How do we change behaviour in a consumerist society?

By Peter Newton, Swinburne University of Technology

Peter Newton

Many Australians are happy to declare their interest in sustainability, to reducing their environmental impact. But how many of them are prepared to reduce the amount they actually consume?

We recently explored whether Australian households have an “attitude-action gap” on environment and consumption. We surveyed 1200 Melbourne households, examining attitudes, intentions and opinions related to the environment and urban living. We also recorded objective data on actual household consumption of energy, water, housing space, urban travel and domestic appliances.

It’s not uncommon being a material green

Three lifestyle segments emerged: a majority (40.3%) of those who responded to this survey were defined as “material greens”, 33.5% “committed greens” and 26.3% “enviro-sceptics”.

Committed greens were strongly pro-environment in beliefs and behavioural preferences, and prepared to sacrifice economically for an environmental benefit. This was the only group prepared to pay more tax if it would benefit the environment (50%), as well as higher utility charges (56%). A high percentage agreed the environment should be the highest priority, even if it hurts the economy (80%).

This group strongly disagreed (76%) that the expense is not worth the benefits, wanting the environment to take higher priority over the economy. They consistently purchased green-labelled products, declined plastic bags and volunteered time for green projects. They strongly disagreed with statements such as “The environmental crisis is exaggerated”, “I have more important things to do”, “There is no regulation requiring me to”, “Reducing my household’s energy and water consumption is not worth the trouble” and “It’s not my responsibility”.

Material greens moderately agreed the environment should be a higher priority than the economy and that the balance of nature is delicate and easily upset. But 56% agreed that the expense is probably not worth the benefits and — as a bottom line position — they were not willing to pay! This group was vehemently opposed to paying more taxes or higher utility charges (96% and 90%, respectively) from their household budget.

The group was pro-purchase of green-labelled products and avoided use of plastic bags, but was unlikely to donate hours to voluntary environmental work. They saw the environment as important, but not worth paying for in dollars or time, especially by themselves as individuals.

Enviro-sceptics weren’t prepared to make higher personal payments for the environment, and agreed the expense would not be worth the benefits. They weren’t interested in “green choices”: only a low proportion bought green-labelled products, gave up plastic bags and donated time for voluntary environmental projects. A relatively high percentage believed the environmental crisis is exaggerated (44%), they have more important things to focus on (55%), there is no regulation requiring them to (54%) and it’s not their responsibility (45%).

Who are these people?

There were significant socio-demographic differences for these three clusters, in terms of age, gender, level of education, household income, family structure and suburb location.

The committed greens cluster contained more university graduates and households with higher incomes. They know what behaviours are likely to be required in a climate- and resource-constrained future and can pay to make the transition.

The material greens households had the lowest proportion of university graduates, were the youngest and also tended to be on lower household incomes.

The enviro-sceptics contained more men and those aged 45 and over than either of the other clusters.

Although the enviro-sceptics and material greens clusters tended to have similar incomes, the latter cluster is more likely to consist of households with children, which could have had some influence on their pro-environment attitude.

The committed greens lived predominantly in the inner city suburbs (where, in recent years, the Greens Party has become politically dominant), while the material greens tended to live in greenfields and outer suburban areas. Enviro-sceptics are dispersed across the city.

They talk the talk, but…

When we examined actual levels of household consumption of energy and water (from most recent bills), housing space, urban travel and appliances, there were no significant differences between the three lifestyle groups in relation to their combined level of urban resource consumption.

The gap between intentions and action like that revealed here is a significant challenge for behaviour change research. People want to be sustainable consumers, but there are clearly significant barriers getting in their way. What stops people reducing their consumption? Lack of time makes it difficult to make the necessary changes; and there are financial challenges, including determining whether the benefits reward the financial outlay. At a pragmatic level, there remains a lack of information on what can be done and how best to get it done – a challenge for social marketers and an opportunity for new business services in a green economy.

A deeper challenge is that social norms relating to sustainable consumption are yet to materialise in high income societies, such as Australia; they would constitute an important influence on the voluntary behaviour of individuals and households. An ethos of household water conservation that emerged during the recent drought (encouraged by a combination of media and restrictions) quickly evaporated when state governments removed restrictions. In the space of two years, average daily per capita consumption has increased by 66% to 250 litres in Melbourne. Old habits returned.

It’s an open question whether imminent system failure will be required to trigger a “tipping point” in societal values associated with environment and consumption. This is a major reason why supply-side urban technology initiatives need to proceed apace, why governments need to remain actively involved in regulation, pricing and incentive programs, and why research that spans the cognitive-social spectrum of consumption must continue to search for triggers for effective behaviour change.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.  Read the original article.

Warmer climate boosts northern crops but the bad soon outweighs the good

By Sunanda Creagh, The Conversation

Climate change is creating warmer growing conditions in parts of the Earth’s northern regions, a new study has found, but experts warn that drought and heat wil soon cancel out the agricultural benefits.

The international study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, analysed NASA satellite data and 30 years of land surface temperature records for 26 million square kilometres between the Arctic Ocean and 45 degrees north latitude.

“Higher northern latitudes are getting warmer, Arctic sea ice and the duration of snow cover are diminishing, the growing season is getting longer and plants are growing more,” Ranga Myneni of Boston University’s Department of Earth and Environment, said in a media release on the NASA website.

“In the north’s Arctic and boreal areas, the characteristics of the seasons are changing, leading to great disruptions for plants and related ecosystems.”

Of the area studied, up to 41% had experienced increased plant growth since 1982.

While warming climate may boost crop conditions in some regions, it also increases the risk of drought, heatwaves and pest outbreaks, the study found.

Dr Daniel Rodriguez, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Plant Science said the results of the study accord with what climate change scientists have been saying for some time.

“The good news is that this study provides clear evidence on modelled results present in previous reports,” he said adding that the warmer conditions had boosted Denmark’s commercial wine industry and doubled grain yields in Finland.

“The bad news is that this confirms that climate change is happening very quickly, as expected, and that even though some regions are going to have increases in productivity (though nothing is said here about changes in variability), in other places we expect these changes to be highly detrimental to food production,” said Dr Rodriguez.

“In the same issue of Nature Climate Change other authors indicate that for North America’s maize production, strong negative yield responses to the accumulation of temperatures over 30 degrees Celsius could also be expected as a consequence of increased air dryness.”

Dr Andrew Ash, Director of the CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation Flagship, said the early stages of climate change could also lead to increased crop productivity in some parts of Australia.

“But then a combination of declining rainfall projected for the mid-latitudes of Australia and increasing temperatures will negatively impact crop growth. You can initially get some good news but ultimately it’s a negative,” he said.

Within a couple of decades, the benefits of warmer growing conditions and increased carbon dioxide concentrations would be quickly outweighed by declining rainfall and heat stress on grain quality, he said.

“The big unknown in all of this is other factors like pests, disease and fire. There are still a great many uncertainties around the effects of climate change but very few of the likely scenarios are positive for agriculture,” he said.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.