Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Results of two studies are reported, in which we compare the predictive power of three general behavioral antecedents (i.e., values, worldviews, and environmental concern) in explaining personal norms, behavioral intentions (i.e., environmental activism), and acceptability of energy policies. Values-especially biosphericappeared to be more powerful in explaining personal norms, intentions, and policy acceptability than were worldviews and environmental concern, although these differences were in some cases not statistically significant.

This article examines which policy features affect the perceived effectiveness and acceptability of pricing policies aimed to reduce CO2 emissions. A survey study was conducted among 112 Dutch respondents in 2003. As hypothesized, incentives and policies targeting efficiency behavior were perceived to be more effective and acceptable than were disincentives and policies targeting curtailment behavior. Policies targeting direct energy use were evaluated as more effective than those targeting indirect energy use. No significant differences were found between the acceptability of policies targeting direct and indirect energy savings. As expected, push measures were perceived to be more effective and acceptable when revenues are allocated within the energy domain rather than to general funds. Pull measures were evaluated as more effective when they are funded from within the energy domain rather than from general public funds. The way pull measures are funded did not significantly affect their acceptability.

Ideally, pro-environmental consumer behavior leads to a lower impact on the environment. However, due to negative behavioral spillovers environmentally friendly behavior could lead to an overall higher environmental impact if subsequent environmentally unfriendly behavior occurs. In this exploratory interview study we focused on two pathways leading to negative spillover: a psychological path (perceived effort, moral licensing) and an economic path (rebound effects). We wanted to gain insight into people’s motivations to behave environmentally unfriendly and to explore people’s level of awareness of both pathways. Our results indicate that pro-environmental behaviors that are associated with higher effort are performed less frequently, and that when people do not perform these behaviors they associate them with higher effort levels. When people perceive behaviors as more effortful they increasingly seem to use arguments to motivate and rationalize why performing the behavior is difficult or impossible. Moreover, we found that although some people can imagine that moral licensing and rebound effects could occur and can provide examples from their own lives, most people assess these concepts as not rational. People seem unaware of the relation between a first pro-environmental behavior (PEB) and a subsequent behavior, and therefore inconsistencies in behavior go unnoticed. As people are good at rationalizing why they do not perform specific PEBs, they in general feel satisfied with their own pro-environmental actions. In order to discourage negative spillovers, we describe a number of approaches and research ideas aimed at taking away the grounds for rationalization.

In order to minimize climate change it is important that people take up a sustainable lifestyle. Sustainable lifestyles call for pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) in several domains, such as in-home energy use, mobility, and consumption of food and goods. However, studies show that people often do not consistently behave pro-environmentally in all domains. In this study we investigated how a combination of personal motivation, and the difficulty and the perceived effort of a PEB, predicts the performance of PEBs in various domains, using a survey (n = 1,536). By means of Rasch analysis we identified the difficulty of 17 PEBs and estimated respondents’ pro-environmental motivations. In addition, we investigated if performance of certain PEBs increased the probability of performing other PEBs. This way we could identify for each level of motivation which behaviors respondents were (probably) performing and which behaviors they did not yet perform, but would be least effortful new behaviors. Furthermore, using a non-recursive structural equation model we investigated the relations between perceived effort, PEB performance, motivation, underlying traits, and demographics. Results showed a feedback loop between motivation and perceived effort: when respondents were motivated they perceived behaviors as less effortful and also lower perception of effort was related to higher motivation. Our results imply that people mainly perform PEBs that fit their level of pro-environmental motivation and that they are inclined to do the things of which they can justify the effort they need to invest. This amount of effort seems quite similar for people: no one wants to invest too much effort, but people highly differ in how effortful they assess different behaviors. Our study thus indicates that rationalizations play a key role. Encouraging people to embrace more sustainable lifestyles may involve step-by-step increases in PEB performance. We propose that people should be encouraged to perform behaviors that are closest to their current motivation level in order for them to progress from performing easy to more difficult PEBs.

To meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, effective climate policies need to be implemented. However, climate policies are often not implemented due to low (expected) acceptability among citizens. To gain insight into acceptability levels of various policy types, we examined how individual characteristics (personal values and concern about climate change), policy-specific beliefs (perceived effectiveness and fairness) and policy characteristics (e.g., communicative, financial, and legal) affect the acceptability of climate policies. A representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 1,536) completed an online questionnaire containing 18 climate policy measures. Results showed that perceived fairness and effectiveness were the main predictors of policy acceptability. Concern about climate change and personal values were of lesser importance. Communicative policies were evaluated as the most acceptable, most effective, and among the fairest policies, while financial policies were perceived as somewhat acceptable and fair and were also among the most effective policies. Legislative policies received the lowest scores on all ratings. Further, participants perceived punishing, push measures as more acceptable, effective, and fair compared to rewarding, pull measures. Packages combining a push and a pull measure received the lowest acceptability and fairness ratings but were seen as somewhat effective. This suggests that not only the type of policy but the policy itself and the targeted domain and behaviour also play a role. Additionally, policies targeting efficiency behaviour were perceived as more acceptable, effective, and fair compared to policies targeting curtailment behaviour.

No abstract

No abstract