Comparing the relative mitigation potential of individual pro-environmental behaviors

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volumn 195, Issue , 2018, Pages 1398-1407

  Lacroix, Karine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Carbon footprint; Climate change; High impact behavior; Mitigation; Pro environmental behavior

Indexed keywords

AIR TRANSPORTATION; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CARBON FOOTPRINT; EMISSION CONTROL; FOOD SUPPLY; GAS EMISSIONS; GREENHOUSE GASES;

ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS; CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES; EMISSION REDUCTION POTENTIALS; FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES; GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS; HIGH IMPACT; MITIGATION; PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 85049341716     PISSN: 09596526     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.068     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: the role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Human Ecol. Rev. 18 (2011), 30–40.
2. Aleksandrowicz, L., Green, R., Joy, E.J.M., Smith, P., Haines, A., The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS One 11:11 (2016), 1–16 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165797.
3. Attari, S.Z., DeKay, M.L., Davidson, C.I., de Bruin, W.B., Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107:37 (2010), 16054–16059 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001509107.
4. Bamberg, S., Schmidt, P., Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students' car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 35:2 (2003), 264–285 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502250134.
5. Berners-Lee, M., Hoolohan, C., Cammack, H., Hewitt, C.N., The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices. Energy Pol. 43 (2012), 184–190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.054.
6. Blake, J., Overcoming the “value-action gap” in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environ. 4 (1999), 257–278 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599.
7. Bryngelsson, D., Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F., Sonesson, U., How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Pol. 59 (2016), 152–164 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.012.
8. Capstick, S., Lorenzoni, I., Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L., Prospects for radical emissions reduction through behavior and lifestyle change. Carbon Manag. 5:4 (2014), 429–445 https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2015.1020011.
9. Dietz, T., Gardner, G.T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P.C., Vandenbergh, M.P., Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106 (2009), 18452–18456 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908738106.
10. Druckman, A., Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Jackson, T., Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households. Energy Pol. 39:6 (2011), 3572–3581 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.058.
11. Faber, J., Schroten, A., Bles, M., Sevenster, M., Markowska, A., Smit, M., van't Riet, J., Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation and Their Appropriate Inclusion in Quantitative Longer Term Policy Scenarios., 2012, CE Delft Main Report.
12. Faber, J., Sevenster, M., Markowska, A., Smit, M., Zimmermann, K., Soboh, R., van't Riet, J., Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options., 2012, CE Delft Domain Report Food.
13. Ferguson, T.M., MacLean, H.L., Trade-linked Canada–United States household environmental impact analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Pol. 39:12 (2011), 8011–8021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.056.
14. Frostell, B.M., Sinha, R., Assefa, G., Olsson, L.E., Modeling both direct and indirect environmental load of purchase decisions: a web-based tool addressing household metabolism. Environ. Model. Software 71 (2015), 138–147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.05.014.
15. Gardner, G.T., Stern, P.C., The short list: the most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment 50 (2008), 31–36 https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.12-25.
16. Gifford, R., The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66 (2011), 290–302 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566.
17. Gifford, R., Dragons, mules, and honeybees: barriers, carriers, and unwitting enablers of climate change action. Bull. At. Sci. 69 (2013), 41–48 https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340213493258.
18. Gifford, R., Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65 (2014), 541–579 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048.
19. Gifford, R., Chen, A., Why aren't we taking action? Psychological barriers to climate-positive food choices. Climatic Change 140:2 (2017), 165–178 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1830-y.
20. Government of Canada, Summary of Guiding Principles and Recommendations. April 5, 2017 Retrieved from https://www.foodguideconsultation.ca/guiding-principles-summary.
21. Grabs, J., The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism. A microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior. Ecol. Econ. 116 (2015), 270–279 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.030.
22. Graça, J., Calheiros, M.M., Oliveira, A., Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 95 (2015), 113–125 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024.
23. Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Börjesson, P., Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 91 (2015), 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008.
24. Holian, M.J., Kahn, M.E., Household carbon emissions from driving and center city quality of life. Ecol. Econ. 116 (2015), 362–368 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.012.
25. Hoolohan, C., Berners-Lee, M., McKinstry-West, J., Hewitt, C.N., Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions embodied in food through realistic consumer choices. Energy Pol. 63 (2013), 1065–1074.
26. Huddart Kennedy, E., Beckley, T.M., Nadeau, S., Why we don't “walk the talk”: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16 (2009), 151–160 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.837039.
27. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for policymakers. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I, II, III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, 1–30.
28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for policymakers. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, 1–30.
29. Isaksen, E.T., Narbel, P.A., A carbon footprint proportional to expenditure - a case for Norway?. Ecol. Econ. 131 (2017), 152–165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.027.
30. Jones, C., Kammen, D.M., Spatial distribution of U.S. household carbon footprints reveals suburbanization undermines greenhouse gas benefits of urban population density. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:2 (2014), 895–902 https://doi.org/10.1021/es4034364.
31. Jones, C.M., Kammen, D.M., Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S. households and communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:9 (2011), 4088–4095 https://doi.org/10.1021/es102221h.
32. Köhler, J., Köhler, B., Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation and Options., 2012, CE Delft Technical Report on the Appropriate Inclusion of Results of the Analysis in Model-based Quantitative Scenarios.
33. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environ. Change 17 (2007), 445–459 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004.
34. Miehe, R., Scheumann, R., Jones, C.M., Kammen, D.M., Finkbeiner, M., Regional carbon footprints of households: a German case study. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 18:2 (2016), 577–591 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9649-7.
35. Nolan, J.M., Schultz, W., Prosocial behavior and environmental action. Schroeder, D.A., Graziano, W.G., (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior (Chapter 30), 2015, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
36. Patchen, M., What shapes public reactions to climate change? Overview of research and policy implications. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 10 (2010), 47–68 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01201.x.
37. Rivers, N., Schaufele, B., Salience of carbon taxes in the gasoline market. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 74 (2015), 23–36.
38. Rohde, C., Dütschke, E., Bles, M., Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options., 2012, CE Delft Domain Report Housing.
39. Sabaté, J., Sranacharoenpong, K., Harwatt, H., Wien, M., Soret, S., The environmental cost of protein food choices. Publ. Health Nutr. 18:11 (2014), 2067–2073 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980014002377.
40. Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., Key, T.J., Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change 125:2 (2014), 179–192 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1.
41. Schroten, A., Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options., 2012, CE Delft Domain Report Transport.
42. Schultz, P.W., Kaiser, F.G., Promoting pro-environmental behavior. Clayton, S., (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, 2012, Oxford University Press, New York, 556–580.
43. Schultz, W., Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: lots of tools but few instructions. Eur. Psychol. 19:2 (2014), 107–117 https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000163.
44. Steg, L., Abrahamse, W., How to promote energy savings among households: theoretical and practical approaches. Psychology Approaches to Sustainability: Current Trends in Theory, Research and Applications, 2010, Nova Science Publishers, Inc, New York, NY, 61–82.
45. Stern, P.C., Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56 (2000), 407–424 https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
46. Stern, P.C., Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. Am. Psychol. 66 (2011), 303–314 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023235.
47. Stern, P.C., Gardner, G.T., Vandenbergh, M.P., Dietz, T., Design principles for carbon emissions reduction programs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010), 4847–4848.
48. Stoll-Kleemann, S., O'Riordan, T., Jaeger, C.C., The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environ. Change 11 (2001), 107–117 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3.
49. Swim, J., Howard, G., Clayton, S., Reser, J.P., Doherty, T.J., Stern, P.C., …, Weber, E.U., Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. 2009, American Psychological Association, 1–108 Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx.
50. Swim, J.K., Markowitz, E.M., Bloodhart, B., Psychology and climate change: beliefs, impacts, and human contributions. Clayton, S., (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, 2012, Oxford University Press, New York, 645–669.
51. Takacs-Santa, A., Barriers to environmental concern. Res. Human Ecol. 14 (2007), 26–38.
52. Tobler, C., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., Eating green. Consumers' willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 57:3 (2011), 674–682 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010.
53. Truelove, H.B., Parks, C., Perceptions of behaviors that cause and mitigate global warming and intentions to perform these behaviors. J. Environ. Psychol. 32:3 (2012), 246–259 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002.
54. Tukker, A., Cohen, M.J., Hubacek, K., Mont, O., The impacts of household consumption and options for change. J. Ind. Ecol. 14:1 (2010), 13–30 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00208.x.
55. Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., de Kroning, A., van Oers, A., …, Nielsen, P., Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO): Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmmental Impacts Related to the Final Consumption of the EU-25. 2006, European Commission, 1–141.
56. Tukker, A., Jansen, B., Environmental impacts of products: a detailed review of studies. J. Ind. Ecol. 10:3 (2006), 159–182 https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2006.10.3.159.
57. U. S. Department of Transportation, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. August 27, 2014 Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/mission/sustainability/corporate-average-fuel-economy-cafe-standards.
58. Vandenberg, M.P., Barkenbus, J., Gilligan, J., Individual carbon emissions: the low-hanging fruit. UCLA Law Rev. 55 (2008), 1701–1758.
59. Weber, C.L., Matthews, H.S., Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint. Ecol. Econ. 66:2–3 (2008), 379–391 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.021.
60. Weber, E.U., What shapes perceptions of climate change?. Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev.: Climate Chang. 1 (2010), 332–342 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.41.
61. Wynes, S., Nicholas, K.A., The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ. Res. Lett., 12(7), 2017, 74024 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.
62. Zhang, X., Luo, L., Skitmore, M., Household carbon emission research: an analytical review of measurement, influencing factors and mitigation prospects. J. Clean. Prod. 103 (2015), 873–883 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.024.