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.
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.
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 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]
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 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 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 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 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
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]
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]
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. [27] This means that people will use different excuses for their behaviours depending on contextual factors. [10] [28] [29] 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. [30] 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). [31] [32]
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. [27] 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. [33] 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] [34]
Structural barriers are large-scale systemic barriers that may be perceived as being objective and external, [35] 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. [36]
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. [37]
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]
Environmental psychology is a branch of psychology that explores the relationship between humans and the external world. It examines the way in which the natural environment and our built environments shape us as individuals. Environmental psychology emphasizes how humans change the environment and how the environment influences humans' experiences and behaviors. The field defines the term environment broadly, encompassing natural environments, social settings, built environments, learning environments, and informational environments. According to an article on APA Psychnet, environmental psychology is when a person thinks to a plan, travels to a certain place, and follows through with the plan throughout their behavior.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural 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.
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.
In psychology, a social trap is a conflict of interest or perverse incentive where individuals or a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole. Social traps are the cause of countless environmental issues, including overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, the overgrazing of cattle on the Sahelian Desert, the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture, and, most importantly, climate change.
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.
Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development. The idea of Degrowth is based on claims and research from a multitude of disciplines such as economic anthropology, ecological economics, environmental sciences, and development studies. It argues that modern capitalism's unitary focus on growth causes widespread ecological damage and is unnecessary for the further increase of human living standards. Degrowth theory has been met with both academic acclaim and considerable criticism.
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.
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."
Green consumption is related to sustainable development or sustainable consumer behaviour. It is a form of consumption that safeguards the environment for the present and for future generations. It ascribes to consumers responsibility or co-responsibility for addressing environmental problems through the adoption of environmentally friendly behaviors, such as the use of organic products, clean and renewable energy, and the choice of goods produced by companies with zero, or almost zero, impact.
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.
Sander L. van der Linden is a Dutch social psychologist and author who is a 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.
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. Environmental grief can be defined as "the grief reaction stemming from the environmental loss of ecosystems by natural and man-made events." Another definition is "the grief felt in relation to experienced or anticipated ecological losses, including the loss of species, ecosystems, and meaningful landscapes due to acute or chronic environmental 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.
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.
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.
The psychological impacts of climate change concerns effects that climate change can have on individuals' mental and emotional well-being. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.