Pro-environmental behaviour

• In response to linear models
• 4 reasons for value-action gap

1) direct versus indirect experience (experience rather learning = behaviour)

2) normative influences (norms/background)

3) temporal discrepancy (attitudes change over time)

4) attitude-behaviour measurement (attitude measurement broader than action)

• Actions don't = behaviour 
• Actually = intention
• attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control = intention

• Based on theory of planned behaviour

1) knowledge of issues

2) knowledge of action strategies

3) locus of control

4) attitudes

5) verbal commitment

6) individual sense of responsibility

Hines 1987 added in situational factors 

• People aware of others suffering + perceieved responsibility = altuistic (social) orientation
• Everyone has 3 orientations (social, egoitistical (suffering of oneself) and biospheric (suffering of non-human world)
• Motivation = egoitisic + social + biospheric
• Egoistic = strongest
• Biospheric = weakest
• In terms of env - people care move about selves than environment

Rather than look at factors that = pro-env behav -> looked at barriers (both external and internal)

INDIVIDUALITY - within a person

RESPONSIBILITY - locus of control

PRACTIBILITY - external barriers

• knowledge = attitude = pro-env behavior
• Burgess et al (1998) - termed info 'deficit' models
• Gov used it:
• Owens (2000) - UK gov 'are you doing your bit' campaign

Include - instituional, social, cultural, motivation

Demographic

 Women have less env knowledge but more emotionaly engaged = willing to change (Lehmann 1999)

Economic

Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) - strongest barrier

- only choose energy efficient product if payback time is short

Env Knowledge

80% of motives seem to be situational/internal factors (Fliegenschnee & Schelakovsky 1998)

Kempton 1995 - env knowledge was similar in pro-env and anti-env group = not a prerequisite for env beh

Maslows hierachy of needs (1954) - higher up the needs (saftey of resources = second stage)

Poorer countries = rank env problems lower. But rating of severity same no matter poor or affluent (Diekman and Franzen 1999)

• Tax and regulation - not changing attitude, forcing behaviour
• Info campaigns - do they change behaviours
  - info deficit models  
• Nudge
  - gov 'nudge' people - e.g every time use public transport get put into periodic ltotery - could win any day of week 
  - but individual freedom of choice retained
• Research
  - gov report called mindspace 
  - acroynm: messenger, incentives, norms, defaults, salience, priming, affect, commitments, ego
• Combination of campaigns might prove effective
  - Hood River, Oregon - 15% reduction in energy use = communication campaign AND incentives
•  Energy meters
  - Boardman and Darby (2000) - providing immediate feedback on energy use = reduction of consumption