Content uploaded by Kathleen Klaniecki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kathleen Klaniecki on Dec 26, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
B
Behaviour Change for
Sustainable Development
Kathleen Klaniecki
1
, Katharina Wuropulos
2
and
Caroline Persson Hager
3
1
Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University
Lueneburg, Lueneburg, Germany
2
Faculty of Social Sciences, Bundeswehr
University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany
3
Oslo, Norway
Definition
Human impact on the planet is intensifying due to
rapid globalization, economic and population
growth, and changing lifestyles. In addition to
technical and regulatory solutions, sustainable
development must include a transformation of
human consumption behaviors.
Introduction
Human effects on the environment are so signifi-
cant that some scholars propose we have entered a
new geological epoch called the Anthropocene,
where humans are now the dominant driver of
earth system processes at a planetary scale
(Steffen et al. 2011). Climate change, biodiversity
loss, ecosystem degradation, and ocean acidifica-
tion are undoubtedly caused and accelerated by
unsustainable human activity. While humans
throughout history have modified the natural envi-
ronment to meet their needs, human impact on the
planet is now exponentially greater due to rapid
globalization, economic and population growth,
and changing lifestyles (IPCC 2014). Current
demands on Earth’s resources far outpace what
the planet can produce, absorb, and neutralize,
leading to widespread environmental depletion
and degradation (UNDP 2012).
An increased awareness of the scale and scope
of human impact on the planet has led to interna-
tional efforts to curb environmental degradation
and promote sustainable development. Policies
and regulations, technical solutions, international
agreements, economic tools, and informational
tools have been applied to facilitate transitions
towards sustainability. While regulatory and
technical solutions have been beneficial in
addressing significant cases of environmental pol-
lution (e.g., regulations on CFC emissions and
DDT pesticides), widespread environmental
destruction continues due to unsustainable and
intensifying human consumption behavior (Steg
and Vlek 2009).
Given the magnitude of today’s environmental
challenges, sustainable development must include
human dimensions of change, specifically behav-
ior change for sustainable development. Since the
1992 Rio Earth Summit, there has been increased
focus on the role of individual consumption pat-
terns and production systems for sustainability.
Achieving the sustainable development goals
requires a critical understanding of “how people
#Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
W. Leal Filho (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_161-1
make decisions and act on them, how they think
about, influence, and relate to one another, and
how they develop beliefs and attitudes”(UNDP
2016, pp. 1–2).
Behavioral science theories and behavior
change tools inform the creation of behavior
change interventions for sustainable develop-
ment. Such interventions are “coordinated sets of
activities designed to change specified behavior
patterns”(Michie et al. 2011, p. 1) and can focus
on increasing, decreasing, or maintaining behav-
iors, as well as enhancing or improving behaviors
(Morra Imas and Rist 2009).
This article addresses three main elements of
behavior change for sustainable development:
theories and models of human behavior and
behavior change, behavior change intervention
tools and methodologies, and selected examples
of successfully implemented behavior change
interventions. The article ends with a brief discus-
sion of critiques of the behavior change approach
and conclusions.
Understanding the Need for
Sustainability
The impact of individual consumption behaviors
can be traced to increasing demands for natural
products and services such as food, water, timber,
minerals, and fuel. The intensity of resource use
and environmental degradation is responsible for
fundamentally and irreversibly changing the
planet. Household consumption contributes to
more than 60% of global greenhouse gas emis-
sions and between 50% and 80% of total land,
material, and water use (Ivanova et al. 2016). The
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations estimates that one-third (~1.5 billion
tonnes) of all food produced for human consump-
tion in the world is wasted (FAO 2013). More-
over, water demand will surpass supply by 40%
within 15 years as populations and demands on
resources increase (UNEP 2017).
Curbing unsustainable behavior can reduce the
acceleration of environmental degradation and
contribute to sustainable development. For
instance, the adoption of sustainable energy
behaviors has the potential to reduce US house-
hold direct emissions by 20% (Dietz et al. 2009)
and transitions towards environmentally sustain-
able diets could reduce food-related GHG emis-
sions by 29–70% (Springmann et al. 2016).
An understanding of the impact of human
activity on the planet gave way to programs
designed to shift human impact through behavior
change. Many of these programs relied on theo-
ries of human behavior and behavior change to
inform the structure and aim of the program and to
effectively target behaviors.
Theoretical Approaches to Behavior
Change
This section gives an overview of theories and
models on behavior and behavior change relating
to pro-environmental behavior. The first group of
theories explains behavior as a result of individual
motivational factors, the second group includes
contextual factors to explain behavior, and the
third group explains permanent behavior change.
Behavior Theories and Models Focusing on
Motivational Factors
The roots of many human behavior modelling
approaches lie within economic theory and the
assumption that human decisions are a result of a
rational consideration of available alternatives to
increase benefits and reduce costs (e.g. Consumer
Preference Theory). Behavioral economists, such
as Simon (1982) and Tversky and Kahneman
(1992), have shown that behavior is not necessar-
ily rational, by revealing how mental heuristics
and cognitive biases often make choices predict-
ably irrational (e.g., Prospect Theory and
Bounded Rationality Theory).
Specific concepts, such as information, values,
beliefs, attitudes, norms, and agency, have played
an important role in social-psychological behavior
theory. The concepts of attitudes, social norms,
and agency informed Ajzen’s Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) (1991), which is the most used
theoretical framework in environmental behavior
research (Klöckner 2015). TPB explains behav-
iors mainly as a result of individual intentions.
2 Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development
Behavior intentions are formed by a rational
choice weighing of the three factors: attitudes
toward the behavior, perceptions of social
norms, and perceptions of behavioral control. Tri-
andis’Theory of Interpersonal Behavior (1977)
includes habits as an additional variable to explain
why behaviors do not always align with behav-
ioral intentions.
The concepts of social comparison, norms, and
identity form the basis of theories such as
Schwartz’s Norm Activation Theory (NAM)
(1977). NAM explains positive social behavior
through personal norms, which are rooted in the
feeling of a moral obligation to help. Such norms
are activated by awareness of consequences of
performing or withstanding a particular behavior
and the perceived responsibility of the behavior
and its consequences. Value Belief Norm Theory
(VBN) by Stern is an extension of NAM and also
explains behavior as determined by a moral obli-
gation to act, but includes the individual’s degree
of ecological worldview as a contributing factor
(2000). Noteworthy is also the decision-making
context of Goal-framing Theory (Elliott and Fryer
2008), which states that an individual will have
several different, hierarchically ordered goals at
the same time and their behaviors can be under-
stood as result of trying to achieve their most
prioritized goal at that point in time. Cialdini
et al.’s Focus Theory of Normative Conduct
(1990) looks at how social norms, i.e., descriptive
and injunctive norms, influence behavior. The
norms ability to affect behavior depends on their
salience in the consciousness of the individual at
the time of the behavior.
Behavior Theories and Models Focusing on
Contextual Factors
Contextual factors are important in explaining
pro-environmental behavior, but these variables
are often overlooked (Klöckner 2015) and are
not as extensively examined for their effect on
behavior as individual motivational factors (Steg
and Vlek 2009). One theory that includes contex-
tual variables as an explanation of behavior is
Vlek et al.’s Needs Opportunities Abilities
Model (2000). It portrays consumer behavior as
influenced by societal factors and vice versa. The
Comprehensive Action Determination Model of
ecological behavior (Klöckner and Blöbaum
2010) combines TPB and NAM, including the
concepts of context and habits for better predict-
ability of pro-environmental behavior. Similarly,
Kollmuss and Agyeman’s Model of Pro-
Environmental Behavior (2002) takes a holistic
approach and includes both internal and external
factors to explain pro-environmental behaviors.
Theories and Models Focusing on Behavior
Change
In addition to understanding behavior, scholars
have also developed theories and models to under-
stand changes in behavior. Lewin’s Change The-
ory (1951) was created around habits defined as
resistance to change, in relation to behavior in
groups. More permanent individual change and
new habits will primarily occur if the whole social
field adjusts. Lewin’s Change Theory conceptual-
izes change as a process, instead of an event.
The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behav-
ior Change (or Stages of Change Model) sees
behavior change as a process of six different
stages of change that an individual must go
through for lasting behavior change (Prochaska
and Velicer 1997). Bamberg adds that people can
proceed from one stage to the next based on varied
intentions and suggests different variables that
contribute to forming the intention of each respec-
tive stage (2013).
The abovementioned theories each seek to
explain behavior change at the individual level.
To contribute to sustainable development, there is,
however, a need for behavior changes to happen
across large populations. In order to achieve this,
Rogers’Diffusion of Innovations Theory and
Model (2003) integrates the impact of social net-
works and interactions within the networks to
develop more effective behavior change
programs.
Planning Successful Behavior Change
Programs
Behavior change theory provides important
insight into the accumulated knowledge of
Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development 3
human behavior and behavior change. This sec-
tion describes recommended steps in planning
effective and efficient behavior change programs
and presents some of the most effective interven-
tion tools. In general, behavior change programs
should: (1) identify and analyze suitable behav-
iors for change, (2) choose and implement suitable
intervention tools, and (3) evaluate the effective-
ness of the program (McKenzie-Mohr 2011; Steg
and Vlek 2009).
Identify and Analyse Suitable Behaviors
Identifying suitable behaviors and target groups is
crucial to maximize a behavior change program’s
impact. The most suitable behaviors to target are
those with (1) a large environmental impact,
(2) that are performed by many, and (3) where
people are willing to change (McKenzie-Mohr
and Schultz 2014). Environmental impact assess-
ments such as life-cycle assessment and input-
output analyses can be used to identify and prior-
itize behaviors based on environmental impact.
Behavior plasticity –the proportion of people
who could be convinced to adopt a given
behavior –can be used to rank and prioritize target
behaviors (Dietz et al. 2009). Target group seg-
mentation can be useful to identify populations
most receptive to change or groups that require
different types of interventions (Klöckner 2015).
Additionally, measuring baseline levels of
selected behaviors –i.e., current penetration
rates –can aid in further identifying which popu-
lation to target (Steg and Vlek 2009).
Behavior Change Tools
There is a wide range of behavior change tools
used to foster behavioral changes (see Table 1).
Tools are segmented into antecedent tools –those
changing factors that precede a behavior –and
consequence tools –those changing the conse-
quences of a behavior (Lehman and Geller
2004). An additional distinction is made between
informational and structural intervention tools:
the prior seeks to change perceptions, motiva-
tions, knowledge, and norms, while the latter
changes the circumstances under which behav-
ioral choices are made (Steg and Vlek 2009).
Nudges, which can be both informational and
structural, are aspects of the choice architecture
that “alters people’s behaviour in a predictable
way without forbidding any options or signifi-
cantly changing their economic incentives”
(Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 6).
Informational Intervention Tools
One of the most common informational tools is
providing information or education. These tools
may lead to changes in attitudes and motivation;
however, merely providing information does not
often result in behavior change (Steg and Vlek
2009). Informational interventions tailored and
framed to the needs, worldviews, and perceived
barriers of the targeted population are more effec-
tive (Abrahamse et al. 2007; Nisbet 2009).
Balancing the need for urgent action with emo-
tions such as optimism and hope can also increase
the effectiveness of information (Moser 2007).
Providing information as a prompt is also used
to induce behavioral change. Prompts –informa-
tional cues that draw attention to a desirable
behavior –are most effective when the targeted
behavior is easy to perform and when the prompt
is in close proximity to where the behavior is
performed (see Lehman and Geller 2004, for a
review).
Another informational tool is the use of
descriptive norms. Descriptive norms provide
information on how most people in a situation
behave and inform individuals of the most effec-
tive or appropriate behavior (Cialdini 2003).
Social role models, individuals demonstrating or
communicating how a particular behavior should
be performed, can be used similarly (Lehman and
Geller 2004). The use of norms is most effective
when social proof –the number of other people
performing the desired behavior –is high or the
number of people behaving in an undesirable way
is low (Cialdini 2003).
Goal setting, commitment, and feedback are
also informational intervention tools. Goal setting
is a tool where individuals set goals for future
behavior and is most effective when used in com-
bination with commitments and feedback
(McCalley and Midden 2002). Asking individuals
to commit to performing certain behaviors has
also been shown to be an effective intervention
4 Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development
tool (Lehman and Geller 2004). Public and writ-
ten commitments are more effective than personal
and oral commitments (Bell et al. 2001). Feed-
back, information on the effects of a behavior
provided after the behavior is performed, has
also shown positive results, especially in regard
to energy savings (e.g., Van Houwelingen and
Van Raaij 1989). Feedback is most effective
when individually tailored and given frequently
(Abrahamse et al. 2007).
Structural Intervention Tools
Structural tools change the costs, benefits, and
availability of different behaviors by modifying
physical, technical, and organizational systems,
legislation, and price mechanisms (Steg and
Vlek 2009). These tools impact perceptions of
control (Klöckner and Blöbaum 2010) and may
play a role in changing attitudes and motivation.
Structural tools are most effective with behaviors
that are costly and difficult to perform (Steg and
Vlek 2009) and when dealing with habits
(Verplanken and Wood 2006).
Structural tools often use reinforcements such
as rewards or punishment to promote behavioral
change (Lehman and Geller 2004). However,
reinforcements can reduce intrinsic motivation
related to the behavior and have negative conse-
quences for the long-term effects of an
intervention (see McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz
2014, for review). Interventions rewarding pro-
environmental behavior are generally more effec-
tive than those punishing environmentally harm-
ful behavior (Geller 2002).
Nudges
A nudge can be both an informational and a struc-
tural intervention, but it does not include eco-
nomic incentives or the banning of behavior.
Four of the most common and effective nudging
tools are (1) deliberate use of default settings,
(2) considerate simplification and framing of
information, (3) changes in physical environment,
and (4) eliciting of social norms (Lehner
et al. 2015).
Evaluating Behavior Change Programs
The effectiveness and efficiency of behavior
change interventions is measured using the fol-
lowing indicators: changes in behavioral determi-
nants, changes in behavior and associated
environmental impact, and the resource use of
the program (McKenzie-Mohr 2011; Steg and
Vlek 2009). A key for successful behavior change
programs is finding the right tools for the targeted
behavior and population. When there are both
motivational and contextual barriers to behavioral
adoption, combining several intervention tools
Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development, Table 1 Intervention tools and empirical applications
Intervention tool Case example
Informational
Prompts Recycling (Austin et al. 1993)
Commitment Transportation habits (Matthies et al. 2006)
Goal setting Energy savings (Becker 1978)
Social model Energy conservation (Nolan et al. 2008)
Feedback Energy conservation (Abrahamse et al. 2007)
Structural
Change in physical, technical or organizational systems Cycling rates (Pucher and Buehler 2008)
Legislation Plastic bags (Ritch et al. 2009)
Price mechanisms Public transport (Fujii and Kitamura 2003)
Nudges
Default settings Green electricity (Pichert and Katsikopoulos 2008)
Simplification and framing of information Food choice (Wansink et al. 2012)
Changes in physical environment Food waste (Kallbekken and Sælen 2013)
Eliciting social norms Hotel towel use (Goldstein et al. 2008)
Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development 5
may result in the most impact (Klöckner 2015).
New technological tools such as persuasive tech-
nology also hold promise, as they combine infor-
mational and structural tools and tailor
interventions to specific target groups (Steg et al.
2012). Smartphones apps and games, for instance,
can reach large numbers of individuals and poten-
tially increase the effects of behavior change inter-
ventions (Klöckner 2015).
Successful Behavior Change
Interventions
Government agencies, businesses, universities,
and intergovernmental organizations have used
behavioral science theories and methodology to
design effective behavior change policy and pro-
grams. Until recently, most behavior change inter-
ventions were applied in developed counties with
high per-capita consumption rates. More recently,
interventions have been applied in developing
country contexts to increase effectiveness of sus-
tainable development projects (World Bank
2015). Interventions have targeted a range of
behaviors, including water and energy consump-
tion, green purchases, waste generation, and trans-
portation (Table 2). In the next section we discuss
how and where behavior change interventions
have been applied and highlight examples of suc-
cessful interventions.
Interventions in Governments and
Municipalities
Governments, municipalities, and public organi-
zations are increasingly incorporating behavioral
science into policy making and regulations
(OECD 2017). The government of the United
Kingdom has an institution dedicated to the appli-
cation of behavioral sciences and similar initia-
tives exist in Denmark, Australia, the United
States, Singapore, and Canada (UNEP 2017). In
California, the US Environmental Protection
Agency used behavior change tools (including
norms and addressing barriers) to reduce health
effects associated with the consumption of a con-
taminated fish species (McKenzie-Mohr and
Schultz 2014). In Toronto, Canada, a multi-
agency partnership launched anti-idling programs
that employed personal contact, prompts, and
commitments to reduce emissions associated
with vehicle engine idling. These strategies
reduced idling by 32% and the length of idling
by 73% (McKenzie-Mohr et al. 2012). In the
USA, over 6.2 million households have received
the “Opower report”that uses personalized feed-
back, social comparisons, and energy conserva-
tion information to reduce residential energy use
(Allcott and Rogers 2012).
Interventions at Higher Education Institutions
Higher education institutions play a crucial role in
fostering sustainable development and have
implemented behavior change interventions
(Filho 2011). Higher education institutions imple-
ment behavior change interventions through
resource use competitions and campus-based sus-
tainability programs. Nationwide competitions,
such as RecycleMania, and university-organized
energy and water conservation challenges, target
resource consumption by employing public com-
mitments, prompts, and social norms to promote
sustainable behaviors. These types of competi-
tions have seen reductions of 28% of electricity
use and 36% of water consumption (Petersen
et al. 2015).
Interventions at Businesses and Organizations
As companies and organizations increasingly pri-
oritize corporate social responsibility and organi-
zational sustainability, there has been an increase
in efforts to engage employees and customers in
behavior change programs (see Young et al. 2015,
for a review). Organizations use behavior change
strategies to address issues related to material use
and disposal, commuting to work, and water and
energy use. Energy conservation behaviors in the
workplace have been targeted through online
feedback and controls (Yun et al. 2017),
gamification (Gandhi and Brager 2016), and
goal setting and information (Mulville et al.
2017). Businesses have also applied behavior
change tools to encourage resource conservation
among customers and guests. Norm-based
reuse messages in hotel bathrooms, for instance,
6 Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development
led to a 25–40% increase in towel reuse by hotel
guests (e.g., Goldstein et al. 2008).
Interventions at Intergovernmental
Organizations
Behavior change theories and approaches have
also been employed by intergovernmental organi-
zations. The United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme (UNEP 2017), the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD 2017), the World Health Organization
(Jenkins 2003), and the World Bank (World
Bank 2015) have reports on the use and applica-
tion of behavioral insights for sustainable devel-
opment. The United Nations engages several
Behavioral Science Advisors and launched the
UN Behavioural Initiative (UNBI) to integrate
behavioral science into UN programming and
operations (UNDP 2016). UNBI has applied
behavioral science in China to increase e-waste
recycling (norms and commitments were used)
and in Bangladesh to increase use of public bus
transportation during peak commuting hours
(using electronic prompts) (UNDP 2016).
Critiques of Behavior Change for
Sustainable Development
While behavioral science can successfully inform
interventions for sustainable development, there
can be unintended consequences on behaviors
outside the scope of the intervention. Negative
spillover effects occur when interventions have
counterproductive effects or when the adoption
of one pro-environmental behavior is associated
with a reduction in a different pro-environmental
behavior –for example, when the purchase of a
fuel-efficient vehicle results in more overall driv-
ing (Klöckner et al. 2013).
The ethicality of some interventions has also
been debated. Nudges receive criticism for
lacking transparency, as nudges seek to influence
thinking and choice making without awareness of
the individual (Lehner et al. 2015). This tool is
viewed as more ethical when individual choice is
not restricted and when individuals are able to
identify when and how nudges are applied.
Additionally, some scholars deem the individ-
ual behavior change approach too simplistic to
Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development, Table 2 Examples of successful behaviour change interventions
Country
Behaviours
targeted
Intervention tools
used Results
Costa Rica Household
water
consumption
Goal-setting;
prompts; social
norms
3.7–5.6% reduction in monthly water consumption
Denmark Mobile phone
purchases
Nudging 20% point increase in mobile phone repair; 7x increase
in purchase of second-hand mobile phone
Norway,
Switzerland,
Denmark
Smart Grid
technology
uptake
Default settings 2.5x more likely to accept Smart Grid installation in the
opt-out condition
Kenya Water
purification
Nudges Uptake rates rose from 10% to 60%
India Daily
commuting
Incentives 13% point increase in commuters traveling before peak
times
Japan Sustainable
transportation
Feedback; goal-
setting
7.5% reduction in car use; 68.6% increase in public
transportation use
United States Recycling Commitment;
feedback
25.4–40% increase in paper recycling
South Africa Office energy
efficiency
Prompts;
competition
13.5% reduction in energy use
Denmark Vegetable
purchases
Nudges 61.3% increase in sales of pre-cut vegetables
OECD (2017), UNEP (2017)
Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development 7
solve complex environmental problems at the
scale required. Scholars have questioned whether
individual behavior change can effectively tackle
problems like climate change or whether these
problems require more systemic and structural
transformations of society (Csutora 2012). Others
argue that voluntary behavior change is too gentle
and does little to change the status quo of
unsustainable consumerism (De Young 2014).
Nevertheless, many point out that small behavior
changes accumulate, create demand for systemic
change, and can lead to bottom-up momentum for
sustainable development (Stoknes 2015).
Conclusions
Solving today’s environmental problems will
require large-scale shifts in human behavior.
McMenzie-Mohr and Schultz state that “behav-
iour change is central to the quest for a sustainable
future”(2014, p. 35). Behavioral theories and
models focused on motivational and contextual
factors provide structure to the field of behavior
change for sustainable development by providing
explanations and rationale for how people make
decisions and act on them. These theories inform
experiments on pro-environmental behavior
change and the development of informational
and structural tools that foster the adoption of
sustainable behaviors. Behavior change programs
that reference behavioral theory, carefully
research selected behaviors, and utilize a range
of tools to target barriers and benefits will be
most successful for fostering behavioral change
for sustainable development.
Cross-References
▶Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable
Development
▶Sustainable Values, Attitudes and Behaviour
▶Reduction in Consumption for Sustainable
Development
References
Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2007)
The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and
tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-
related behaviours, and behavioral antecedents.
J Environ Psychol 27(4):265–276. https://doi.org/10.1
016/j.jenvp.2007.08.002
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior.
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Allcott H, Rogers T (2012) The short-run and long-
run effects of behavioral interventions: experiment
evidence from energy conservation. Am Econ
Rev 104:3003–3037. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.
10.3003
Austin J, Hatfield DB, Grindle AC, Bailey JS
(1993) Increasing recycling in office environments:
the effects of specific, informative cues. J Appl
Behav Anal 26(2):247–253. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1993.26-247
Bamberg S (2013) Changing environmentally harmful
behaviors: a stage model of self-regulated behavioral
change. J Environ Psychol 34:151–159 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.002
Becker LJ (1978) Joint effect of feedback and goal setting
on performance: a field study of residential energy
conservation. J Environ Psychol 63(4):428–433.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.428
Bell PA, Greene TC, Fisher JD, Baum A (2001) Environ-
mental psychology, 5th edn. Harcourt College Pub-
lishers, New York, pp 1–654
Cialdini RB (2003) Crafting normative messages to protect
the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 12(4):105–109.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01242
Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory
of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms
to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol
58(6):1015
Csutora M (2012) One more awareness gap?
The behaviour-impact gap problem. J Consum
Policy 35:145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-
012-9187-8
De Young R (2014) Some behavioral aspects of
energy descent: how a biophysical psychology
might help people transition through the lean times
ahead. Front Psychol 5:1255. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2014.01255
Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh
MP (2009) Household actions can provide a behavioral
wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc
Natl Acad Sci 106:18452–18456. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.0908738106
Elliott AJ, Fryer JW (2008) The goal construct in psychol-
ogy. In: Shah JY, Gardner WL (eds) Handbook of
motivation science. Guilford Press, New York,
pp 235–250
8 Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development
FAO (2013) Food wastage footprint: impacts on natural
resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome
Filho WL (2011) About the role of universities and
their contribution to sustainable development.
High Educ Policy 24:427–438. https://doi.org/10.10
57/hep.2011.16
Fujii S, Kitamura R (2003) What does a one-month
free bus ticket do to habitual drivers? An
experimental analysis of habit and attitude change.
Transportation 30(1):81–95. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1021234607980
Gandhi P, Brager GS (2016) Commercial office plug load
energy consumption trends and the role of occupant
behavior. Energ Buildings 125:1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.057
Geller ES (2002) The challenge of increasing pro environ-
mental behaviour. In: Bechtel RB, Churchman A (eds)
Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley,
New York, pp 525–540
Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V (2008) A room
with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate envi-
ronmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res
35:472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910
IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Con-
tribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Geneva
Ivanova D, Stadler K, Steen-Olsen K, Wood R, Vita G,
Tukker A, Hertwich EG (2016) Environmental impact
assessment of household consumption. J Ind Ecol
20:526–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12371
Jenkins CD (2003) Building better health: a handbook of
behavioral change. PAHO, Washington, DC
Kallbekken S, Sælen H (2013) Nudging’hotel guests to
reduce food waste as a win–win environmental mea-
sure. Econ Lett 119(3):325–327. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.econlet.2013.03.019
Klöckner CA (2015) The psychology of pro-
environmental communication: beyond standard infor-
mation strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Klöckner CA, Blöbaum A (2010) A comprehensive action
determination model: toward a broader understanding
of ecological behaviour using the example of travel
mode choice. J Environ Psychol 30(4):574–586.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.001
Klöckner CA, Nayum A, Mehmetoglu M (2013) Positive
and negative spillover effects from electric car purchase
to car use. Transp Res D 21:32–38. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trd.2013.02.007
Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why
do people act environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ
Educ Res 8:239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/135046
20220145401
Lehman PK, Geller ES (2004) Behavior analysis and
environmental protection: accomplishments and
potential for more. Behav Soc Issues 13(1):13–32.
https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i1.33
Lehner M, Mont O, Heiskanen E (2015) Nudging –
A promising tool for sustainable consumption behav-
iour? J Clean Prod 134:166–177. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.086
Lewin K (1951) Field theory of social science: selected
theoretical papers. Harper & Row, New York
Matthies E, Klöckner CA, Preißner CL (2006) Applying a
modified moral decision making model to change
habitual car use: how can commitment be effective?
Appl Psychol 55(1):91–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1464-0597.2006.00237.x
McCalley LT, Midden JH (2002) Energy conservation
through product-integrated feedback: the roles
of goal-setting and social orientation. J Econ Psychol
23(5):589–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870
(02)00119-8
McKenzie-Mohr D (2011) Fostering sustainable behav-
iour: an introduction to community-based social mar-
keting, 3rd edn. New Society Publishers, Gabriola
Island
McKenzie-Mohr D, Schultz PW (2014) Choosing effective
behavior change tools. Soc Mark Q 20:35–46.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500413519257
McKenzie-Mohr D, Lee NR, Schultz PW, Kotler P (2012)
Social marketing to protect the environment: what
works. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks
Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R (2011) The behaviour
change wheel: a new method for characterising and
designing behaviour change interventions. Implement
Sci 6:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Morra Imas LG, Rist RC (2009) The road to results:
designing and conducting effective development eval-
uations. The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC
Moser SC (2007) More bad news: the risk of neglecting
emotional responses to climate change information.
In: Moser SC, Dilling L (eds) Creating a climate
for change: communicating climate change and
facilitating social change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511535871.006
Mulville M, Jones K, Huebner G, Powell-Greig J (2017)
Energy-saving occupant behaviours in offices: change
strategies. Build Res Inf 45:861–874. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09613218.2016.1212299
Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change:
why frames matter for public engagement. Environ-
ment 51(2):12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.
2.12-23
Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ,
Griskevicius V (2008) Normative social influence
is underdetected. Personal Soc Psychol Rev
34(7):913–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208
316691
OECD (2017) Behavioral insights and public policy: les-
sons from around the world. OECD Publishing, Paris
Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development 9
Petersen JE, Frantz CM, Shammin MR, Yanisch TM,
Tincknell E, Myers N (2015) Electricity and
water conservation on college and university campuses
in response to national competitions among dormito-
ries: quantifying relationships between behavior,
conservation strategies and psychological metrics.
PLoS One 10:1–41. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0144070
Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Green defaults:
information presentation and pro-environmental
behaviour. J Environ Psychol 28(1):63–73. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.004
Prochaska JO, Velicer WF (1997) The transtheoretical
model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot
12(1):38–48
Pucher J, Buehler R (2008) Making cycling irresistible:
lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany.
Transp Rev 28(4):495–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01441640701806612
Ritch E, Brennan C, MacLeod C (2009) Plastic bag poli-
tics: modifying consumer behaviour for sustainable
development. Int J Consum Stud 33(2):168–174.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00749.x
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free
Press, New York
Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. In:
Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psy-
chology, vol 10C. Academic, New York, pp 221–279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60358-5
Simon HA (1982) Models of bounded rationality. MIT
Press, Cambridge
Springmann M, Godfray HCJ, Rayner M, Scarborough
P (2016) Analysis and valuation of the health and
climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc
Natl Acad Sci 113:4146–4151. https://doi.org/10.10
73/pnas.1523119113
Steffen W, Persson Å, Deutsch L, Zalasiewicz J,
Williams M, Richardson K, Crumley C, Crutzen P,
Folke C, Gordon L, Molina M, Ramanathan V,
Rockström J, Scheffer M, Schellnhuber HJ, Svedin U
(2011) The anthropocene: from global change to plan-
etary stewardship. Ambio 40:739–761. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x
Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental
behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda.
J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317. https://doi.org/10.1
016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Steg L, van den Berg AE, de Groot JIM (2012) Environ-
mental psychology: an introduction. Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford
Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a
coherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424. https://doi.org/
10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stoknes PE (2015) What we think about when we try not to
think about global warming: toward a new psychology
of climate action. Chelsea Green Publishing, White
River Junction
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving deci-
sions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin
Books, New York
Triandis HC (1977) Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole
Pub. Co., Monterey
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect
theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty.
J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF00122574
UNDP (2012) Global environment outlook: environment
for the future we want (GEO-5). United Nations Devel-
opment Programme, Nairobi
UNDP (2016) Behavioural insights at the United Nations:
achieving agenda 2030. United Nations Development
Programme, New York
UNEP (2017) Consuming differently, consuming sustain-
ably: behavioural insights for policymaking. United
Nations Development Program, Nairobi
Van Houwelingen JH, Van Raaij WF (1989) The effect of
goal-setting and daily electronic feedback on in-home
energy use. J Consum Res 16(1):98–105. https://doi.
org/10.1086/209197
Verplanken B, Wood W (2006) Interventions to break and
create consumer habits. J Public Policy Mark
25(1):90–103. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.90
Vlek C (2000) Essential psychology for environmental
policy making. Int J Psychol 35(2):153–167. https://
doi.org/10.1080/002075900399457
Wansink B, Just DR, Payne CR, Klingerd MZ
(2012) Attractive names sustain increased vegetable
intake in schools. Prev Med 55(4):330–332. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.012
World Bank (2015) World development report 2015:
mind, society, and behavior. World Bank Group,
Washington, DC
Young W, Davis M, McNeill IM, Malhotra B, Russell S,
Unsworth K, Clegg CW (2015) Changing behaviour:
successful environmental programmes in the work-
place. Bus Strateg Environ 24:689–703. https://doi.
org/10.1002/bse.1836
Yun R, Aziz A, Lasternas B, Loftness V, Scupelli P, Zhang
C (2017) The persistent effectiveness of online feed-
back and controls for sustainability in the workplace.
Energ Effic 10:1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12053-017-9509-4
10 Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development
