Today, I took a closer look at the Grist article on the behavior change research I did earlier this year. Here’s a quote:
If you want to know how to change behavior, don’t read a bunch of polls about the messages that make people say positive things to pollsters; read a report like this one from ACEEE, which looks at which behavioral programs around energy efficiency have worked, i.e., demonstrated tangible, consistent results.
I would reframe that point and expand it to say that awareness, motivation and action are three different things.
Here’s one practical example. An avid snowboarder who studied science in college may be deeply opposed to global warming. This person might even answer market research surveys in a way that shows commitment to a healthy, sustainable lifestyle. But the snowboarder might still buy a ticket to Alaska for an outdoor vacation without thinking about the global warming effect of the plane flight.
Meanwhile, the snowboarder’s next-door neighbor may have never taken a college-level science class. This neighbor might take a local fishing vacation with a much lower environmental impact than the environmentalist’s trip to Alaska.
Scientists and environmentalists often believe providing information leads to action. The reality is much more complicated than that. People tend to take actions that are convenient, socially respected and expected, entertaining and economical. People also view time and mental energy as expenditures, too; efficiency isn’t just a matter of saving money. Community respect and support motivate many environmental choices.
There are many potential motives for environmental learning. Curiosity about science motivates some people to seek out environmental news. Self-sufficiency also appeals to many people. Many people take an interest in health and community well-being. But motivation and learning are distinct from action.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to say that I support Grist’s conclusion about action leading to changes in beliefs. It does certainly lead to changes in habits. It would be interesting to look into this question further.
The snowboarder I mentioned isn’t lacking information. There’s plenty of carbon footprint information available online. But the appeal of outdoor sports, the sense of adventure, and the desire to see new places are high priorities for some people.
Instead of judging the snowboarder’s sense of adventure, we should talk about ways those adventures can happen closer to home. Although going without the things one enjoys may seem like a reasonable response to environmental concerns, environmentalism – like dieting or exercise – can be taken to an extreme where people lose their sense of enjoyment and feel isolated or discouraged in their efforts. Environmental issues are long-term; our responses should be long-term, too.
P.S. As always, my blog reflects my personal perspectives, not those of any organization where I’ve worked.

Environmental behavior change doesn't have to be this difficult.