Comparing the relative mitigation potential of individual pro-environmental behaviors
Introduction
Climate change is threatening human health, ecosystem health, and economic activity on a global scale (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014a). Many researchers agree that behavioral changes are necessary to address this problem, and that individual actions at the household level have great mitigation potential (e.g., Dietz et al., 2009, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014b, Schultz and Kaiser, 2012, Swim et al., 2009). For example, direct energy use by households in the United States is responsible for 38% of national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 8% of global GHG emissions (Dietz et al., 2009, Gardner and Stern, 2008).
Recognizing the mitigation potential associated with behavior change, environmental psychologists have dedicated efforts to studying the predictors of pro-environmental behavior (PEB) in a wide variety of domains, ranging from energy (Abrahamse and Steg, 2011), to transportation (Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003), to food (Graça et al., 2015). While they have found that values, social norms, and attitudes tend to positively correlate with PEB, to name a few, psychological barriers limit the uptake of climate-positive behavior (Blake, 1999, Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2001, Lorenzoni et al., 2007, Takacs-Santa, 2007, Patchen, 2010, Gifford, 2011).
One important psychological barrier is the single-action bias or the tokenism barrier (Gifford, 2011, Weber, 2010). The single-action bias is the tendency for individuals to do only one action when responding to a threat (Weber, 2010). Similarly, tokenism is the belief that one is already doing enough environmental actions (Gifford, 2011). Recent research has demonstrated that this tokenism barrier applies to climate-positive food choices (Gifford and Chen, 2017). In addition, after behaving pro-environmentally, one may feel they have acquired a moral license to subsequently behave in an environmentally-harmful manner (Huddart Kennedy et al., 2009, Nolan and Schultz, 2015). Even with good environmental intentions, individuals often pick the easier changes, and not necessarily the ones with the most environmental impact (Huddart Kennedy et al., 2009, Stern, 2000, Gifford, 2011, Gifford, 2013, Schultz and Kaiser, 2012).
Past studies provide comparisons between the GHG emissions associated with multiple environmental domains (Druckman et al., 2011, Ferguson and MacLean, 2011, Frostell et al., 2015, Jones and Kammen, 2011, Miehe et al., 2016, Tukker et al., 2006, Weber and Matthews, 2008). Tukker et al. (2006) review the life cycle environmental impacts of product consumption in the European Union and conclude that food, transportation, and energy are the most impactful domains. However, these past studies do not provide insight on the impacts of individual behaviors within each domain.
Dietz et al. (2009) provide an analysis of the behavior-specific emissions associated with household energy-use (e.g., home heating and transportation). Through a combination of 17 behavior changes in the housing and transportation domains, American households can reduce national GHG emissions by 7.4% (Dietz et al., 2009). Some impactful behaviors include switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles, weatherization (e.g., insulation), and buying energy-efficient appliances. However, Dietz et al. (2009) do not consider household indirect emissions, which are often larger than their direct emissions (Steg and Abrahamse, 2010, Swim et al., 2012).
Indirect emissions such as those related to food choices have important emission reduction potential (Stern, 2011). Past studies have comprehensively researched the potential impact of food choices (Hallström et al., 2015, Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016). However, they do not compare the impact of dietary changes to behaviors from other domains, for example, the potential GHG reductions associated with driving a more fuel-efficient car.
One study compares the mitigation potential of 13 household direct (e.g., using public transportation instead of driving) and indirect (i.e., dietary change) PEBs (Jones and Kammen, 2011). Although it provides a good starting point for this analysis, its application is limited to the United States and their model does not account for varying degrees of behavior change (e.g., only a small reduction in meat and dairy consumption is modelled).
Recognizing that individuals tend to engage in few (low-impact) PEBs, researchers aiming to help mitigate climate change through behavior change should focus their efforts on those behaviors that have significant potential for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The objective of this study is to determine which individual actions have the largest potential for reducing an individual's carbon footprint in high-income countries. Whereas independently none of the previous studies meet the study objective, the approach used here allows to combine their findings and quantify the relative mitigation potential of individual PEBs.
Section snippets
Methods
In the literature, the mitigation potential of single behaviors is rarely, if ever, expressed as a portion of an individual's total GHG emissions. Instead, it is usually expressed as a portion of a specific domain's GHG emissions (e.g., food-related GHG; Berners-Lee et al., 2012). To compare the mitigation potential of behaviors from different domains, these data must be converted into analogous values, in this case, a behavior's mitigation potential relative to the total footprint of the
Results
Seven studies comparing the absolute carbon footprints of different domains were retained. For each study, the study region, data source, quantification model used, and absolute carbon footprint of each domain is detailed in Table 1. Furthermore, Table 1 includes detailed calculations of the relative footprint associated with each domain.
Four studies comparing achievable GHG emission reductions for multiple PEBs were retained. For each study, the study region, data source, quantification model
Discussion
Using data available in the literature as a baseline to calculate the relative mitigation potential of individual PEBs at the household level, his study demonstrated that eating fewer animal products, driving more fuel-efficient cars, and reducing air transportation frequency are high-impact behaviors that have remarkable potential for reducing GHG emissions. For the average household in North America and Europe, eating fewer animal products had the highest achievable GHG emissions reductions
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Robert Gifford, Natalie Ban, and Jiaying Zhao for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Victoria.
References (62)
- et al.
The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices
Energy Pol.
(2012) - et al.
How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture
Food Pol.
(2016) - et al.
Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households
Energy Pol.
(2011) - et al.
Trade-linked Canada–United States household environmental impact analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
Energy Pol.
(2011) - et al.
Modeling both direct and indirect environmental load of purchase decisions: a web-based tool addressing household metabolism
Environ. Model. Software
(2015) The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism. A microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior
Ecol. Econ.
(2015)- et al.
Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet
Appetite
(2015) - et al.
Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review
J. Clean. Prod.
(2015) - et al.
Household carbon emissions from driving and center city quality of life
Ecol. Econ.
(2015) - et al.
Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions embodied in food through realistic consumer choices
Energy Pol.
(2013)
A carbon footprint proportional to expenditure - a case for Norway?
Ecol. Econ.
Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications
Global Environ. Change
Salience of carbon taxes in the gasoline market
J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups
Global Environ. Change
Eating green. Consumers' willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors
Appetite
Perceptions of behaviors that cause and mitigate global warming and intentions to perform these behaviors
J. Environ. Psychol.
Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint
Ecol. Econ.
Household carbon emission research: an analytical review of measurement, influencing factors and mitigation prospects
J. Clean. Prod.
Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: the role of psychological and socio-demographic variables
Human Ecol. Rev.
The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review
PLoS One
Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students' car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis
Environ. Behav.
Overcoming the “value-action gap” in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience
Local Environ.
Prospects for radical emissions reduction through behavior and lifestyle change
Carbon Manag.
Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation and Their Appropriate Inclusion in Quantitative Longer Term Policy Scenarios
Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options
The short list: the most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change
Environment
The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation
Am. Psychol.
Dragons, mules, and honeybees: barriers, carriers, and unwitting enablers of climate change action
Bull. At. Sci.
Environmental psychology matters
Annu. Rev. Psychol.
Cited by (45)
Paths that lead astray: Examining the situational predictors of intention-behaviour gaps in meat consumption
2023, Journal of Environmental PsychologyEco-labels, conspicuous conservation and moral licensing: An indirect behavioural rebound effect
2023, Ecological EconomicsCitation Excerpt :For the third category, some food retailers and product manufacturers combine eco-labels with the choice editing of product ranges to only offer products with select third-party labels, or to exclude certain ingredients or materials from products (Chintakayala et al., 2018). For the consumer, sustainable consumption can mean purchasing more sustainable products, sharing (Fraanje and Spaargaren, 2019) and extending the lifespan of products, more efficient use of domestic heating and cooling, lower meat and dairy foods consumption, moving to greener (public) transport, reducing flying, reducing food waste and/or recycling waste (Lacroix, 2018). Consumers may engage in sustainable consumption for a variety of different reasons, including health concerns (Loureiro et al., 2001), moral considerations and concern for the environment (Aertsens et al., 2009).