Towards environmentally sustainable human behaviour: targeting non-conscious and conscious processes for effective and acceptable policies

Abstract

Meeting climate change targets to limit global warming to 2°C requires rapid and large reductions in demand for products that most contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include production of bulk materials (e.g. steel and cement), energy supply (e.g. fossil fuels) and animal source foods (particularly ruminants and their products). Effective strategies to meet these targets require transformative changes in supply as well as demand, involving changes in economic, political and legal systems at local, national and international levels, building on evidence from many disciplines. This paper outlines contributions from behavioural science in reducing demand. Grounded in dual-process models of human behaviour (involving non-conscious and conscious processes) this paper considers first why interventions aimed at changing population values towards the environment are usually insufficient or unnecessary for reducing demand although they may be important in increasing public acceptability of policies that could reduce demand. It then outlines two sets of evidence from behavioural science towards effective systems-based strategies, to identify interventions likely to be effective at: (i) reducing demand for products that contribute most to GHG emissions, mainly targeting non-conscious processes and (ii) increasing public acceptability for policy changes to enable these interventions, targeting conscious processes.This article is part of the themed issue ‘Material demand reduction’.

Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis

“…However, little is known about how to promote this behaviour change 11, 25. To date, initiatives aimed at promoting environmentally sustainable lifestyles have generally focused on providing information about the effect of anthropogenic activities on the natural environment 26 . Nevertheless, information provision alone is thought to be insufficient to “make a discernible impact on behaviour at the level needed”, 26 and a review found that simply conveying the environmental effect of meat production did not influence meat purchases 27 .…”

“…To date, initiatives aimed at promoting environmentally sustainable lifestyles have generally focused on providing information about the effect of anthropogenic activities on the natural environment 26 . Nevertheless, information provision alone is thought to be insufficient to “make a discernible impact on behaviour at the level needed”, 26 and a review found that simply conveying the environmental effect of meat production did not influence meat purchases 27 . The restricted effectiveness of interventions exclusively targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour (eg, knowledge and values) might be explained by the insight that characteristics of physical micro-environments (ie, the “settings in which people may gather for specific purposes and in which they may acquire or consume food” 28 ), exert a powerful influence on behaviour and might override conscious intentions 26, 29.…”

“…Nevertheless, information provision alone is thought to be insufficient to “make a discernible impact on behaviour at the level needed”, 26 and a review found that simply conveying the environmental effect of meat production did not influence meat purchases 27 . The restricted effectiveness of interventions exclusively targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour (eg, knowledge and values) might be explained by the insight that characteristics of physical micro-environments (ie, the “settings in which people may gather for specific purposes and in which they may acquire or consume food” 28 ), exert a powerful influence on behaviour and might override conscious intentions 26, 29. After learning about greenhouse gas emissions caused by livestock, one might consciously intend to eat less meat, but fail to behave accordingly when dining at a canteen that lacks appealing meat-free alternatives, or when shopping in a supermarket that offers discounts for larger portions of meat products.…”

Meat consumption, health, and the environment

“…5), which considers the role of both conscious and nonconscious processes operating in parallel to influence food selection (19). Although there is little direct evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce demand for meat, there is a body of potentially relevant work that might inform how this could be implemented.…”

“…The food we buy and share, influenced by our beliefs and values, is part of the way we construct our own identities. In addition to deliberative thinking, the subconscious mind, influenced by the force of habit and societal norms, influences patterns of meat consumption (19).…”