Global ChangeIntersection of Nature and Culture

Can environmentally friendly behavior change with social context?

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

How might common pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., recycling, use of public transport, buying organic food, water conservation) we see in everyday life speak to how they are formed or encouraged?

In a recent study^1,2 from Environment and Behavior (subscription required), the authors noted that most studies of environmental behavior have historically analyzed pro-environmental behaviors  as an outcome of various causal attributes of individuals (e.g., political ideology, values, attitudes, and lifestyles).

What’s lacking, these authors argue, is an evaluation of the social context in which these pro-environmental behaviors take place and whether this context also plays a role.  For example, some social incentives for encouraging public transportation use (such as free tickets, low costs, effective public transportation planning, convenience, or public acceptance) can make a person much more likely to use public transportation in one city (e.g., New York) relative to another (e.g., Atlanta).

Thus, this team sought to identify the extent to which environmentally friendly behavior is heterogeneous between individuals and whether people engage in different environmentally friendly behaviors in different social contexts.    They used a survey to assess 20 behaviors as a function of attitudes, political orientation, and sociodemographic information. To evaluate social context, they examined how responses varied between home or while on vacation.

What did they find?

• Similar to the work of previous studies, differences among individuals matter.  They identified 6 clusters of individual types, spanning from pro-environmental (group 1) to environmentally unfriendly behavior (group 6).  Group 1 individuals were more likely to be demonstrated by young, female, single-family dwelling, high-income earning, well-educated, and politically liberal individuals. Group 6 consisted of folks who do not feel attached to the region where they live, don’t care about environmental protection, and are least likely to read newspapers.
• Social context was less clear.  While on vacation, people tended to drift to less-environmentally friendly behaviors (i.e., shift from being more like group 1 to more like group 6).  The only group who did not shift was the pro-environmental group 1 folks.
• The authors offer several explanations for why people tend to be more pro-environmental at home (rank ordered from most to least common):

1. 1. Spend most of my time at home
   2. Feel more responsible for my home
   3. More control/opportunity/time at home
   4. Supposed to enjoy my vacations/selfish time
   5. No infrastructure on vacation/lack of choice
   6. More impact at home
   7. Easier at home
   8. Savings associated with energy reduction at home
   9. In holiday mode/vacation is a break from everything
   10. Behave like a good guest
   11. Habit at home
   12. Difficult away from home
   13. Familiarity with home
   14. Lack of control over holiday destination practices
   15. Actions directly affect my local environment/family
   16. More aware at home
   17. Set an example for my children, family, neighbors

• 92% of people surveyed felt morally obligated to pro-environmental behaviors at home, whereas only 8% of respondents said the same while on vacation.

• The type of vacation mattered as well with pro-environmental behavior following the trend: camping > bed and breakfast > staying with relatives > holiday apartment > hotel

Bottom line:

• Target specific messages about “maintaining the environment for yourself and your family.”
• Travel destinations should accommodate people with more-environmentally friendly infrastructure, make it easy for people to save energy, and remind them to behave as guests.

Final word:

We might argue whether home/vacation is the best set of social contexts to evaluate.  It would have been interesting to see whether social contexts in people’s daily lives (where they spend a majority of time) matter:  school, athletics, church, home, different kinds of social functions, etc.  Or, are people’s daily lives one giant echo chamber reinforcing preconceived beliefs, which can only be altered by moving to a new geography with a different set of social norms?

¹Dolnicar, S. and B. Gruen (2009) Environmentally Friendly Behavior: Can Heterogeneity Among Individuals and Contexts/ Environments Be Harvested for Improved Sustainable Management? Environment and Behavior, 41(5):693-714.

²Bowdoin people can link to the article here.