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%

Welsh Consumer Council ‘Consumption in Wales’

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%

• 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?”

Environmental knowledge

Environmental attitude

Pro-environmental

behaviour

What impact can any communications have on public behaviour?

• Early models of pro-environmental behaviours (US, 1950s)

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 groups

Sustainable CommunitiesSustainable Consumption

‘Needs’ vs. impacts ‘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)Groups of Behaviour Types of Behaviour

Consumption 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 Types of Behaviour

Consumption 6. Household Consumption – General Shopping Locally

Behaviours Ethical Purchasing

Charity Shops

7. Housing Land Use

8. Tourism Responsible Tourism

9. Leisure ?

10. Banking Ethical Investments

Community 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