rather than developing and adopting new ones (such as showering every second day) – because modifications fitted with existing values (such as the need to be “clean”).
Our model also explained how and why builders and stakeholders responded to a tool designed to help select more sustainable building materials. This tool, the Eco-Selector, required all houses in an estate to attain a minimum standard.
Builders modified their habitual practices. For example, they used bricks that use less energy to make than conventional ones. However, they didn’t use highly sustainable products, like compressed straw for walls, because this would have entailed abandoning existing practices – the houses would have needed to be engineered and built differently, and would have looked different.
These examples demonstrate that practices can be changed under certain conditions – when people are given strategies and tools for change. However, we need to remember that practices are valued and, when threatened, are defended. Effective change management means taking account of this and providing people with a “tool-box” directed towards modifying practice. Information alone will not necessarily lead to change.
So can we change our practice of leaving appliances turned on at the wall? The answer means understanding how the multiple aspects of practice create particular values and habits. Using less water was universally desirable and once clear strategies were available consumption dropped. (It is interesting that while the 155-litre target no longer exists, Melbourne’s water consumption remains relatively low.)
We need to match desire and ability with a context that makes change easier if we want to address the inherent “stickiness” of everyday practice.
Chris Pittock
Biologist & NRM Practitioner
In addition to the reasoning you discuss, I ponder the impact that price signals have on attitudes and practices for the the reduction of resource consumption/waste... The common perception seems to be that for water, the consumption charge is so low in comparison to the fixed charges that the incentive is weak. Whereas the relative magnitude of electricity consumption versus fixed charge pricing is higher, and the incentive is therefore higher. In fact the supply charge is commonly a fixed tariff, but still charged as per kWh rate - strengthening the financial incentive further.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
The interesting thing about the success of the 155 campaign is the lack of an obvious price signal. This, we believe speaks to a range of factors that are affecting behaviour that are not typically accounted for. Price might matter, but there's a lot more that can be done to get change.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
I have my suspicions about relying to much on price incentives, and my doubts about their real effectiveness. I think it works pretty much like using crude rewards to 'motivate' people: you get a certain amount of movement, but you also tend to foster people's selfish/mercantile side at the expense of their better angels...
Mark Raggatt
Architect
I too have my suspicions about price incentives. We could take petrol consumption as an example. What is the threshold price that alters behaviour? We thought petrol was expensive when it clicked over $1.00 a litre, but it hasn't altered consumption. Keeping in mind G & J's article, the required change in behaviour is too great relative to the incentive (save some cash but have to walk to the shops). However, provide an alternative that requires only a slight shift and, hey presto, things change…
Read moreFelix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Yeah, as a former nicotine addict (and 'addict' is the right word) I used to grumble about price rises, but I still forked out the money. I'm not sure what the real threshold price would have been, but it would have had to be a great deal higher than it ever reached to have been decisive.
I'll grant you that the cost saving after giving up was a very pleasant incidental benefit, but my quitting was based almost solely on health and related concerns.
The problem with things like petrol and nicotine is that there's just not that much readily-available elasticity...
John Newlands
tree changer
There must be a conscionable minimum level of energy requirement, for example air conditioning for the frail elderly in 43C heat. An adequate small refrigerative air conditioner is probably going to draw 1 kw. Even with 'navy showers' people probably need at least 10L a day of 60C water. Going below these levels of consumption could be described as deprivation not efficiency.
It may be missing the point to insist that electrical appliances have higher ratings when there is staggering energy wastage elsewhere; for example single occupant SUVs stuck in traffic jams. I think electricity pricing should reflect basic allowances for heating, cooking, lighting and electronics with penalty rates for overuse. Second fridges and pool heaters pay the top rate. That will encourage a culture of frugal energy use.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
Yes, we need a holistic (which social practice theory can provide) approach so the inter-relationships between equity, waste, and efficiency can be seen.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
I know it would be very difficult to manage in practice - and possibly just too controversial and contestable to be politically workable - but I'd love to live in a world where a certain basic amount of water, electricity, etc. was provided to every citizen at cost (even maybe subsidised a bit) but with rapidly escalating cost penalties as your usage rose beyond reasonable basic requirements.
It would, at least, make a good ideal to aim for.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"there is staggering energy wastage elsewhere; for example single occupant SUVs stuck in traffic jams"
From my own experience, there may be 5% of the fuel consumed in cities that is consumed by engines idling or not delivering power. That is a staggering amount of energy that is virtually completely wasted.
Mark Amey
logged in via Facebook
5% sounds like a very conservative estimate.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"5% sounds like a very conservative estimate."
Indeed. I didn't want to risk being accused of exaggeration. I know from my car's trip meter that stopping at lights for nearly a whole cycle uses 20 ml of petrol. Even if the average per stop is just 10 ml, you need to travel a fair way before this is only 5% of total consumption.
And this ignores the energy that is wasted in brakes. No wonder there was an opportunity for hybrid cars.
Mark Amey
logged in via Facebook
I agree, I'm sure there are probably better ways of managing traffic, but, it may be better to manage us humans in a more efficient manner. Likewise, there are probably efficiencies to be gained at work , and at home. A 5 to 10 % reduction in energy consumption across all aspects of our lives is probably doable. I wonder where the obstacles are?
Alex Cannara
logged in via Facebook
Just a calibration comment. Crane et al explain in "A Cubic Mile of Oil" the energy consumption the world is used to -- about 3 cubic miles of oil burned per year, equivalent.
This is equivalent to about 116 trillion Olympic athletes pumping generators 24/7, full out (1/2hp each). Obviously impossible. Give them 8-hours shifts and we now need 348 trillion Olympians for 7 billion people.
That's less than 50,000 Olympians for each one of us.
Oh yes, they need food & lodging. Hmmmm.
Just so we all understand that saving energy at home. etc., is nice, but no where near a sane response to our energy-consumption reality.
Local solar, efficiency and nuclear are, however, sane responses, as has been known for decades.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
Absolutely agree - but here's the rub, existing practices are valued - they change in response to factors other than 'reason'. The fact that we need to radically reorganise our energy systems, in and of itself, as you point out, does not create the change needed. We need to engage with the 'insane' part of practice :-)
These are aconscious habits and emotions...
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Geoffrey, there are also some pretty powerful business iterests with well funded lobbying power creating very active blocks to change.
I would guess that individual 'conservatism' is far less relevant here than good old-fashioned vested interests.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
Yes Felix, there are. But these 'interests' are, at base, a function of practice. Once established business practices are are as 'valuable' as not stepping off the edge of a cliff. We are all wed to our habits AND expect to do tomorrow what we did yesterday. Furthermore, we will act to defend them if they are threatened. 'Conservatism' is a natural part of the human condition. If we didn't have it, we'd be paralysed.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
I'm with you - view corporations as behaving much like individuals and it's essentially the same phenomonon - thanks.
Alice Gibson
Dietitian/PhD Candidate
We have installed a remote controlled switch to turn all our power points off at once or different ones individually. Much easier way to get in the habit of turning appliances standby functions off. We leave one of the remotes next to the front door so that when we leave the house it just takes one switch. There are quite a few different products available too.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Geoffrey and Jennifer - thanks for this interesting and useful little piece - and thanks heaps for making the recursive cultural adaptation paper available free!
This kind of material is enormously useful to people like me who are working at the practical end of organisational environmental management.
I must confess that I tend to operate from a slightly crude heuristic: if you can possibly remove the human factor (e.g. by automating lighting, taps, etc.) then you should always do so, because…
Read moreGeoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
I suspect that the human part of the equation is always lurking somewhere. Whether it's in the design of the system or in the affect of the 'benefit' that is produced. I'd argue that it is the relationships within a system that define its use and outcomes, i.e., affects are non-linear nor are they classically causal. Furthermore, gaussian distributions (bell curves) need to be approached with caution. While the curve might imply a tail, for some behaviours there may be none. Moreover, the role of 'attitudes' in the distribution is likely to be weak...
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Very interesting, thanks for posting
Pamela H.
logged in via email @hotmail.com
I hardly think that not washing will solve the issue. We'd just be creating a demand for more factory made products and aerosols to cover the smell, and then more pharmaceuticals to fix the associated skin problems caused by filth, bugs and chemicals on the skin.
Read moreMy issue with power consumption is the overuse of air conditioning. I moved from Melb to Qld in 1994 and I still have to wear a jumper or a cardigan in summer when I go to shops or businesses. They have their air conditioners running at…
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
Hi Pamela, yes, no simplistic change will work. The point about washing though, is not the impact of change, but the fact that we wash for other reasons than being 'dirty'. For example, we wear deodorants and colognes to smell 'good', not just to hide 'bad'.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Pamela, I gather the Japanese have adopted a rather cute idea, at least in office buildings (though I suspect it applies in shopping malls as well) - thay call it 'Warm Biz/Cool Biz'.
The idea is simply that air-con levels are set a couple of degrees higher in summer and a couple of degrees lower in winter.
This obviously saves significant energy, but I gather there is also some evidence that it may be better from a health perspective (less 'shock' to your system from moving between extremes…
Read morePamela H.
logged in via email @hotmail.com
We (some) wear colognes to smell 'good' but deodorants to help prevent natural perspiring and the odor that goes with it when we don't wash regularly.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
yes and...
My nephew does use deodorant to hide the fact that he doesn't shower regularly (thankfully!). But I suspect most of us shower daily (or more regularly!) and apply deodorant after bathing and then spend most if not all of our day without sweating... So, there is a question of 'need' but more interesting is to consider the fact that our culture teaches us that sweat smells bad... and that we 'have' to use deodorant. I stopped using soap 3 years ago - no one noticed a difference in my cleanliness nor in how I smell. Nevertheless, many people would assume that I might be more smelly or grubby. I would argue that such assumptions are based on their habits and the fact that said behaviours automatically create 'values' that legitimate them - 'I shower, anyone that doesn't is dirty.'
Michael Lardelli
logged in via Facebook
Increased energy can either be our saviour or suicide depending upon whether we allow population to grow or not. Increased energy efficiency with a stable population give us a greater capacity buffer and allows us to cope better with variation in availability. However, if population is allowed to grow on the back of efficiency gains then this reduces any capacity buffer and makes us more vulnerable to shortages. So "waste" (inefficiency) can actually have a protective role. I wrote about this in a (somewhat sarcastic) essay, "To Save The Word We May Have To Waste It":
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6998
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"However, if population is allowed to grow on the back of efficiency gains then this reduces any capacity buffer and makes us more vulnerable to shortages."
And that's what's happening in Australia, i.e. our efficiency gains and other ways of reducing carbon emissions are nearly entirely swallowed up by population growth.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
This is a good point - are our 'efficiencies' helping to increase or decrease overall consumption? Again, this points to the erroneous belief that human behaviour can be accounted for and changed via 'cause and effect' paradigms, like neoliberalism.
Kenneth Mazzarol
Kenneth Mazzarol is a Friend of The Conversation.
Retired
There are three ways to change an individual's behaviour, through education, make the alternative easier and, make it cheaper.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
or you could change the 'environment' or make something 'sexy' or you could make the behaviour redundant...
I think we need to be careful of generalisations. (Is that a generalisation? :-)
We need to analyse the specific practice in question, see what the contributing aspects of that system is and then we can work out what the best strategies are that might lead to the desired change.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"It is interesting that while the 155-litre target no longer exists, Melbourne’s water consumption remains relatively low."
I don't think so. Have you seen Melbourne's water consumption recently? http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_storages/water_report/water_report.asp
1,206 Megalitres per day is not relatively low.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
While we have had a peak recently this is possibly our typical seasonal variation. It is noteworthy that there was no immediate increase associated with the scrapping of the 155 campaign. It will be interesting to see what happens after summer... I'd predict that water use practices are now habitual and that the'll return to something approximating the 155 level.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
Melbourne's average daily consumption increased to 137 litres/day in the week to 12/7/2012 from 133 litres/day a year earlier, slightly more than reversing the decline that had occurred in the previous two years.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
yes, but that's all during the 155 campaign. The point is that when 155 launched in Nov 2008 the 2007 average was 277 litres/day and the target was reached (and bettered) almost immediately.
Some people have argued that Melbourne's recent rise in consumption is a function of the change in policy (lesser water restriction and an end to the campaign).
Our interest is in whether the policy shift will see a return to the 2007 levels or if the change in people's water use habits (practices) will remain relatively stable.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"but that's all during the 155 campaign"
Exactly, the consumption declined while the campaign was on and then rose after it ended.
"The point is that when 155 launched in Nov 2008 the 2007 average was 277 litres/day"
That yearly average included summer of course but the consumption during mid-winter didn't decline that much. I don't easily have the whole season's data but Melbourne's 7 day average consumption from the 18/7/2008 was 942 ML/day and from 18/7/2009 was 952 ML/day so it appears they didn't save much in winter initially.
"Our interest is in whether the policy shift will see a return to the 2007 levels"
I'd say that mainly depends on people's behaviour in summer. The winter usage doesn't seem to change very much but it does fall and rise a little as the campaigning comes and goes. I'm not about to try to analyse summer consumption given its far greater volatility and weather dependence than winter consumption.
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
Your last point is concurs with our argument - that we'd be foolish to judge the success of 155 and the effect of its demise on the basis of the (recently released) summer-affected figures.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
Indeed, that's why it's foolish to say Melbourne’s water consumption remains relatively low. Especially considering that the only thing we can easily evaluate, winter consumption, shows the effect of 155's demise means we cannot say that Melbourne’s water consumption remains relatively low.
Richard John Petheram
Retired Senior researcher
The paper has stimulated some great comment. However, there are aspect of social sociology that I would have liked to see brought into the discussion. I was fascinated to read about the concept of “Belief in a Just World” (BJW), and how strongly people’s scores on a BJW ‘scale’ are correlated with denial of global warming. (see http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/1/34). According to Feinberger and Willer 2011, people with high BJW scores (i.e. most of the USA student population measured) were much less likely to want to act to reduce their emissions, than people with low BJW scores. This suggests that huge changes in the fundamental way that most people view their world would have to be brought about – before simple changes in accessibility or ease of adoption could bring about practice change (in reducing emisssions)’ in most of the population. Any comments?
Jennifer Boldero
Associate Professor in Psychological Sciences
While these findings are interesting, this is not really an issue in terms of behaviour. People deny global warming and say they won't change their behaviour. We also justify our practices/behaviour using a number of reasons (which are post hoc). But how does this translate into behaviour? Current social psychological research findings suggests that when our environment changes, our current practices are challenged and what we do is to behave in way that is consistent with what others who are similar to us do in the same situation - we follow the norm or we respond to aspirational goals - like Target 155. So, whether or not I deny global warming is actually irrelevant. If my neighbours are not watering their gardens, likely I will do the same even though I may 'say' that I won't. This is the issue that we have to face. Its about what people 'do'. We don't need to focus on people's beliefs. We just have to focus what 'works'.
Richard John Petheram
Retired Senior researcher
Your theory is becoming a bit clearer. But I’m still not convinced about how practice can change significantly, when the norm is practices that are highly convenient and low risk and people see no reason to change (and vast majority of neighbors are not changing). As an old agricultural extension practitioner, two basic tenets of adoption theory/practice were to offer new technologies/practices that were not too different to the norm , and then to work with ‘early adopters’ who might help to change the community view of the norm.
Also on the land, a few people adopted sound ‘land care’ practices early for their own ethical reasons, but larger numbers only took on new Landcare practices when these became ‘subsidised’ by government grants as part of a major LandCare movement. Can there be rapid, large scale practice change towards reducing emissions without subsidies and promotion of a major sustainability movement?
Geoffrey Binder
Course Coordinator
Richard, your experience validates the theory that we're developing (the MORCA). What you describe is incremental change, otherwise known as innovation, and yes, it is typically slow. How then can we get rapid change?
We think that drivers of innovation operate different (theoretical) levels; the psychological, the social, and the material. It is likely that change coming from one level will be less effective that two, and change that comes from three stands the greatest chance of successfully…
Read moreVenise Alstergren
Venise Alstergren is a Friend of The Conversation.
photographer, blogger.
Why bother? As soon as the Coalition gets into power we will be fed the line that polluting the environment is good for us. The carbon tax will disappear, the non-renewable resource giants will be encouraged to churn out ever greater amounts of junk. Wildlife reserves and National parks will be turned into theme parks; the ones that don't will have third rate hotels built in them-it's all happening in Victoria. The Abel Tasman will be invited back to fish out our remaining fish-along with any other foreign owned giant trawler. The Great Barrier Reef will only be visible under all the mining activity. Finally, women will be flung back to their proper place, as breeders and housewives, just as they were in the 1950s.
Oh, and the next king of England will be given a modest estancia of 125,000 hectares of land next door to James Packer's little rural pad.