Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Promise of Private-Sphere Pro-environmental Behavior as Climate Action

  • Enhancing the Usability of Climate Science and Knowledge for Action (E Gilmore and K Schmitt, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Climate Change Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purposeof Review

This piece situates research on pro-environmental behavior within broader discussions about climate policy and action. I discuss factors associated with the adoption of pro-environmental behavior, as well as methodological limitations that should be addressed in future work.

Recent Findings

Individual behavior drives a large proportion of total emissions, and lifestyle characteristics account for significant variability in individual carbon footprints. Yet behavior is difficult to change, and critics warn that “individualizing” climate action may be counterproductive. On average, interventions promoting pro-environmental behavior have produced small effects, though some promising approaches have emerged. Values matter, but strategies that modify social, informational, and structural conditions result in more impact.

Summary

There is much that can be gained from a better understanding of the factors that drive environmentally significant behavior. To increase relevance, researchers should carefully consider the strengths and limitations of measures and pursue behavior-specific inquiries to complement generalized approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This definition recognizes that some behaviors widely perceived to be “pro-environmental” may have inconsistent or questionable environmental benefits. For example, some forms of recycling reduce landfill waste but are associated with higher greenhouse gas emissions [18] and food grown with genetically modified crops are associated with less environmental degradation than some alternatives [19]. Both of these behaviors are widely viewed by the public as pro-environmental. Researchers who study PEB sometimes overlook these inconsistent impacts or may be interested in the adoption of behaviors ascribed with a particular social meaning irrespective of actual impacts.

  2. In some cases, the term “behavioral” is used to explicitly exclude approaches that incorporate economic incentives. I attempt to clarify in this article when economic factors are explicitly included or not in the term behavioral.

  3. There are substantial benefits that could be gained from shifting consumption from high-income to middle- and low-income markets in terms of reducing global inequality in standards of living. As such, depending on the scale of rebound, demand-side management may still contribute to improvements over the status quo, even if not a reduction in net GHG emissions.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Nielsen KS, Nicholas KA, Creutzig F, Dietz T, Stern PC. The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions. Nat Energy. 2021;6:1011–6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Yuriev A, Boiral O, Francoeur V, Paillé P. Overcoming the barriers to pro-environmental behaviors in the workplace: a systematic review. J Clean Prod. 2018;182:379–94.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alzaidi SM, Iyanna S. Developing a conceptual model for voluntary pro-environmental behavior of employees. Soc Responsib J Emerald Publish Limited. 2021;18:441–52.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Unsworth KL, Davis MC, Russell SV, Bretter C. Employee green behaviour: how organizations can help the environment. Curr Opin Psychol. 2021;42:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harring N, Jagers SC, Matti S. The significance of political culture, economic context and instrument type for climate policy support: a cross-national study. CLIMATE POLICY. 2019;19:636–50.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fritsche I, Masson T. Collective climate action: when do people turn into collective environmental agents? Curr Opin Psychol. 2021;42:114–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fisher DR, Nasrin S. Climate activism and its effects. WIREs Clim Change. 2021;12: e683.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Abrahamse W, Shwom R. Domestic energy consumption and climate change mitigation. WIREs Clim Change. 2018;9: e525.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Maki A, Burns RJ, Ha L, Rothman AJ. Paying people to protect the environment: a meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote proenvironmental behaviors. J Environ Psychol. 2016;47:242–55.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bhattacharjee S, Reichard G. Socio-economic factors affecting individual household energy consumption: a systematic review. ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Parts A, B, and C [Internet]. Washington, DC, USA: ASMEDC; 2011 [cited 2021 Dec 12]. p. 891–901. Available from: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ES/proceedings/ES2011/54686/891/354588

  11. Xiang D, Lawley C. The impact of British Columbia’s carbon tax on residential natural gas consumption. Energy Econ. 2019;80:206–18.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gifford R, Kormos C, McIntyre A. Behavioral dimensions of climate change: drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. WIREs Clim Change. 2011;2:801–27.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Li D, Zhao L, Ma S, Shao S, Zhang L. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;146:28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nisa CF, Bélanger JJ, Schumpe BM, Faller DG. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nat Commun. 2019;10:4545. Meta-analysis of interventions promoting household actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

    Google Scholar 

  15. Klöckner CA. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang. 2013;23:1028–38.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stern PC, Janda KB, Brown MA, Steg L, Vine EL, Lutzenhiser L. Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nat Energy. 2016;1:16043.

    Google Scholar 

  17. White K, Habib R, Hardisty DJ. How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: a literature review and guiding framework. J Market SAGE Publications Inc. 2019;83:22–49.

    Google Scholar 

  18. van Ewijk S, Stegemann JA, Ekins P. Limited climate benefits of global recycling of pulp and paper. Nat Sustain. 2021;4:180–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brookes G, Barfoot P. Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2016: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops Food. 2018;9:109–39.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J Environ Educ Routledge. 1987;18:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bekkers R, Wiepking PA. literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q SAGE Publications Inc. 2011;40:924–73.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ferguson E. What blood and organ donation can tell us about cooperation? Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;44:202–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chaudhuri A. Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature. Exp Econ. 2011;14:47–83.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sorrell S. Reducing energy demand: a review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;47:74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Krysiak FC, Weigt H. The demand side in economic models of energy markets: the challenge of representing consumer behavior. Front Energy Res. 2015;3:24.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mundaca L, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Wilson C. Demand-side approaches for limiting global warming to 15 °C. Energy Effic. 2019;12:343–62.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Devine-Wright P. Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: a tidal energy case study. J Environ Psychol. 2011;31:336–43.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Van Boven L, Sherman DK. Elite influence on public attitudes about climate policy. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2021;42:83–8.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bin S, Dowlatabadi H. Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy. 2005;33:197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hertwich EG, Peters GP. Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:6414–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bajželj B, Richards KS, Allwood JM, Smith P, Dennis JS, Curmi E, et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Clim Change. 2014;4:924–9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chen C, Liu G, Meng F, Hao Y, Zhang Y, Casazza M. Energy consumption and carbon footprint accounting of urban and rural residents in Beijing through consumer lifestyle approach. Ecol Ind. 2019;98:575–86.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gardner GT, Stern P. The short list: the most effective actions US households can take to curb climate change. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev Heldref Pub. 2008;50:12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sanquist TF, Orr H, Shui B, Bittner AC. Lifestyle factors in US residential electricity consumption. Energy Policy. 2012;42:354–64.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shigetomi Y, Kanemoto K, Yamamoto Y, Kondo Y. Quantifying the carbon footprint reduction potential of lifestyle choices in Japan. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16: 064022.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. van de Ven D-J, González-Eguino M, Arto I. The potential of behavioural change for climate change mitigation: a case study for the European Union. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2018;23:853–86.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Moran D, Wood R, Hertwich E, Mattson K, Rodriguez JFD, Schanes K, et al. Quantifying the potential for consumer-oriented policy to reduce European and foreign carbon emissions. Clim Policy Taylor Francis. 2020;20:S28-38.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern P, Vandenbergh MP. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106:18452–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Crompton T. Weathercocks & Signposts: The Environment Movement at a Crossroads [Internet]. World Wildlife Foundation; 2008. Available from: https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/weathercocks_report2.pdf.

  40. Stern PC. A reexamination on how behavioral interventions can promote household action to limit climate change. Nat Commun. 2020;11:918.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wagner G. But will the planet notice?: How smart economics can save the world. Straus and Giroux: Farrar; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Saunders HD. Historical evidence for energy efficiency rebound in 30 US sectors and a toolkit for rebound analysts. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2013;80:1317–30.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gillingham K, Kotchen MJ, Rapson DS, Wagner G. The rebound effect is overplayed. Nature. 2013;493:475–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Gillingham K, Rapson D, Wagner G. The rebound effect and energy efficiency policy. Rev Environ Econ Policy. 2016;10:68–88.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sorrell S. Jevons’ Paradox revisited: the evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency. Energy Policy. 2009;37:1456–69.

    Google Scholar 

  46. EIA. International Energy Outlook 2016, International Energy Statistics and Oxford Economics [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032.

  47. Maniates MF. Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Glob Environ Polit. 2001;1:31–52.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Shove E. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ Plan A SAGE Pub Ltd. 2010;42:1273–85.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kent J. Individualized responsibility and climate change: ‘If climate protection becomes everyone’s responsibility, does it end up being no-one’s?’. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2009;1(3):132–49.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Szasz A. Shopping our way to safety: how we changed from protecting the environment to protecting ourselves. U of Minnesota Press; 2007.

  51. Gillis A, Vandenbergh M, Raimi K, Maki A, Wallston K. Convincing conservatives: private sector action can bolster support for climate change mitigation in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2021;73: 101947.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vandenbergh MP, Barkenbus J, GIlligan J. Individual carbon emissions: the low-hanging fruit symposium: changing climates: adapting law and policy to a transforming world. UCLA L Rev. 2007;55:1701–58.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vandenbergh MP, Gilligan JM. Beyond politics: the private governance response to climate change [Internet]. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2017 [cited 2021 Dec 13]. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781316848555/type/book

  54. Subramanyam V, Kumar A, Talaei A, Mondal MdAH. Energy efficiency improvement opportunities and associated greenhouse gas abatement costs for the residential sector. Energy. 2017;118:795–807.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Murphy R, Jaccard M. Energy efficiency and the cost of GHG abatement: a comparison of bottom-up and hybrid models for the US. Energy Policy. 2011;39:7146–55.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Xiao H, Wei Q, Wang H. Marginal abatement cost and carbon reduction potential outlook of key energy efficiency technologies in China’s building sector to 2030. Energy Policy. 2014;69:92–105.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kallis G. In defence of degrowth. Ecol Econ. 2011;70:873–80.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Burgess MG, Carrico AR, Gaines SD, Peri A, Vanderheiden S. Prepare developed democracies for long-run economic slowdowns. Nat Hum Behav [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Dec 4]; Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01229-y

  59. Nielsen KS, Clayton S, Stern PC, Dietz T, Capstick S, Whitmarsh L. How psychology can help limit climate change. Am Psychol. 2021;76:130–44.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Nash N, Whitmarsh LE, Capstick S, Hargreaves T, Poortinga W, Thomas G, et al. Climate-relevant behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice theory. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. 2017;8:e481.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kurz T, Gardner B, Verplanken B, Abraham C. Habitual behaviors or patterns of practice? Explaining and changing repetitive climate-relevant actions. WIREs Clim Change. 2015;6:113–28.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Carrico AR. Climate change, behavior, and the possibility of spillover effects: recent advances and future directions. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2021;42:76–82.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Maki A, Carrico AR, Raimi KT, Truelove HB, Araujo B, Yeung KL. Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nat Sustain. 2019;2:307–15.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Geiger SJ, Brick C, Nalborczyk L, Bosshard A, Jostmann NB. More green than gray? Toward a sustainable overview of environmental spillover effects: a Bayesian meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol. 2021;78: 101694.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hagmann D, Ho EH, Loewenstein G. Nudging out support for a carbon tax. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9:484–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Thomas GO, Sautkina E, Poortinga W, Wolstenholme E, Whitmarsh L. The English plastic bag charge changed behavior and increased support for other charges to reduce plastic waste. Front Psychol. 2019;10:266.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Willis MM, Schor JB. Does changing a light bulb lead to changing the world? Political action and the conscious consumer. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Scie SAGE Pub Inc. 2012;644:160–90.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Aprile MC, Fiorillo D. Water conservation behavior and environmental concerns: evidence from a representative sample of Italian individuals. J Clean Prod. 2017;159:119–29.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Casaló LV, Escario J-J. Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: a multilevel regression approach. J Clean Prod. 2018;175:155–63.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Meyer A. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. Ecol Econ. 2015;116:108–21.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kennedy EH, Kmec J. Reinterpreting the gender gap in household pro-environmental behaviour. Environ Sociol. 2018;4:299–310.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Melo PC, Ge J, Craig T, Brewer MJ, Thronicker I. Does work-life balance affect pro-environmental behaviour? Evidence for the UK using longitudinal microdata. Ecol Econ. 2018;145:170–81.

    Google Scholar 

  73. López-Mosquera N, Lera-López F, Sánchez M. Key factors to explain recycling, car use and environmentally responsible purchase behaviors: a comparative perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2015;99:29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Gifford R, Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol. 2014;49:141–57.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Abrahamse W, Steg L. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? J Econ Psychol. 2009;30:711–20.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Huddart Kennedy E, Krahn H, Krogman NT. Are we counting what counts? A closer look at environmental concern, pro-environmental behaviour, and carbon footprint. Local Environ. 2015;20:220–36. Offers a critical analysis of the methodological limitations of common pro-environmental behavior measures used in the climate and behavior literature.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Bleys B, Defloor B, Van Ootegem L, Verhofstadt E. The environmental impact of individual behavior: self-assessment versus the ecological footprint. Environ Behav SAGE Pub Inc. 2018;50:187–212.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ Behav SAGE Pub Inc. 2004;36:70–93.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lange F, Dewitte S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: review and recommendations. J Environ Psychol. 2019;63:92–100.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Thakuriah P, Metaxatos P. Effect of residential location and access to transportation on employment opportunities. Transp Res Rec SAGE Pub Inc. 2000;1726:24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  81. De Groot JIM, Steg L. Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conserv Lett. 2009;2:61–6.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Kaiser FG. Climate change mitigation within the Campbell paradigm: doing the right thing for a reason and against all odds. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2021;42:70–5.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bilsky W, Schwartz S. Values and personality. Eur J Pers. 1994;8:163–81.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Katz-Gerro T, Greenspan I, Handy F, Lee H-Y. The relationship between value types and environmental behaviour in four countries: universalism, benevolence, conformity and biospheric values revisited. Environ values. 2017;26:223–49.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Punzo G, Panarello D, Pagliuca MM, Castellano R, Aprile MC. Assessing the role of perceived values and felt responsibility on pro-environmental behaviours: a comparison across four EU countries. Environ Sci Policy. 2019;101:311–22.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Gatersleben B, Murtagh N, Abrahamse W. Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemp Soc Sci. 2014;9:374–92.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Evans L, Maio GR, Corner A, Hodgetts CJ, Ahmed S, Hahn U. Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nature Clim Change. 2013;3:122–5.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Diekmann A, Preisendörfer P. Green and greenback: the behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration Soc SAGE Pub Ltd. 2003;15:441–72.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Steg L, Vlek C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol. 2009;29:309–17.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Taube O, Kibbe A, Vetter M, Adler M, Kaiser FG. Applying the Campbell paradigm to sustainable travel behavior: compensatory effects of environmental attitude and the transportation environment. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav. 2018;56:392–407.

    Google Scholar 

  91. van der Linden S, Goldberg MH. Alternative meta-analysis of behavioral interventions to promote action on climate change yields different conclusions. Nat Commun. 2020;11:3915.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Nisa CF, Sasin EM, Faller DG, Schumpe BM, Belanger JJ. Reply to: Alternative meta-analysis of behavioural interventions to promote action on climate change yields different conclusions. Nat Commun. 2020;11:3901.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Allcott H. Social norms and energy conservation. J Public Econ. 2011;95:1082–95.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Schultz PW. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 1999;21:25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Brandon A, List JA, Metcalfe RD, Price MK, Rundhammer F. Testing for crowd out in social nudges: evidence from a natural field experiment in the market for electricity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:5293–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Rev. and expanded ed. New York: Penguin Books; 2009.

  97. Ebeling F, Lotz S. Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. Nature Clim Change. 2015;5:868–71.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG. Do defaults save lives. Science. 2003;302:1338–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Liebe U, Gewinner J, Diekmann A. Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5:576–85. Evaluates impact of a default nudge to increase participation in a voluntary green electricity program.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Nielsen KS, Cologna V, Lange F, Brick C, Stern PC. The case for impact-focused environmental psychology. J Environ Psychol. 2021;74: 101559.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Stern P, Gardner GT, Vandenbergh MP, Dietz T, Gilligan JM. Design principles for carbon emissions reduction programs. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:4847–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Thøgersen J. Consumer behavior and climate change: consumers need considerable assistance. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2021;42:9–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Amanda R. Carrico

Authors
  1. Amanda R. Carrico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda R. Carrico.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Enhancing the Usability of Climate Science and Knowledge for Action

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carrico, A.R. The Promise of Private-Sphere Pro-environmental Behavior as Climate Action. Curr Clim Change Rep 8, 125–133 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-022-00188-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-022-00188-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation