ORafferty - Individual & collective behaviour change - SEAI / IRC
Post on 16-Apr-2017
201 Views
Preview:
Transcript
HELLO
DR. SIMON O’RAFFERTY RESEARCH FELLOW - EPA / UL SIMONORAFFERTY@GMAIL.COM @SORAFFERTY
Design Research & Practice Review
WHAT I WILL COVER
-WHAT WE (THINK WE) KNOW ABOUT BEHAVIOUR CHANGE & SUSTAINABILITY
-POTENTIAL & LIMITATIONS OF APPROACHES
- INDIVIDUAL V.S. COLLECTIVE / COMMUNITY BEHAVIOUR
-THOUGHTS ON WAYS FORWARD IN IRELAND
WHY FOCUS ON BEHAVIOUR?
DESIGN REGULATIONS AND SERVICES BASED ON ACTUAL, NOT ASSUMED, BEHAVIOURS
LIMITED SUCCESS OF EXISTING POLICIES
PIECEMEAL, INDIVIDUALISTIC INTERVENTIONS
EVERY PIECE OF DESIGN “ENCODES A HYPOTHESIS ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOUR” adam greenfield
EVEN IF NOT EXPLICITLY RECOGNISED, WE APPROACH
PROBLEMS WITH SOME MODEL OR ASSUMPTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
WHAT WE KNOW
DECISION MAKING IS RARELY RATIONAL
SUBJECT TO SEVERAL COGNITIVE BIASES (E.G. OVERCONFIDENCE)
STRUGGLE WITH TOO MUCH INFORMATION OR TOO MUCH CHOICE
DECISIONS ARE CONTEXTUAL & SOCIAL
WHAT WE KNOW
DISCOUNT FUTURE BENEFITS
PEOPLE ARE STRONGLY WEDDED TO CURRENT SITUATIONS: ENDOWMENT EFFECT, LOSS AVERSION, STATUS QUO BIAS - STRUCTURES
SHOCK / GUILT (SOCIAL MARKETING) DOESN’T WORK
WHAT WE KNOW
LARGE GAPS BETWEEN MOTIVATIONS, ATTITUDES, VALUES & BEHAVIOUR
- INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE DOESN’T NECESSARILY CHANGE BEHAVIOUR
WHAT WE KNOW
DIFFERENT TYPES OF BEHAVIOUR - ONE OFF, HABITS
- CAN’T USE SAME APPROACH FOR ALL
adapted from Chatterton, 2014
adapted from Chatterton, 2014
DIFFUSE, DISTANT AND DELAYED
CHALLENGES
RISKS OF REBOUND EFFECTS, MORAL LICENSING
NO SPILLOVER OR LOW PERSISTENCE
BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
THE USE OF PRODUCTS, SERVICES, POLICIES, INCENTIVES, REGULATIONS, INTERFACES, BUILDINGS, ENVIRONMENTS THAT ENABLE, MOTIVATE, CONSTRAIN OR OTHERWISE INFLUENCE PEOPLE TO DO THINGS IN DIFFERENT WAYS
BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS ≠
BEHAVIOURAL INSIGHTS ≠
NUDGING
MAKE IT SOCIAL
MAKE IT DEFAULT
FRAMING - GETTING THE MESSAGE RIGHT
14 x
INDIVIDUAL V.S. COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR
V.S. TRANSITION
WHY COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR?
TENDENCY TO FOCUS ON SMALL PROBLEMS OR INDIVIDUAL AS A CONSUMER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OCCUR WHEN LOTS OF PEOPLE BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS
FOCUSSING ON INDIVIDUALS IS INEFFICIENT
LEARNING FROM EXISTING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PROJECTS
SPEAKING TO COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS AROUND IRELAND
COMMUNITY LEVEL BARRIERS
LACK OF INTERNAL CAPACITY (SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE, FINANCE)
LACK OF A CRITICAL MASS OF COMMITTED INDIVIDUALS
LOW SOCIAL CAPITAL, CONNECTEDNESS AND INFLUENCE
CONFUSING RANGE OF SOURCES OF INFO/GUIDANCE
PLUS MANY MORE…..
WE HAVE COMMUNITY PLANNING / TRANSITION FRAMEWORKS
WE HAVE LOTS OF TOOLKITS AND STRATEGIES
IMPLEMENTATION IS PATCHY & UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED
WHY DO SOME PLACES AND COMMUNITIES PROVIDE MUCH BETTER ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION & TRANSITION THAN OTHERS??
“HOW DO HUMAN BEINGS MOST EFFECTIVELY WORK
TOGETHER?”
HOW HUMANS ORGANISE
HIERARCHICAL SOLIDARISTIC INDIVIDUALISTIC
HOW HUMANS ORGANISE
HIERARCHICAL SOLIDARISTIC INDIVIDUALISTIC
EQUALITY, MEMBERSHIP SHARED VALUES, BELONGING
- INCLUSIVE, ALTRUISTIC, PASSIONATE - SECTARIAN, DEFENSIVE, OPPOSITIONAL
AUTHORITY, RULES, EXPERTISE
- STRATEGIC, VISION, - SELF SERVING, BUREAUCRATIC
PURSUIT OF SELF INTEREST, ENTERPRISE, COMPETITION
- CREATIVE, ENTERPRISING, INNOVATIVE
- SELFISH, IRRESPONSIBLE
HOW HUMANS ORGANISE?
HIERARCHICAL
SOLIDARISTIC
INDIVIDUALISTIC
CAUSE BASED STRATEGICALLY FOCUSSED HIERARCHY SOLIDARITY BASED ON COLLABORATION & A SHARED COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE MODEL FOR ORGANISING THAT MAXIMISES SCOPE FOR CREATIVITY AND AUTONOMY
CREATIVE COMMUNITIES WITH A CAUSE
CHARLES LEADBEATER
SUMMARY
DESIGN REGULATIONS AND SERVICES BASED ON ACTUAL, NOT ASSUMED, BEHAVIOURS
DESIGN POLICIES AND SERVICES THAT HELP COMMUNITIES MAKE BETTER DECISIONS AND TAKE ACTION FOR THEMSELVES
➡ REMOVE FRICTIONS, BUILD CAPACITY & AGENCY, PARTICIPATION, EMPOWERMENT
SUMMARY
APPLY AN ITERATIVE PROCESS OF DISCOVERY, LEARNING AND ADAPTATION.
A MULTI-MODEL APPROACH
SPARK THE CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES TO SOLVE PROBLEMS, TO BE INNOVATIVE, TO BE CREATIVE
RESEARCH CAPACITY?
thank you
top related