Transcript Driving Behaviour Change for Sustainability

Driving Behaviour Change for Sustainability:
Overview of Desk Research for Defra
- CREE Seminar Andrew Darnton
18th October 2004
Background to the Desk Research
•
•
Commissioned by Defra (Communications Directorate), via COI
Objectives: through existing research sources…
- Investigate public understanding of ‘Sustainable Development’
- Identify barriers and drivers to behaviour change for sustainability
•
Methodology
- Datagathering via experts and SDRN  100 organisations
- Source summaries & commentaries  3 reports, on 105 sources
“What impact could communications on ‘SD’ have on public behaviour?”
The Public and ‘Sustainable Development’
•
Awareness of ‘SD’ low (among c.30%)
Source
Country
Year of
fieldwork
No. of
respondents
% aware
of ‘SD’
DETR ‘Survey of Public Attitudes to the
Environment’
England and
Wales
1996/7
1,782
34%
Defra ‘Survey of Public Attitudes to
Quality of Life and to the Environment’
England
2001
3,736
34%
Wales
2002
1,002
26%
Scottish Executive ‘Public Attitudes to the
Environment in Scotland’
Scotland
2002
1,989
27%
Bundesministerium fur Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit
‘Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2002’
Germany
2002
2,361
28%
Defra Adult Omnibus tracking study
England
2003
2,250
28%
Welsh Consumer Council ‘Consumption
in Wales’
•
•
Understanding of ‘SD’ lower (among c.8%?)
Limitations of questions – but what is the right answer?
Confronting the Public with ‘SD’
•
In focus groups, ‘SD’ confounds people…
“not catchy”
“gobbledegook”
“so vague”
•
…and some reject it:
“They keep you in the dark then come up with terms like ‘Sustainability”
•
•
Most researchers don’t mention it – or start from the other end
But public’s concerns are environmental, social and economic
- True of all SEGs
- NB lowest SEGs most affected by low quality ‘surroundings’
Driving Behaviour Change: Linear Models
“What impact could communications on ‘SD’ have on public behaviour?”
What impact can any communications have on public behaviour?
•
Early models of pro-environmental behaviours (US, 1950s)
Environmental
knowledge
Environmental
attitude
Pro-environmental
behaviour
Mind the Gap: Non-linear Models
•
•
•
‘Information Deficit’ model disproved in the 70s
cf. Mismatch between public’s words and deeds
The Value-Action Gap (Blake, 1999)
The Impact of Information on ‘SD’ Behaviours
•
Influences / antecedents of human behaviour diverse, and complex
qv. TJ’s models, but also Stewart Barr’s ‘path diagrams’
-
•
•
Contrast AYDYB? use of info vs. GAP’s (Action at Home / Eco Teams)
Effective info as discursive (to measure and debate) and practical
Reported Barriers to SD Behaviour Change
•
ie. Reasons people give for not doing a behaviour
- Unwillingness (inc. ‘can’t do more’)
- Lack of Agency (inc. ‘Govt to take the lead’)
- Lack of Opportunity (inc. amenities, space)
- Cost (actual and perceived)
- Convenience and other constructs
- Habits (inc. low-consciousness behaviours)
- Social Norms (inc. ‘marginal’ green-ness)
- Relative Sustainability (messy world)
Reported Drivers of SD Behaviour Change
•
ie. Reasons people give for doing a behaviour, or wanting to…
- Infrastructure
- Cost Saving
- Personal Gains
- Social Norms
- Groups and Leaders
- Financial Instruments
- Information (not indicators)
Which Public Behaviours Are To Be Changed?
•
•
Role of public in SD “uncertain and unplanned” – needs interpreting
Attempt to see SD ‘in the round’ and full extent of public’s role
individuals
Sustainable Consumption
‘Needs’ vs. impacts
•
•
groups
Sustainable Communities
‘Quality of Life’
Group dynamic effective in public behaviour change campaigns
Groups at forefront of delivering local sustainability (LA21 & beyond)
 ‘An Exploratory Framework of a Sustainable Lifestyle’ provided
Framework for a Sustainable Lifestyle (part 1)
Consumption
Groups of Behaviour
Types of Behaviour
1. Energy Use – Domestic
Energy Saving
Behaviours
Renewable Energy
2. Energy Use – Transport
Car Use inc. journeys
Air Travel
Public Transport
3. Water Use
Water Meters
Washing & Flushing
Rainwater
4. Waste
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
Littering
Sanitary Waste
5. Household Consumption – Food
Food Miles
Organic & Fairtrade
Framework for a Sustainable Lifestyle (part 2)
Groups of Behaviour
Consumption
Types of Behaviour
6. Household Consumption – General Shopping Locally
Behaviours
Ethical Purchasing
Charity Shops
Community
7. Housing
Land Use
8. Tourism
Responsible Tourism
9. Leisure
?
10. Banking
Ethical Investments
11. Participation
Civic Participation
Behaviours
Social Participation
12. Volunteering
Formal Volunteering
Informal Volunteering
Civic Volunteering
13. Neighbourliness
Informal socialising
Intervention for the
common good
Behaviours in Focus - Energy Saving
•
Energy a low salience issue
- 10% think about energy use ‘a great deal’, 46% ‘a fair bit’
- Varies by household income (‘fuel-poor’ – 21% - think about it most)
•
Principal driver of energy saving is saving money
- 81% of energy savers do so to save money
- Fuel is cheap; energy saving would “only save a few quid anyway”
•
Lack of info is a barrier to uptake
- 79% ‘know how to’ cut energy bills; 21% aware of energy-saving schemes
- 74% have received no info from providers on ‘green tariffs’
•
Calls to cut energy use dismissed
- 60% of non-savers (60%) ‘can’t use any less energy at home’
Behaviours in Focus - Recycling
•
High awareness of waste issues, but low knowledge
- 94% agree waste disposal is ‘environmental problem’ but only 7% cite
waste among personal concerns
- c.80% don’t know how much waste collection costs, c.55% don’t know
where it goes
•
Recycling is a near normative behaviour
- c. 20%-30% are non-recyclers (10% are rejectors)
- Majority of recyclers only recycle paper (65%) and glass (60%)
•
Infrastructure (& social norms) key to recycling behaviour
- 28% of non-recyclers say ‘no kerbside collection’ (top reason)
- 72% with kerbside collection are high- or medium-recyclers
Behaviours in Focus - Volunteering
•
Target set by Home Office for ‘active community participation’
- increase of 5% by 2006 (47% in 2001)
•
Nearly half of public takes part in groups
- 40% were ‘formal volunteers’ in 2001, including EMs
•
Drivers are ‘personal, local and low-tech’
- 44% via someone already involved; 13% via faith groups (36% for black)
•
Partnership with local groups delivers ‘workable solutions’ for SD
- est. 5 groups per 1,000 in 1997 (VCS sector = 300,000 orgs)
- community groups account for 80% of VCS
Recommendations for SD Policymakers
•
•
•
•
•
If you want to change a behaviour, target that behaviour (and
persist)
Combine measures to address complex factors (‘contextual first’)
Alter the variables (eg. info / incentives) until change results
Support individual behaviour change by supporting groups
Recognise behaviour change without attitude change
(‘unintentional sustainability’)
Recommendations for SD Communications



Without other policy tools, a comms campaign on ‘SD’ or
‘sustainability’ will not deliver significant behaviour change
Once behaviour change is underway, comms can show how
behaviours interrelate, & impact on delivering sustainability
In this context, a comms campaign is not adverts, but
information and informal education materials
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/taking-it-on/background.htm