Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour

Last updated

Pro-environmental behaviour is behaviour that people consciously choose in order to minimize the negative impact of their actions on the environment. [1] Barriers to pro-environmental behaviour are the numerous factors that hinder individuals when they try to adjust their behaviours toward living more sustainable lifestyles.

Contents

Generally, these barriers can be separated into larger categories: psychological, social/cultural, financial and structural. Psychological barriers are considered internal, where an individual's knowledge, beliefs and thoughts affect their behaviour. Social and cultural barriers are contextual, where an individual's behaviour is affected by their surroundings (e.g. neighbourhood, town, city, etc.). Financial barriers are simply a lack of funds to move toward more sustainable behaviour (e.g. new technologies, electric cars). Structural barriers are external and often impossible for an individual to control, such as lack of governmental action, or locality of residence that promotes car dependency as opposed to public transit.

Internal/psychological barriers

Identifying psychological barriers to pro-environmental behaviour is key to the design of successful behaviour change interventions. [2] Scholars have identified several different categories of psychological barriers to pro-environmental action. A known researcher in the field, environmental psychologist Robert Gifford, has identified 33 of these barriers, barriers that he has termed “TheDragons of Inaction.” The Dragons are separated into seven categories: Limited Cognition, Ideologies, Social Comparison, Sunk Costs, Discredence, Perceived Risks, and Limited Behaviour. [3] [4] Below are the seven categories, integrated with additional barriers identified by other researchers. Other psychologists have argued that the attempt to identify psychological barriers to environmental behavior is problematic when used to explain societal inaction on climate change. [5]

Limited cognition

Limited cognition barriers are barriers that arise from a lack of knowledge and awareness about environmental issues. For example, with a key environmental issue like climate change, a person might not engage in pro-environmental behaviour because they are: unaware that climate change is occurring; or aware that climate change is an issue, but are ill-informed about the science of climate change; or lacking information about how they could address the issue. [3] [6] [7]

For those who are aware of current environmental issues, self-efficacy is an important barrier to action, where individuals often feel powerless in achieving large goals such as mitigating global climate change. [8] [9] Moreover, lack of motivation to change one's behaviour is correlated with the belief that individuals are incapable of performing effective pro-environmental actions. [10]

Ideologies

Climate denial billboard Climate change denial in Sudbury.jpg
Climate denial billboard

Ideological barriers are created by pre-conceived ideas and the way an individual thinks about the world. Ideologies that can create barriers to pro-environmental behaviour can include a strong belief in free-enterprise capitalism, a fatalistic belief that a higher power is in control, and a belief that technology can solve all environmental issues. [3] Accordingly, tactics such as environmental policies have prompted a tendency to struggle against perceived threats to one's freedom and comfortable lifestyle. [11] [12] This barrier is namely present in Western countries where individuals enjoy comparatively high levels of objective and subjective wellbeing due to socioeconomic status. [13] It has been noted that to live within environmental limits, there is a need to make changes to the comfortable aspects of Western lifestyles, for example, reducing meat consumption, the use of airplanes, and use of electronic gadgets with short life-spans. [14] Western cultural norms associate meat consumption with wealth, status and luxury, [15] and meat consumption per capita in the richest 15 nations of the world is 750% higher than in the poorest 24 nations. [16] A shift in values may be difficult, as people's life goals are formed by their ideas of social progress, personal status, and success through careers, higher incomes and consumption. [13]

Moreover, there exist deep structural and cultural roots that couple the macro-level of financial, property or labour institutions to the micro-level of individualistic, utilitarian values. These roots are linked to the current economic growth paradigm, [17] [18] which can be defined as a worldview that maintains that economic growth is both good and necessary. [19]

Social comparison

North Hills East truck dealer. The Ford F-150 truck has been the best selling vehicle in the United States for some time achieving less than 30mpg on average. North Hills East, Los Angeles, CA, USA - panoramio (3).jpg
North Hills East truck dealer. The Ford F-150 truck has been the best selling vehicle in the United States for some time achieving less than 30mpg on average.

Social comparison barriers include the comparison of actions with those of others to determine the “correct” behaviour, whether it be beneficial or harmful for the environment. [3] This means that social comparison barriers can also facilitate pro-environmental behaviour. For example, people will alter their energy consumption to replicate the reported usage of their neighbours. [4] Moreover, if individuals believe those around them are not actively engaging in pro-environmental behaviour, they are less likely to engage in it themselves because they believe this to be unfair. [4]

Sunk costs

Sunk cost barriers are the investments (not necessarily financial) of an individual that in turn restrict alternative possibilities for change, or in this circumstance, for pro-environmental behaviour. One example of a financial investment is car ownership, where the individual will be less likely to use alternative modes of transportation. Habits are considered a Sunk Costs Dragon as well because they are very difficult to change (e.g. eating habits). [3] [4] Individuals are also deeply invested in their life goals and aspirations, even if achieving them will harm the environment. [3] Place attachment is considered here as well, where an individual who feels no place attachment to their home will be less likely to act pro-environmentally in that place than one who loves where they live. [3] [4]

Additional barriers are inconvenience and time-related pressures, which are suggested as reasons why individuals go back to unsustainable habits. [9] [20] An individual may find it annoying and inconvenient to compost if they do not have access to municipal composting, for example, and if one is pressed for time they may choose to use their car rather than wait for public transit.

Discredence

Discredence barriers generally involve disbelief in environmental issues and/or distrust in government officials and scientists. [3] [4] Complete denial of climate change and other environmental issues is becoming less prominent, but it continues to persist. [3] [4] Skepticism is still apparent in countries where there are efforts to shape public opinion through mediums such as conservative think tanks and media outlets. [11] Moreover, mass media is the primary source of information on climate change in many countries, therefore depending on the individual, they will either trust or ignore the information they receive which will vary from one media outlet to the next based on different views. [11]

Distrust in government has become a prevalent issue recently. In the United States for example, Americans have been polled every year about their confidence in their country's institutions (e.g. the Supreme Court, Congress, the Presidency, and the health-care establishment), and there has been a reported collapse in trust over time (12% in 2017). [21] From an environmental standpoint, the first Trump administration has significantly diminished regulations that were put in place by the former administration to meet environmental standards. Examples of policy changes include pulling out of the Paris Agreement, loosening regulations on toxic air pollution, and issuing an executive order that called for a 30% increase in logging on public lands. [22] There is a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, [23] yet there is still not enough being done to meet global temperature targets of staying below a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase (see Paris Agreement). [24] [25]

Even in a stable constitutional republic, a cynical or unmoored citizenry presents an opportunity for demagogues and populists. As much as stagnant wages in former manufacturing regions, glaring economic inequality, or white backlash after the Obama Presidency, the country's disillusionment with institutions enabled Donald Trump's election.

— The New Yorker

Perceived risk

Risk perception barriers include worrying about whether financial or temporal investments will pay off. [3] An example of a financial investment is solar panels which are initially costly. A temporal investment can simply be spending the time to do research on the topic instead of doing something else. [4]

There exists the concept of psychological distance, where people tend to discount future risks when making trade-offs between cost and benefits, and instead prioritize immediate day-to-day concerns. [8] [12] Spatial distance allows individuals to disregard any risks, and instead consider them more likely for other people and places than for themselves. [8] [12] This barrier can simply be thought of as "out of sight, out of mind." Additionally, people typically underestimate the likelihood of being affected by natural disasters, [11] as well as the degree to which others are concerned about environmental issues. [26] Furthermore, the human brain privileges experience over analysis: personal experiences with extreme weather events can influence risk perceptions, beliefs, behaviour and policy support, whereas statistical information by itself means very little to most people. [8]

It has been hypothesised many times that no matter how strong the climate knowledge provided by risk analysts, experts and scientists is, risk perception determines agents' ultimate response in terms of mitigation. However, recent literature reports conflicting evidence about the actual impact of risk perception on agents’ climate response. Rather, a no-direct perception-response link with the mediation and moderation of many other factors and a strong dependency on the context analysed is shown. Some moderation factors considered as such in the specialised literature include communication and social norms. Yet, conflicting evidence of the disparity between public communication about climate change and the lack of behavioural change has also been observed in the general public. Likewise, doubts are raised about the observance of social norms as an influencing predominant factor that affects action on climate change. [27] What is more, disparate evidence also showed that even agents highly engaged in mitigation (engagement is a mediation factor) actions fail ultimately to respond. [27] [28]


Limited behaviour

Limited behaviour barriers may include people choosing easier, yet less effective, pro-environmental behavioural changes (e.g. recycling, metal straws), and the rebound effect , which occurs when a positive environmental behaviour is followed by one that negates it (e.g. saving money with an electric car to then buy a plane ticket). [3]

Contextual barriers

Social and cultural factors

Research has also shown that how people support and engage in pro-environmental behaviour is also affected by contextual factors (i.e. social, economic, and cultural); people with diverse cultural backgrounds have different perspectives and priorities, and thus, they may respond to the same policies and interventions in different ways with regionally differentiated world views playing an important role. [29] This means that people will use different excuses for their behaviours depending on contextual factors. [10] [30] [31] Research has shown that information has a greater impact on behaviour if it is tailored to the personal situations of consumers and resonates with their important values. [11] This suggests that, for example, policies developed to reduce and mitigate climate change would be more effective if they were developed specifically for the people whose behaviour they were targeting.

People are social beings who respond to group norms: behaviour and decision-making has been shown to be affected by social norms and contexts. [4] [8] [20]

Demographic variables like age, gender and education, can have a variety of effects on pro-environmental behaviour, depending on the issue and context. [32] However, when considering the effects of socio-demographics on individual perceptions of climate change, a recent study reported a meta-analysis which found that the largest demographic correlation with the belief of human-caused climate change is political affiliation (e.g. conservative views often mean less support for climate mitigation). [33] [34]

Economic factors

The cost of sustainable alternatives and financial measures used to support new technologies can also be a barrier to pro-environmental behaviour. [9] Households may have severe budgetary constraints that discourage them from investing in energy-efficient measures. In addition, individuals may fear that project costs will not be recovered prior to a future sale of a property. [29] Economic factors are not just barriers to pro-environmental behaviour for individual households but are also a barrier on the international scale. Developing countries that rely on coal and fossil fuels may not have the funding or infrastructure to switch to more sustainable energy sources. Therefore, help from developed countries, with regards to cost, may be needed. As nations become more prosperous, their citizens are less concerned with the economic battle for survival and are free to pursue postmaterialistic ideals such as political freedom, personal fulfillment, and environmental conservation. [35] In other cases however, environment-friendly behaviours may be undertaken for non-environmental reasons, such as to save money or to improve health (e.g. biking or walking instead of driving). [12] [36]

Structural barriers

Structural barriers are large-scale systemic barriers that may be perceived as being objective and external, [37] and can be highly influential and near impossible to control, even when one wishes to adopt more pro-environmental behaviour. For example, lack of organizational and governmental action on sustainability is considered a barrier for individuals looking to participate in sustainable practices. [9] Further examples of structural barriers include: low problem awareness at the local level caused by a low priority for adaptation at higher institutional levels, and missing leadership by certain key actors leading to an absence of appropriate decision-making routines. [6] Other structural barriers reported from a Vancouver-based study include: term limits imposed on politicians that affect council's ability to make long-term decisions; budgetary cycles that force planning based on three year terms, rather than long-term planning; and hierarchical systems that inhibit flexibility and innovation. [38]

Research has shown that individuals may not behave in accordance with environmental sustainability when they have little control over the outcome of a situation. [3] An example of a structural choice that can influence an individual's use of high carbon transport, occurs when cities governments allow sprawling neighbourhoods to develop without associated public transit infrastructure. [39]

The concept of barriers has also been defined in relation to adaptive capacity, the ability of a system to respond to environmental changes; a barrier can either be a reason for potential adaptive capacity not being translated into action, or a reason for the existence of low adaptive capacity. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of planned behavior</span> Theory that links behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions. In turn, a tenet of TPB is that behavioral intention is the most proximal determinant of human social behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transtheoretical model</span> Integrative theory of therapy

The transtheoretical model of behavior change is an integrative theory of therapy that assesses an individual's readiness to act on a new healthier behavior, and provides strategies, or processes of change to guide the individual. The model is composed of constructs such as: stages of change, processes of change, levels of change, self-efficacy, and decisional balance.

Behavioural change theories are attempts to explain why human behaviours change. These theories cite environmental, personal, and behavioural characteristics as the major factors in behavioural determination. In recent years, there has been increased interest in the application of these theories in the areas of health, education, criminology, energy and international development with the hope that understanding behavioural change will improve the services offered in these areas. Some scholars have recently introduced a distinction between models of behavior and theories of change. Whereas models of behavior are more diagnostic and geared towards understanding the psychological factors that explain or predict a specific behavior, theories of change are more process-oriented and generally aimed at changing a given behavior. Thus, from this perspective, understanding and changing behavior are two separate but complementary lines of scientific investigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Value-action gap</span> When a persons values do not correlate with their actions

The value-action gap is the discrepancy between the stated values of an individual or organisation and their actions. More generally, it is the difference between what people say and what people do. The phrase is associated with environmental geography, relating to attitudes and behaviors surrounding environmental issues. Numerous studies have reported an increase in global environmental concern, but have shown that environmental engagement is not adjusting in accordance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nature connectedness</span>

Nature connectedness is the extent to which individuals include nature as part of their identity. It includes an understanding of nature and everything it is made up of, even the parts that are not pleasing. Characteristics of nature connectedness are similar to those of a personality trait: nature connectedness is stable over time and across various situations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Place attachment</span> Environmental psychology concept

Place attachment is the emotional bond between person and place, and one way of describing the relationship between people and spatial settings. It is highly influenced by an individual and his or her personal experiences. There is a considerable amount of research dedicated to defining what makes a place "meaningful" enough for place attachment to occur. Schroeder (1991) notably discussed the difference between "meaning" and "preference," defining meaning as "the thoughts, feelings, memories and interpretations evoked by a landscape" and preference as "the degree of liking for one landscape compared to another."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effects of climate change on mental health</span>

The effects of climate change on mental health and wellbeing are being documented as the consequences of climate change become more tangible and impactful. This is especially the case for vulnerable populations and those with pre-existing serious mental illness. There are three broad pathways by which these effects can take place: directly, indirectly or via awareness. The direct pathway includes stress-related conditions caused by exposure to extreme weather events. These include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Scientific studies have linked mental health to several climate-related exposures. These include heat, humidity, rainfall, drought, wildfires and floods. The indirect pathway can be disruption to economic and social activities. An example is when an area of farmland is less able to produce food. The third pathway can be of mere awareness of the climate change threat, even by individuals who are not otherwise affected by it. This especially manifests in the form of anxiety over the quality of life for future generations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sander van der Linden</span> Social psychologist

Sander L. van der Linden is a Dutch social psychologist and author who is Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Cambridge. He studies the psychology of social influence, risk, human judgment, and decision-making. He is particularly known for his research on the psychology of social issues, such as fake news, COVID-19, and climate change.

Shlomo Hareli is an Israeli psychologist, Full Professor of Social Psychology at the School of Business Administration at the University of Haifa. At present, he is serving as the head of the school.

Eco-anxiety is a challenging emotional response to climate change and other environmental issues. Extensive studies have been done on ecological anxiety since 2007, and various definitions remain in use. The condition is not a medical diagnosis and is regarded as a rational response to the reality of climate change; however, severe instances can have a mental health impact if left without alleviation. There is also evidence that eco-anxiety is caused by the way researchers frame their research and their narratives of the evidence about climate change: if they do not consider the possibility of finding any solution to overcome climate change and for individuals to make a difference, they contribute to this feeling of powerlessness.

Ecological grief, or in particular climate grief, refers to the sense of loss that arises from experiencing or learning about environmental destruction or climate change. For example, scientists witnessing the decline of Australia's Great Barrier Reef report experiences of anxiety, hopelessness, and despair. Groups impacted heavily also include young people feeling betrayal from lack of environmental action by governments and indigenous communities losing their livelihoods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate communication</span> Environmental and science communication

Climate communication or climate change communication is a field of environmental communication and science communication focused on discussing the causes, nature and effects of anthropogenic climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychology of climate change denial</span> Human behaviour with regards to climate change denial

The psychology of climate change denial is the study of why people deny climate change, despite the scientific consensus on climate change. A study assessed public perception and action on climate change on grounds of belief systems, and identified seven psychological barriers affecting behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship: cognition, ideological worldviews, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, disbelief in experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes. Other factors include distance in time, space, and influence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychological impact of climate change</span> Aspect of climate change and society

The psychological impacts of climate change concerns effects that climate change can have on individuals' mental and emotional well-being. People experience a wide range of emotions as they grapple with the challenge posed by climate change between their short-term self-interest and their longer-term community interests. People respond to concerns about climate change in a variety of ways: behaviorally, via acts that frequently indicate conflicting attitudes; emotionally, through affective responses; and cognitively, through assessments. There is a wealth of research demonstrating how emotions influence people's decisions in a variety of contexts, including social issues, and can be used to distill personal experiences. They may also relate to more generalised effects on groups and their behaviours, such as the urge to migrate from affected areas of the globe to areas perceived as less affected. These impacts can manifest in various ways and affect people of all ages and backgrounds. Some of the key psychological impacts of climate change include: emotional states such as eco-anxiety, ecological grief, eco-anger or solastalgia. While troublesome, such emotions may not appear immediately harmful and can lead to a rational response to the degradation of the natural world motivating adaptive action. However, there can be other effects on health, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for instance, as a result of witnessing or seeing reports of massive wildfires, which may be more dangerous.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campbell paradigm</span> Behavioral theory in social psychology

The Campbell paradigm is a behavioral theory from social psychology. The paradigm was developed by social psychologist Florian G. Kaiser and his colleagues, Katarzyna Byrka and Terry Hartig, in 2010, building on an earlier suggestion by Donald T. Campbell, after whom the paradigm is named. It offers an explanation for why and when individuals engage in particular behaviors. It is mainly applied to behaviors that are aimed at fighting climate change and protecting the environment.

Climate psychology is a field that aims to further our understanding of the psychological processes that occur in response to climate change and its resultant effects. It also seeks to promote creative ways to engage with the public about climate change; contribute to change at the personal, community, cultural, and political levels; support activists, scientists and policy makers to bring about effective change; to nurture psychological resilience to the destructive impacts of climate change happening now and in the future.

Psychological distance is the degree to which people feel removed from a phenomenon. Distance in this case is not limited to the physical surroundings, rather it could also be abstract. Distance can be defined as the separation between the self and other instances like persons, events, knowledge, or time. Psychological distance was first defined in Trope and Liberman's Construal Level Theory (CLT). However, Trope and Liberman only identified temporal distance as a separator. This has since been revised to include four categories of distance: spatial, social, hypothetical, and informational distances. Further studies have concluded that all four are strongly and systemically correlated with each other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lorraine Whitmarsh</span> British psychologist and environmental scientist

Lorraine Elisabeth Whitmarsh is a British psychologist and environmental scientist at the University of Bath. She serves as Director of the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations. Her research considers how the public engage with climate change, energy and transport.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Linda Steg</span> Dutch university teacher

Linda Steg is a Dutch psychologist who is Professor of Environmental Psychology at the University of Groningen. She studies the interaction between people and their environment and how people influence their local ecosystems. She was awarded the 2020 Dutch Research Council Stevin Prize.

References

  1. ↑ Kollmuss, Anja; Julian Agyeman (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. doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401 . S2CID   16062059.
  2. ↑ Clayton, Susan D. (2018). Psychology and climate change : human perceptions, impacts, and responses. Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. ISBN   9780128131305. OCLC   1082444987.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gifford, Robert (2011). "The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation". American Psychologist. 66 (4): 290–302. doi:10.1037/a0023566. ISSN   1935-990X. PMID   21553954. S2CID   8356816.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "The Dragons of Inaction – Diagnosing and Slaying the Barriers to Positive Climate and Environmental Action". www.dragonsofinaction.com. Retrieved 2019-03-25.
  5. ↑ Schmitt, Michael T.; Neufeld, Scott D.; Mackay, Caroline M. L.; Dys-Steenbergen, Odilia (2020). "The Perils of Explaining Climate Inaction in Terms of Psychological Barriers". Journal of Social Issues. 76: 123–135. doi: 10.1111/josi.12360 . ISSN   1540-4560. S2CID   213436745.
  6. 1 2 3 Eisenack, Klaus; Moser, Susanne C.; Hoffmann, Esther; Klein, Richard J. T.; Oberlack, Christoph; Pechan, Anna; Rotter, Maja; Termeer, Catrien J. A. M. (1 November 2014). "Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation". Nature Climate Change. 4 (10): 867–872. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4..867E. doi:10.1038/nclimate2350. ISSN   1758-678X.
  7. ↑ Parag, Yael; Strickland, Deborah (2009), Personal Carbon Budgeting: What people need to know, learn and have in order to manage and live within a carbon budget, and the policies that could support them. UKERC Research Report, Demand Reduction Theme, Unpublished, doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.3144.4560
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 van der Linden, Sander; Maibach, Edward; Leiserowitz, Anthony (1 November 2015). "Improving Public Engagement With Climate Change". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 10 (6): 758–763. doi:10.1177/1745691615598516. ISSN   1745-6916. PMID   26581732. S2CID   3117859.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Axon, Stephen (1 November 2017). ""Keeping the ball rolling": Addressing the enablers of, and barriers to, sustainable lifestyles". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 52: 11–25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.05.002. ISSN   0272-4944.
  10. 1 2 Landry, Nicholas; Gifford, Robert; Milfont, Taciano L.; Weeks, Andrew; Arnocky, Steven (1 February 2018). "Learned helplessness moderates the relationship between environmental concern and behavior". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 55: 18–22. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.003. ISSN   0272-4944.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Clayton, Susan; Devine-Wright, Patrick; Stern, Paul C.; Whitmarsh, Lorraine; Carrico, Amanda; Steg, Linda; Swim, Janet; Bonnes, Mirilia (1 July 2015). "Psychological research and global climate change". Nature Climate Change. 5 (7): 640–646. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..640C. doi:10.1038/nclimate2622. hdl: 11370/7065851e-dd9d-4f69-9aec-346d5df33260 . ISSN   1758-678X. S2CID   83681827.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Gifford, Robert (2014-01-03). "Environmental Psychology Matters". Annual Review of Psychology. 65 (1): 541–579. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048. ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   24050189. S2CID   26496067.
  13. 1 2 Büchs, Milena; Koch, Max (1 January 2019). "Challenges for the degrowth transition: The debate about wellbeing". Futures. 105: 155–165. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.09.002 . ISSN   0016-3287. S2CID   149731503.
  14. ↑ Koch, Max; Buch-Hansen, Hubert; Fritz, Martin (1 August 2017). "Shifting Priorities in Degrowth Research: An Argument for the Centrality of Human Needs". Ecological Economics. 138: 74–81. Bibcode:2017EcoEc.138...74K. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.035. ISSN   0921-8009.
  15. ↑ Ruby, Matthew B. (1 February 2012). "Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study". Appetite. 58 (1): 141–150. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019. ISSN   0195-6663. PMID   22001025. S2CID   30991920.
  16. ↑ Tilman, David; Clark, Michael (1 November 2014). "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health". Nature. 515 (7528): 518–522. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..518T. doi:10.1038/nature13959. ISSN   0028-0836. PMID   25383533. S2CID   4453972.
  17. ↑ Castoriadis, Cornelius; Murphy, John (1 February 1985). "Reflections on 'Rationality' and 'Development'". Thesis Eleven. 10–11 (1): 18–36. doi:10.1177/072551368501000103. ISSN   0725-5136. S2CID   142987710.
  18. ↑ Kallis, Giorgos (1 March 2011). "In defence of degrowth". Ecological Economics. 70 (5): 873–880. Bibcode:2011EcoEc..70..873K. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007. ISSN   0921-8009.
  19. ↑ Kallis, Giorgos; Kostakis, Vasilis; Lange, Steffen; Muraca, Barbara; Paulson, Susan; Schmelzer, Matthias (2018). "Research On Degrowth". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 43 (1): 291–316. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941 . S2CID   158876694.
  20. 1 2 Gifford, Robert (1 July 2015). "The road to climate hell". New Scientist. 227 (3029): 28–33. Bibcode:2015NewSc.227Q..28G. doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(15)30744-2. ISSN   0262-4079.
  21. ↑ Coll, Steve (2017-12-22). "The Distrust That Trump Relies Upon". The New Yorker. ISSN   0028-792X . Retrieved 2019-04-17.
  22. ↑ "15 ways the Trump administration has changed environmental policies". Environment. 2019-02-01. Archived from the original on February 5, 2019. Retrieved 2019-04-17.
  23. ↑ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G. (1 April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 . hdl: 1983/34949783-dac1-4ce7-ad95-5dc0798930a6 . ISSN   1748-9326. S2CID   470384.
  24. ↑ "UNITED NATIONS Climate Change Summit". www.un.org. Retrieved 2019-04-17.
  25. ↑ "Global Warming Solutions". National Geographic. 2019-01-24. Archived from the original on January 18, 2017. Retrieved 2019-04-17.
  26. ↑ Geiger, Nathaniel; Swim, Janet K. (1 September 2016). "Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 47: 79–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002 . ISSN   0272-4944.
  27. 1 2 Cardenas, IC (2024). "Mitigation of climate change. Risk and uncertainty research gaps in the specification of mitigation actions". Environmental Science & Policy. 162 (December 2024): 103912. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103912 . Creative Commons by small.svg  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
  28. ↑ Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Summary for Policymakers (PDF) (Report). Cambridge University Press. April 4, 2022. p. 28. doi:10.1017/9781009157926.001 . Retrieved December 8, 2022.
  29. 1 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), "Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies", Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–206, doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415416.008, hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-002D-DF30-A , ISBN   9781107415416
  30. ↑ Eom, Kimin; Kim, Heejung S.; Sherman, David K. (1 July 2018). "Social class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 77: 60–75. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.009. ISSN   0022-1031. S2CID   55175470.
  31. ↑ Gifford, Robert; Nilsson, Andreas (1 January 2014). "Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review". International Journal of Psychology. 49 (3): 141–57. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034. ISSN   0020-7594. PMID   24821503. S2CID   25554195.
  32. ↑ Clayton; Manning, eds. (2018). "Understanding responses to climate change: Psychological barriers to mitigation and a new theory of behavioral choice". Psychology and Climate Change: Human Perceptions, Impacts and Responses. pp. 161–183.
  33. ↑ Hornsey, Matthew J.; Harris, Emily A.; Bain, Paul G.; Fielding, Kelly S. (2016-02-22). "Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 6 (6): 622–626. Bibcode:2016NatCC...6..622H. doi:10.1038/nclimate2943. ISSN   1758-678X. S2CID   147349580.
  34. ↑ Brick, Cameron; Lai, Calvin K. (2018). "Explicit (but not implicit) environmentalist identity predicts pro-environmental behavior and policy preferences". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 58. Elsevier BV: 8–17. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.07.003. ISSN   0272-4944. S2CID   149908016.
  35. ↑ Pisano, Ignacio; Lubell, Mark (28 July 2016). "Environmental Behavior in Cross-National Perspective". Environment and Behavior. 49 (1): 31–58. doi:10.1177/0013916515600494. S2CID   143367118.
  36. ↑ Whitmarsh, Lorraine (1 March 2009). "Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts" (PDF). Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29 (1): 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.003. ISSN   0272-4944. S2CID   8355682.
  37. ↑ "Understanding responses to climate change: Psychological barriers to mitigation and a new theory of behavioral choice". Psychology and Climate Change. 2018. pp. 161–183.
  38. ↑ Burch, Sarah (1 December 2010). "In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: An examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities". Energy Policy. 38 (12): 7575–7585. Bibcode:2010EnPol..38.7575B. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.070. ISSN   0301-4215.
  39. ↑ Cervero, Robert (1 June 2002). "Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework". Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 7 (4): 265–284. doi:10.1016/s1361-9209(01)00024-4. ISSN   1361-9209.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.