researchportal.bath.ac.uk€¦  · Web viewThe ways people consume, travel, dispose their waste, spend free time, or use energy have major and cumulative impacts on the sustainability

Promoting sustainability: Towards a segmentation model of individual and

household behaviour and behaviour change

Bas Verplanken

University of Bath, United Kingdom

Short title: Segmentation in promoting sustainable development

IN PRESS: Sustainable Development

May 2017

Bas Verplanken

Department of Psychology

University of Bath

United Kingdom

E-mail: [email protected]

Author note

This article is based on a key note address to a workshop entitled “Vocational

education of the Republic of Belarus as a mechanism of support to education for

sustainable development and transition to a green economy”, organised by the

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus in partnership with the

Republican Institute for Vocational Education, in cooperation with the United

Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the Secretariat for Education,

Research and Innovation of the Government of Switzerland. Minsk, Belarus, 25-

26 April 2016. The author wishes to thank two anonymous reviewers for their

insightful comments.

1

Abstract

Behaviours of individuals and households have major and cumulative impacts on

the ecology and sustainable development. A generic segmentation model of

sustainable behaviour is presented based on three fundamental drivers of

behaviour; motivation, opportunity, and habit. Four segments of consumers are

distinguished; low motivation/low opportunity, high motivation/high

opportunity, low motivation/high opportunity, and high motivation/low

opportunity. Strong unsustainable habits are likely to be found among low

motivation/low opportunity consumers, while high motivation/high opportunity

consumers have the propensity to adopt sustainable lifestyles and form strong

sustainable habits. This model is then used to highlight how different

intervention techniques may be effective for the different population segments.

Traditional interventions to promote sustainable behaviours (e.g., goal setting,

feedback), as well as alternative approaches are thus discussed, including using

habit discontinuities, mental models, choice architecture, and systemic

approaches. The model may thus form a starting point for selecting optimal

behaviour change strategies in specific contexts.

Key words: Sustainability; Sustainable behaviour; Sustainable lifestyle;

Behaviour change intervention; Behaviour change; Segmentation; Segmentation

model

2

Introduction

In 2015 two important agreements were adopted which can be

considered as milestones for the sustainable development agenda under the

auspices of the United Nations. The first concerned the 17 Sustainable

Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. These

goals cover a broad spectrum of orientations on how we should develop

sustainably, and are aimed at "ending all forms of poverty, fight inequalities and

tackle climate change, while ensuring that no one is left behind" (United Nations,

2016a, p.2). The second event was the Paris Agreement within the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This agreement deals with

reducing greenhouse gases emissions (United Nations, 2016b). The

implementation of these two agreements has implications at all levels, including

governments, the private sector and civil society, but also behaviour of

individuals and households, which is the focus of this article.

The ways people consume, travel, dispose their waste, spend free time, or

use energy have major and cumulative impacts on the sustainability status of our

world (e.g., Stern, 2000a). For instance, in the United Kingdom energy used in

homes accounts for more than a quarter of the total energy use and CO2

emissions (Palmer & Cooper, 2012). Effects of behaviours on sustainability may

be direct, such as automobile emissions, or indirect, such as meat consumption

or buying fair-trade products. While major players such as industry, businesses

and governments have significant responsibilities with regard to the

sustainability agenda, knowledge about individuals' choices and behaviours is

important for progressing the sustainable development agenda (e.g., Steg et al.,

2015; Steg & Vlek, 2009).

3

I will first briefly discuss the concepts of sustainable development,

sustainable lifestyle, and sustainable behaviour. I then focus on what is driving

consumers' (un)sustainable choices and behaviours, and introduce the basic

framework of a segmentation model. The remainder of this article addresses

behaviour change. I discuss how various well-tested intervention techniques and

some less-well-tested approaches map onto the segmentation model.

Sustainable development, sustainable lifestyle, sustainable behaviour

While there exist a variety of interpretations of the concept of sustainable

development (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2005), I use this term to refer to the actions we

take as a society, nation, or other collective bodies, such as the United Nations, to

meet the goals that were formulated in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development, and which are grounded in the seminal Brundtland Commission

Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). That

report defined sustainable development as "(...) development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs" (p. 43). The term sustainable lifestyle, then, refers to

consumers' behaviours and choices if these are intentionally aimed at fulfilling

sustainable development goals (e.g., Stern, 2000b; Whitmarsh, 2009). Thus,

consumers who adopt a sustainable lifestyle for instance minimise the use of

energy and water, recycle waste and materials, and purchase sustainably

produced products. While these behaviours may be employed in a variety of

domains, such as household management, transportation, and diet, these

consumers are driven by sustainability-related values and goals. Finally, I use the

term sustainable behaviour to indicate behaviour that serves sustainable

development goals, but is not necessarily enacted with that purpose in mind.

4

Sustainable behaviours may thus be part of a sustainable lifestyle, but may also

be adopted by others who do not subscribe to such values and lifestyle, and

behave sustainably, for instance because of financial or practical reasons (e.g.,

Whitmarsh, 2009). Thus, while two consumers may exhibit the same behaviour,

one may and the other may not be motivated to act sustainably. This distinction

has implications for behaviour change interventions.

Two issues are worth mentioning with regard to the meaning of

sustainability to the general public. While experts debate the different meanings

and interpretations of sustainability and sustainable development, these

concepts certainly are no household names for most people. For instance, Roy et

al. (2015) interviewed individuals about the meaning of sustainability. Their

results suggested that sustainability was mostly associated with recycling, while

the awareness of other sustainable acts was very limited (see also Barr et al.,

2005). Secondly, even if consumers correctly identify sustainable behaviours, it is

extremely difficult for ordinary folk to evaluate the relative effectiveness of their

actions. For instance, Whitmarsh (2009) showed a divergence between actions

prescribed by policy makers and those taken by the public to mitigate climate

change. Also, there are no easy metrics by which behavioural effects can be

compared (e.g., Sutcliffe et al., 2008).

Drivers of behaviour

Populations are extremely diverse in what people value and prioritize,

and this is not different in the realm of sustainable behaviours. In order to better

understand why people do or don't behave sustainably, and to design effective

interventions to promote sustainability, it is useful to distinguish different

5

profiles in the population. In this section, I discuss key drivers of behaviour,

which will then form the basis of such a segmentation exercise.

While humans are complex organisms and many factors influence

behaviour, varying from genetics to culture, three broad factors are particularly

important in explaining behaviour; motivation, opportunity, and habit (e.g., Eagly

& Chaiken, 1993; Triandis, 1977). For instance, Triandis (1977) suggested a

trade-off between motivation (intention) and habit, while opportunity

(facilitating and inhibiting factors) providing the weight that influences this

balance. A recent meta-analysis by Klöckner (2013) confirmed these three

factors as major antecedents of environmental behaviour.

Motivation

Motivation is a key driver of human behaviour, and is for instance

manifested as goals, goal pursuit, and intentions (e.g., Bargh et al., 2014). In the

theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), which is arguably the most

prominent model of behaviour in social psychology, motivation is represented as

an intention to act, and is positioned as the most proximal predictor of

behaviour. According to this model, an intention is determined by attitudes,

social norms and perceived behavioural control. I will briefly discuss these

constructs (see for reviews in the context of sustainable behaviour, e.g., Bamberg

& Möser, 2007; Klöckner, 2013; Morren & Grinstein, 2016).

Attitudes. From the moment we are born, we learn to approach good

things and avoid bad ones. People's behaviours are thus in essence driven by

subjective expectations of costs and benefits. These need not be financial in

nature, but may involve time, effort, or any other psychological consequence. For

instance, when we choose a product, we may consider, price, expected quality,

6

and practicality. The perceived costs and benefits, including the weights a person

attaches to these, feed into an overall attitude towards the behaviour, that is, a

conclusive evaluation of the pros and cons, which may lead an individual to act

or to abstain from action.

While the consideration of costs and benefits of choice options suggests a

rational approach, a wealth of literature exists which demonstrates that people

are not following rational decision strategies (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

This of course also holds for sustainable choices (e.g., Jackson, 2005). If

environment-related features are considered in the first place, these have to

compete with other attributes (e.g., Young et al., 2010). In making such multi-

attribute choices people typically apply decision rules which reduce the mental

load, that is, the amount of information to be considered and the complexity of

decision rules (e.g., Bettman et al., 1993). Unless sustainability arguments are top

priority, which is not often the case (e.g., Gallup, 2014; Ipsos MORI, 2016), these

may completely be ignored if the decision maker only considers a few other

attributes which are deemed more important (e.g., Hafner et al., 2017). In some

instances environmental benefits co-occur with financial benefits, such as in the

case of reducing electricity use or fuel consumption. This makes it easier for a

consumer to go for the sustainable alternative, perhaps even without

considering the sustainability argument itself. However, more often than not,

sustainable choices face a tough competition, especially when alternatives are

more expensive, require effort, or come with less comfort. The sustainability

agenda thus faces the difficulty of overcoming a 'social dilemma': a conflict

between immediate self-interest and longer-term collective interests (e.g., Staats

et al., 1996; Van Lange et al., 2013).

7

Sustainable behaviour may be motivated by social values (e.g., de Groot &

Steg, 2008; Poortinga et al., 2004; Stern, 2000b; Verplanken & Holland, 2002).

Social values are a special type of attitudes, namely abstract goals which may

function as leading principles in people's life, and thus have inherent

motivational properties (e.g., Maio, 2017; Schwartz, 1992). Sustainability-related

values such as preserving nature, protecting the environment, equality and social

justice, are characterised by a motivation to prioritize the wellbeing of others

over personal benefits. These values only guide choices and behaviour if they are

part of someone’s sense of identity. In other words, when sustainability-related

values are internalized, they may form the motivation of adopting a sustainable

lifestyle (e.g., Sparks & Shephard, 1992; Stern, 2000b; Thøgersen & Ölander,

2002; Verplanken & Holland, 2002; Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010).

Social norms. Behaviour is strongly influenced by other people, either by

what they do, or what we think they want us to do, that is, by social norms. A

common distinction is made between injunctive and descriptive norms (e.g.,

Cialdini et al., 1990). Injunctive norms concern what most other people approve

or disapprove; descriptive norms are what most others do. Both types of

normative forces are subjective: an individual may be influenced by the

perception of these norms, independently of whether they are correct or

incorrect. The power of normative influence on sustainable behaviours has been

firmly established in the domain of environmental psychology (e.g., Biel &

Thøgersen, 2007; Schultz et al., 2007; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2006), although

normative effects have also been found to depend on conditions such as an

individualistic or a collective orientation (White & Simpson, 2013).

8

Perceived behavioural control. Even if we see benefits in a choice or course

of action, and have the motivation to perform that behaviour, we may not be fully

in control of executing the behaviour. In the theory of planned behaviour this

notion is captured by the concept of perceived behavioural control, which

consists of self-efficacy (the ease or difficulty to perform the behaviour) and

controllability (the extent to which the performance is up to the actor) (Ajzen,

2002). Perceived lack of control may prevent someone to behave sustainably. On

the other hand, feeling in control may motivate a person, and may thus be a

driver of behaviour (e.g., Jugert et al., 2016).

Opportunity

There are many barriers as well as facilitating factors, which determine

whether a person can act sustainably, independently of his or her motivation.

Some of these factors are structural, such as the presence or absence of

infrastructure or sustainable products such as sustainably produced food (e.g.,

Stranieri et al., 2017), financial constraints such as when purchasing

environmentally friendly devices (e.g., Beltramo, 2015), or legislative restrictions

such as congestion tax (e.g., Nilsson et al., 2016). Some structural measures may

help consumers to be more in control of their behaviour, such as product

labelling (e.g., Thøgersen et al., 2010), although such logos are not always

understood and may have limited effects (e.g., Hoogland et al., 2007).

Opportunities may also be determined by personal skills and knowledge. For

instance, drivers may not know how to save fuel in driving their vehicle. In

addition to structural factors, there are general psychological barriers, which

may work against making sustainable choices. Gifford (2011) provided a

comprehensive review of such barriers, for instance limited cognition (e.g.,

9

undervaluing distant or future risks), sunk costs associated with previous

unsustainable investments, or rebound effects (e.g., driving farther when owning

a fuel-efficient vehicle).

Habit

We do many things without thinking or making a conscious decision

(Wood et al., 2002). For instance, participants in the Roy et al. (2015) study

attributed unsustainable behaviours to "lack of thinking", thus suggesting they

were aware of the sustainability aspect, but failed to remind themselves of it at

the time action was needed. Habits can be defined as automatic responses to

regularly occurring cues which are acquired through associative learning (e.g.,

Verplanken & Aarts, 1999; Wood & Neal, 2007; Wood & Rünger, 2016). While we

may be conscious of some of the drivers of behaviour discussed above, habits

operate largely 'under the hood'; once a certain course of action has sufficiently

been repeated, there is no more need for a conscious decision and behaviour

unfolds automatically when we encounter that situation. The latter is important:

whereas conscious behaviour is under internal control ('willpower'), habits are

largely under the control of cues outside a person, such as a certain time, an

event or a location. Such behaviours are therefore difficult to change by mere

willpower or intention, which by definition are internal affairs.

Habits are not isolated pockets of behaviour, but are embedded in larger

structures. At an individual level, a habit may be part of routines, such as cooking

or transportation (cf., Gabe-Thomas et al., 2016a). At a societal level, habits may

be part of what sociologists discuss as 'social practices'; bundles of behaviours,

procedures and actors which are culturally meaningful and are often changing

over time (e.g., Kurz et al., 2015; Reckwitz, 2002). For instance, for many people

10

in the West nowadays the practice of showering involves showering once or

twice a day accompanied by personal grooming and 'legitimized' by the need to

be clean and fresh. This practice thus contains a bundle of habits, which can only

be properly understood in a wider cultural context.

Towards a segmentation model

The drivers of sustainable behaviour may be used to inform segmenting

the population. The model I propose is firstly structured by two orthogonal

dimensions, which are determined by motivation (high, low) and opportunity

(high, low) to behave sustainably. These two factors form the fundaments of so-

called dual-process models found in social psychology (e.g., Chaiken & Trope,

1999). Motivation and opportunity provide the condition for relatively elaborate

information processing and attitudes that are linked to behaviour, whereas a

lack of either motivation or opportunity leads to relatively shallow or heuristic

processing and weak attitude-behaviour relations (e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

The two dimensions are represented as a two-dimensional space in

Figure 1. People vary on each of the dimensions. We may thus distinguish

individuals who are relatively high or low on each of the two dimensions. Four

broad segments can thus be identified: those who lack motivation, but have

opportunities to behave sustainably (Segment A); those who are motivated and

also have opportunities to behave sustainably (Segment B); those who lack both

the motivation and opportunities to behave sustainably (Segment C); those who

are motivated, but lack opportunities to behave sustainably (Segment D).

The third major driver of behaviour – habit – forms a third dimension in

the model. Habit plays particularly a role by determining the degree to which

behaviour is resistant to change. This concerns first and foremost unsustainable

11

behaviours. The strongest unsustainable habits are likely to be found in Segment

C, that is, those who are unmotivated and lack opportunities to behave

sustainably. For these consumers unsustainable choices are the default options.

The weakest unsustainable habits are likely to be found in Segment B. In Figure

1, the habit dimension is represented by the dotted diagonal line, from “strong

unsustainable habits” in Segment C to “weak unsustainable habits” in Segment B.

A corollary to the habit concept is that desired, sustainable, behaviour may

acquire habitual qualities as well. These are thus most likely be found in Segment

B among those who have successfully adopted a sustainable lifestyle.

In the next section I will use the segmentation model in relation to

behaviour change. I will first discuss various approaches to interventions aimed

at promoting sustainable behaviours, and then position these approaches in the

segmentation framework. The framework may thus provide guidance to the

question which approaches would be most effective for which population

segments.

Changing behaviour

Why is unsustainable behaviour so difficult to change? Part of the answer

is provided by the segmentation model. Motivation for sustainable behaviours

may not be sufficiently strong, as not everyone holds pro-environmental

attitudes or adheres to sustainability-related values. Opportunities may be

lacking, for instance due to structural barriers or a failure to recognise

opportunities for sustainable choices (e.g., Holland et al., 2006). And the habitual

quality of unsustainable behaviours may stand in the way to sustainable

lifestyles: as individuals are not conscious of habitual choices, they are not

12

inclined to actively consider alternative courses of action (e.g., Biel & Dahlstrand,

2005; Verplanken et al., 1997).

Behaviour change has traditionally been associated with providing

information in order to educate populations and change people's attitudes and

behaviours, often through mass media information campaigns. The basic, naive,

assumption is that once individuals who lack information or are misinformed

receive 'correct' information, attitudes and behaviours will change automatically

(e.g., Hovland et al., 1953). This approach has been common in many areas, such

as risk perception, health, and consumption, and indeed the environment.

Although theory and research in the domain of persuasion and attitude change

have made much progress (e.g., Bohner & Dickel, 2011), and persuasion models

that emerged during the eighties are still popular (e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1986),

providing information per se has been found ineffective (e.g., Midden et al.,

1983). At best, information campaigns may raise awareness, but evidence is

scarce that they have significant and long-term effects, for instance on actual

carbon footprint reduction (e.g., Staats et al., 1996; Weenig & Midden, 1997).

Abrahamse et al. (2005) presented a comprehensive and insightful review

of interventions aimed at energy conservation. They distinguished interventions

aimed at antecedents of behaviour, such as goal setting (e.g., Becker, 1978),

commitment (e.g., Lokhorst et al., 2013) or mass media campaigns (e.g., Luyben,

1982), and interventions that focused on consequences of behaviour, such as

providing feedback (e.g., Sutcliffe et al., 2008; Van Houwelingen & Van Raaij,

1989) or rewarding behaviour (e.g., Slavin et al., 1981). Within the context of

energy conservation, their review suggests that goal setting and committing to

sustainable targets are successful strategies to instigate future sustainable

13

behaviours. Feedback and rewarding behaviour have also been proven

successful in shaping behaviour in a sustainable direction, although the

downside of the latter is that effects disappear when rewards are withdrawn. In

general, Abrahamse et al.'s (2005) review suggests that combinations of

techniques are more successful than single treatments.

Goal setting, commitment, feedback and rewarding behaviour have

received relatively much attention in the literature on sustainable behaviour

change interventions, and I will therefore not discuss these further here. Instead,

I will review some approaches which have received less attention and are less

well developed or tested. It is far from an exhaustive list of behaviour change

techniques, which would be beyond the scope of this article, but, in my view,

these approaches are worth receiving more attention.

Habit discontinuities

As habits are so difficult to change, one might look for opportunities when

habits are broken in a natural fashion. This happens for instance when people go

through life course changes, such as moving house, changing jobs, starting a

family, or reaching retirement. Other such opportunities arise when the

environment changes, such as when companies move, new infrastructures arise,

or transportation systems change. In such circumstances existing habits are

broken or suspended, at least temporarily. Behaviours that were executed on the

automatic pilot have to be reconsidered, the individual may need information

about new available options, and not unimportantly, one may be "in the mood for

change". In other words, a disruption of existing habits may open a window of

opportunity for more change, and may thus render interventions more effective

(Verplanken & Wood, 2006). This has been referred to as the habit discontinuity

14

hypothesis (Verplanken et al., 2008). There is growing empirical support for this

hypothesis in a variety of contexts (e.g., Bamberg, 2006; Clark et al., 2016; Fujii et

al., 2001; Jones & Ogilvie, 2012; Rogers et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2016a;

Thøgersen, 2012; Verplanken & Roy, 2016; Walker et al., 2015), although the

evidence in most of these studies is correlational, leaving questions about

causality. Perhaps the most robust test to date was provided by Verplanken and

Roy (2016), who demonstrated in a field experiment that an intervention that

promoted twenty-five sustainable behaviours was more effective compared to a

non-intervention condition if participants had recently relocated and were

compared to a matched non-relocated group. These authors also found that the

"window of opportunity" in that study lasted three months, after which the habit

discontinuity effect had disappeared.

While there are many questions left with regard to the practicalities of

using habit discontinuities, it seems worthwhile to capitalize on people's life

course changes when designing behaviour change interventions. This may thus

be a way to help people find the sustainable choices that work for them in their

new circumstances.

Mental models

In the context of behaviour change interventions, it is not always clear

what constitutes "behaviour" in the eyes of the target group. For instance, asking

to "reduce electricity use" is a very general appeal, and different individuals may

associate this with different behaviours. In order to design effective

interventions, it is necessary to understand how people perceive their own

behaviours and to capitalize on such mental models. For instance, Barr et al.,

(2005) investigated how people perceive energy saving and environmental

15

action. They identified a distinction in people's perceptions between purchase-

related energy saving behaviours (e.g., purchasing energy-efficient light bulbs)

and actions that save energy (e.g., switching off lights). Verplanken and Roy

(2015) performed a secondary data analysis on self-reported frequencies of

twenty-five sustainable behaviours, which suggested a mental organization of

these behaviours into using sustainable technologies, sustainable energy use,

sustainable food and shopping, engaging with sustainable environments, and

sustainable gardening, respectively. Gabe-Thomas et al. (2016) investigated

perceptions of domestic electricity consumption by means of a free card-sorting

task, in which participants provided their own mental organization of forty-four

appliances. To the extent participants agreed on which appliances belonged

together, these groupings were based on activities (e.g., entertainment) and

location within the home (e.g., kitchen). Energy consumption did not seem to be

a factor in their categorizations. The challenge for behaviour change

interventions might thus be to identify key mental models which people hold

about their behaviours. These will often not be defined in terms of sustainability

concepts, but rather in terms of functionality, physical infrastructure, or social

practices. Information about behaviour change is then better be defined in terms

of bundles of behaviours that are implied by such models.

Managing the choice architecture

In their influential book "Nudge", Thaler and Sunstein (2008) introduced

the concept of 'choice architecture'; arranging the environment in which

individuals make their choices such that the likelihood of choosing a preferred

option is increased. In other words, rather than communicating and persuading,

people may be 'nudged' into a particular course of action. They describe a range

16

of psychological principles and phenomena, and apply these to choices related to

consumption, money, or health. Of course, the art of 'nudging' is not new, and can

be seen in goods being promoted, or decisions being presented to consumers.

Although nudging is interesting in its own right, and interesting examples have

been described, it is not the silver bullet solution to complex behaviour change.

Nudging may work in relatively simple choice environments, but it would be

naive, to say the least, to assume that people can be nudged into adopting more

sustainable lifestyles.

I am more optimistic if nudging is applied to more structural and large-

scale interventions, such as legislation and regulation, fiscal measures,

infrastructural improvements, and adopting technical solutions. People do

respond to financial benefits as well as the availability of sustainable facilities

and services that are easy to access or use (e.g., Jackson, 2005). Some large-scale

behaviour change interventions have been very successful, such as the

requirement to wear seatbelts in automobiles, phasing out traditional light bulbs

and leaded petrol, the smoking ban in restaurants and public spaces, or more

recently, the plastic carrier charge in England, Scotland and Wales (Thomas et al.,

2016b). Such "upstream" measures restrict consumers' choice options, or force

people to adopt an alternative course of action (Verplanken & Wood, 2006). They

may not only be effective in accomplishing large-scale behaviour change, more

often than not consumers respond by adapting their attitudes, resulting in a

genuine acceptance or even liking of the new behaviours (e.g., Nilsson et al.,

2016; Schuitema et al., 2010).

17

Systemic approaches

Fundamental and lasting behaviour change is only possible if it is

embedded in structures that encourage and support change. Systemic

approaches are therefore promising perspectives. Such approaches consider

people's environment as systems, which have their own structural features and

dynamics, and can be used to deliver change. An obvious system is a distinct

geographical or social community. For instance, Weenig and Midden (1991)

investigated a programme promoting DIY house insulation measures.

Neighbourhoods were considered as communication systems within which

individuals are linked through communication ties. The number of existing ties

indicates the availability of information diffusion routes, and thus determines

how fast information is distributed through the network, including opinions and

norms that promote the intervention. Ties vary in strength, that is the frequency

and intensity of communication; strong ties (e.g., between family and kin) were

found important for efficient information diffusion and adoption of the

programme, while weak ties (i.e., between subgroups or cliques) functioned as

'information bridges' between clusters of individuals, thus promoting the

awareness of the programme. Also, direct ties with opinion leaders or activists

who led the intervention were found important channels of communication.

Systemic approaches may be applied at different levels. Some

programmes capitalize on small 'cells', which each promote change using their

networks, such as the Eco-Team programme (e.g., Staats et al., 2004). Other

systemic initiatives have been employed in businesses, regions or at national

scales (e.g., Loorbach & Rotmans, 2010). Systemic approaches can lead to

18

interventions that are empowering and effective. However, obviously such

projects are costly, and not easy to maintain.

Mapping interventions onto the segmentation model

In order to map interventions onto the segmentation model, I defined the

broader objectives for which interventions might aim in each segment in order

to achieve sustainable behaviour change. Thus, Segment A (“high potential,

unwilling”) might be most receptive to incentives. These individuals are unlikely

to be influenced by sustainable arguments; 'preaching' may even backfire. The

most prevalent incentives are financial rewards, discounts for sustainable

choices or behaviour, or fiscal measures to deter from unsustainable choices.

However, incentives may also be practical, for instance providing free internet

access in trains or buses. As interventions based on mental models do not

necessarily involve communication about sustainability, these might also have

potential in this segment.

Segment B (“high potential, willing”) may not seem an obvious target for

interventions. However, this segment contains the very people who will be

needed to fulfill the sustainability goals in the future (e.g., Verplanken & Roy,

2013). These are consumers who either already adopted sustainable lifestyles,

and may be encouraged in continuing this behaviour, or may be easily be

persuaded to switch to sustainable options. As Young et al. (2010) demonstrated,

even self-declared 'green consumers' may struggle to bring their environmental

values in line with their actions. In any case, this segment is committed to the

sustainability agenda, and may thus be empowered to act upon it, both by doing

more themselves and by inspiring others (e.g., Barr et al., 2005), and thus

promote what Dobson (2007) dubbed 'environmental citizenship'. Goal setting

19

and commitment interventions are typically mapping onto this segment. Such

interventions require motivation and the capacity to envisage and commit to

sustainable behaviours in the future. I also mentioned community-based

interventions for this segment, referring to systemic approaches based on a

defined social group or community. Segment B individuals may thus be taking

leading roles in such interventions, for instance as activists who recruit, organize

and roll out activities.

Segment C (“low potential, unwilling”) is arguably the most challenging

segment, as these are people who are not interested in sustainability and have

limited opportunities to make sustainable choices. There is probably little to gain

by directly appealing to changing behaviours in this segment. Approaches that

might be most effective for this segment are those that shape the choice

architecture in a top-down fashion. This may involve, for instance, legislation

(e.g., banning unsustainable products) or changes in infrastructure (e.g., limiting

parking space). There is obviously a balance to strike between the level of

acceptability of such measures and what is gained in terms of sustainable

objectives.

Finally, Segment D (“low potential, willing”) consists of people who are

motivated to make sustainable choices, but are limited in what they are able to

do. In order to capitalize on their motivation, interventions are required that

support, lower barriers, or reveal opportunities. This might involve fiscal

support, but could also entail providing better infrastructures, such as more

efficient bus routes, or easier access to sustainable products and services. New

opportunities may be found when these people go through life course changes,

which is the focus of habit discontinuity approaches. For instance, the

20

intervention in the Verplanken and Roy (2016) study involved conversations

with participants about opportunities to behave more sustainably, which proved

particularly successful when people had recently moved house. Habit

discontinuity-based interventions may thus "unfreeze" these consumers' latently

present motivation by exploring opportunities to implement sustainable goals.

This segment may also be involved in community-based interventions, in this

case as participants rather than leaders, who may thus be encouraged to make

sustainable choices. Such interventions have the potential to provide resources

and social support which are particularly needed in this segment to overcome

barriers to change, while capitalising on their higher levels of motivation.

Caveats

Some caveats should be mentioned. An important caveat is that the

proposed model may not be not a 'proper' segmentation model, for instance such

as the ones that are used in marketing. While motivation, opportunity and habit

are core dimensions which lead to meaningful segments with respect to

sustainable behaviour, the question is where to find and how to approach these

people. In order to be useful, the model may function as a generic starting point,

which may then be furnished with more details in specific cases for a specific

behaviour, for instance by providing breakdowns in terms of income, household

composition, housing stock, location, and media use. Once segments have been

described in more detail, these may be more easily found and subjected to a

particular intervention. For example, the Weenig and Midden (1991) study

discussed above explicitly targeted their DIY insulation social network

programme to relatively poor areas with rental accommodations, where

residents did not have the resources and the permission to undertake structural

21

changes in their houses. Another example was provided by Grey and Dean

(2011). They used a segmentation of a population in terms of level of public

involvement in pro-environmental behaviours, and found differentiated

responses of the segments to hypothetical interventions to reduce electricity use

based on feedback versus reward, respectively. Other opportunities may arise

when new residential areas are being constructed, where a relatively

homogeneous population may be approached in a defined time frame. In sum, I

would argue that in specific contexts more detailed versions of the proposed

generic model can be construed, which can then be used to identify and target

well-defined population segments with the most effective intervention.

A second caveat is that segmentation models are reductions of complex

realities, in which a three-dimensional categorization (motivation, opportunity,

habit) may be too simplistic. More dimensions are involved in the success of

interventions, both with respect to individuals and households (e.g., personality,

household composition), as well as characteristics of the intervention context or

governing bodies (e.g., available resources, infrastructure). Again, more specific

versions of the generic model may be construed if and when other important

dimensions are identified in a specific context.

Finally, the model should not be taken to suggest that the various

approaches are confined to one segment, and will not be effective in others. An

example is the community-based interventions, which I suggested for two

segments, where Segment B individuals would be more likely to be 'leaders' and

Segment D individuals 'followers'. Also, in a given population all segments may

exist, and unless the purpose is to reach one particular segment, interventions

22

will have to include combinations of approaches and methods (e.g., Abrahamse

et al., 2005).

Conclusion

Sustainable development is a long-term commitment and investment.

While the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2016a) constitute

a desired configuration of values, reaching those goals is a long and windy road.

This article aims to make a contribution by highlighting individual and

household behaviour change as one of the tracks on that road. The traditional

ways of "teaching and preaching" has not resulted in mass population behaviour

change. A range of different approaches and interventions to promote

sustainable behaviour have been developed over the past few decades. The

segmentation model aims to provide a theory-based framework to integrate

these approaches. I hope this offers a tool that contributes to empower those

who are engaged in policy making and behaviour change interventions.

Although sustainability may not be an extremely popular concept, the

good news is that there have always been individuals and groups who are highly

motivated to carry this agenda forward. In the segmentation model these were

identified as the 'Segment B' individuals. My sincere hope is that when our great-

grandchildren look back at the first decades of the twenty-first century, they will

be thankful and proud that these motivated people have never given up, and thus

made sure they inhabit a sustainable world which lives within its means, and

preserves our precious environment for the generations then to come.

5,609 words

23

References

Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T. 2005. A review of intervention

studies aimed at energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology

25(3): 273-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002.

Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179-211. DOI: 10.1016/0749-

5978(91)90020-T.

Ajzen I. 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the

theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32(4): 665-

683. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x.

Bamberg S. 2006. Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change

people’s travel behavior? Results from a theory-driven intervention study.

Environment and Behavior 38(6): 820–840. DOI:

10.1177/0013916505285091.

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and

Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-

environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27(1): 14-25.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002.

Bargh JA, Gollwitzer PM, & Oettingen G. 2014. Motivation. In Handbook of social

psychology (5th ed). Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G. (eds). Hoboken,. NJ:

Wiley; 268-316. DOI: 10.1002/9780470561119.

Barr S, Gilg AW, Ford N. 2005. The household energy gap: Examining the divide

between habitual- and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy

Policy 33(11): 1425-1444. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.016.

24

Becker LJ. 1978. Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field

study of residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology

63(4): 428–433.DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.428.

Beltramo T, Blalock G, Levine DI, Simons AM. 2015. The effect of marketing

messages and payment over time on willingness to pay for fuel-efficient

cookstoves. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 118: 333-345.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.04.025.

Bettman JW, Payne JR, Johnson EJ. 1993. The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge

University Press: New York.

Biel A, Dahlstrand U. 2005. Values and habits: A dual-process model. In

Environment Information and Consumer Behaviour. Krarup S, Russell CS

(eds). Elgar: Cheltenham; 33-50.

Biel A, Thøgersen J. 2007. Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: A review

of the evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental

behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology 28(1): 93-112. DOI:

10.1016/j.joep.2006.03.003.

Bohner G, Dickel N. 2011. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of

Psychology 62: 391-417. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609.

Chaiken S, Trope Y. 1999. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York:

Guilford.

Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct:

Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of

25

Personality and Social Psychology 58(6): 1015–1026. DOI: 10.1037/0022-

3514.58.6.1015.

Clark B, Chatterjee K, Melia S. 2016. Changes to commute mode: The role of life

events spatial context and environmental attitude. Transportation Research

Part A 89: 89-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.005.

de Groot JIM, Steg L. 2008. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to

environmentally significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic,

and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior 40(3): 330-

354. DOI: 10.1177/0013916506297831.

Dobson A. 2007. Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development.

Sustainable Development 15(5): 276-285. DOI: 10.1002/sd344.

Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Hartcourt,

Brace, & Janovich.

Fujii S, Gärling T, Kitamura R. 2001. Changes in drivers' perceptions and use of

public transport during a freeway closure: Effects of temporary structural

change on cooperation in a real-life social dilemma. Environment and

Behaviour 33(6): 796-808. DOI: 10.1177/00139160121973241.

Gabe-Thomas E, Walker I, Verplanken B, Shaddick G. 2016. Householders' mental

models of domestic energy consumption: Using a sort-and-cluster method to

identify shared concepts of appliance similarity. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0158949.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158949.

Gallup (2014). Climate change not a top worry in the U.S.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

[February 2017].

26

Gifford R. 2011. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate

change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist 66(4): 290-302.

DOI: 10.1037/a0023566.

Grey DM, Bean B. 2011. Can social marketing segmentation initiatives be used to

increase household electricity conservation? Journal of Non-Profit and Public

Sector Marketing 23(3): 269-305. DOI: 10.1080/10495142.595971.

Hafner RJ, Walker I, Verplanken B. 2017. Image not environmentalism: A

qualitative exploration of factors influencing vehicle purchasing decisions.

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 97, 89-105. DOI:

10.1016/j.tra.2017.01.012.

Holland RW, Aarts H, & Langendam D. 2006. Breaking and creating habits on the

work floor: A field experiment on the power of implementatyion intentions.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(6): 776-783. DOI:

10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.006.

Hoogland CT, de Boer J, Boersema JJ. 2007. Food and sustainability: Do

consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on

production standards? Appetite 49(1): 47-57. DOI:

10.1016/j.appet.2006.11.009.

Hopwood B, Mellon M, O'Brien G. 2005. Sustainable development: Mapping

different approaches. Sustainable Development 13(1): 38-52. DOI:

10.1002/sd.244.

Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelley JJ. 1953. Communication and persuasion. Yale

University Press: New Haven.

27

Ipsos MORI. 2016. Economist / Ipsos MORI May 2016 Issues Index.

https://wwwipsos-moricom/researchpublications/researcharchive/3736/

Economist-Ipsos-MORI-May-2016-Issues-Indexaspx [26 August 2016]

Jackson T. 2005. Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on

consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Policy Studies Institute:

London.

Jones CHD, Ogilvie D. 2012. Motivations for active commuting: A qualitative

investigation of the period of home or work relocation. International Journal

of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity 9: 109. DOI: 10.1186/1479-

5868-9-109.

Jugert P, Greenaway KH, Barth M, Büchner R, Eisentraut S, Fritsche I. 2016.

Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through

increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology 48: 12-23. DOI:

10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.003.

Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under

risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263-292. DOI: 10.2307/1914185.

Klöckner C. 2013. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental

behaviour - A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 1028-

1038. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014.

Kurz T, Gardner B, Verplanken B, Abraham C. 2015. Habitual behaviours or

patterns of practice? Explaining and changing repetitive climate-relevant

actions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 6(1): 113-128. DOI:

10.1002/wcc.327.

28

Lokhorst AM, Werner C, Staats H, van Dijk E, Gale JL. 2013. Commitment and

behavior change: A meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-making

strategies in environmental research. Environment and Behavior 45(1): 3-34.

DOI: 10.1177/0013916511411477.

Loorbach D, Rotmans J. 2010. The practice of transition management: Examples

and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42(3): 237-246.

Luyben, PD. 1982. Prompting thermostat setting behavior: Public response to a

presidential appeal for conservation. Environment and Behavior 14(1), 113–

128. DOI: 10.1177/0013916582141007.

Maio, G. R. (2017). The psychology of values. London: Routledge.

Midden CJH, Meter JE, Weenig MH, & Zieverink HJA. 1983. Using feedback,

reinforcement and information to reduce energy consumption in

households: A field-experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology 3(1): 65–86.

Morren M, Grinstein A. 2016. Explaining environmental behavior across borders:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 47: 91-106. DOI:

10.1016/j.envp.2016.05.003.

Nilsson A, Schuitema G, Jakobsson Berstad C, Martinsson J, Thorson M. 2016. The

road to acceptance: Attitude change before and after the implementation of a

congestion tax. Journal of Environmental Psychology 46: 1-9. DOI:

10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.011.

Palmer J, Cooper I. 2012. United Kingdom housing energy fact file. Department of

Energy and Climate Change: London.

29

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. 1986. Communication and persuasion: Central and

peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer: New York.

Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C. 2004. Values, environmental concern, and

environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment

and Behavior 36(1): 70-93. DOI: 10.1177/0013916503251466.

Reckwitz A. 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: a development in

culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243–263. DOI:

10.1177/13684310222225432.

Rogers BL, Vardaman JM, Allen DG, Muslin IS, Brock Baskin M. 2016. Turning up

by turning over: The change of scenery effect in major league baseball

Journal of Business Psychology published online. DOI 101007/s10869-016-

9468-3.

Roy D, Verplanken B, Griffin C. 2015. Making sense of sustainability: Exploring

the subjective meaning of sustainable consumption. Applied Environmental

Education and Communication 14(3): 187-195. DOI:

10.1080/1533015X.2015.1067581.

Schuitema G, Steg L, Forward S. 2010. Explaining differences in acceptability

before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in

Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44(2): 99-

109. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2009.11.005.

Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. 2007. The

constructive destructive and reconstructive power of social norms

Psychological Science 18(5): 429-434. DOI: 0.1111/j.1467-

9280.2007.01917.x.

30

Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology 25: 1–65. DOI: 10.1.1.220.3674.

Slavin, R. E., Wodanski, J. S., & Blackburn, B. L. (1981). A group contingency for

electricity conservation in master-metered apartments. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis 14(3): 357–363. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-357.

Sparks P, Shepherd R. 1992. Self-identity and the theory of planned behaviour:

Assessing the role of identification with green consumerism. Social

Psychology Quarterly 55(4): 388-399. DOI: jstor.org/stable/2786955.

Staats H, Harland P, Wilke HAM. 2004. Effecting durable change: A team

approach to improve environmental behaviour in the household.

Environment and Behaviour 36(3): 341-367. DOI:

10.1177/0013916503260163.

Staats HJ, Wit AP, Midden CYH. 1996. Communicating the greenhouse effect to

the public: Evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma

perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 46(2): 189–203. DOI:

10.1006/jema.1996.0015.

Steg L, Perlaviciute G, van der Werff E. 2015. Understanding the human

dimensions of a sustainable transition. Frontiers in Psychology 6, Article 805.

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805.

Steg L, Vlek C. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative

review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology 29(3):

309-317. DOI: 10.1016/j.envp.2008.10.004.

31

Stern PC. 2000a. Psychology and the science of human-environment interactions.

American Psychologist 55(5): 523–530. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.523.

Stern PC. 2000b. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of

environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407-427.

DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175.

Stranieri S, Ricci EC, Banterle A. 2017. Convenience food with environmentally-

sustainable attributes: A consumer perspective. Appetite 116: 11-20. DOI:

10.1016/j.appet.2017.04.015.

Sutcliffe M, Hooper P, Howell R. 2008. Can eco-footfrinting analysis be used

successfully to encourage more sustainable behaviour at the household

level? Sustainable Development 16(1): 1-16. DOI: 10.1002/sd327.

Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health wealth

and happiness. Yale University Press: London.

Thomas GO, Poortinga W, Sautkina E. 2016a. Habit discontinuity self-activation

and the diminishing influence of context change: Evidence from the UK

Understanding Society Survey. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0153490. DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0153490.

Thomas GO, Poortinga W, Sautkina E. 2016b. The Welsh single-user carrier bag

charge and environmental spillover. Journal of Environmental Psychology 47:

126-135. DOI: 10.1016/j.envp.2016.05.008.

Thøgersen J. 2012. The importance of timing for breaking commuters’ car driving

habits. In The habits of consumption. Warde A, Southerton D (eds). Helsinki

Collegium for Advances Studies: Helsinki; 130-140.

32

Thøgersen J, Haugaard P, Olesen A. 2010. Consumer responses to ecolabels.

European Journal of Marketing 44(11-12): 1787-1810. DOI:

10.1108/03090561011079882.

Thøgersen J., Ölander F. 2002. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable

consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology 23(5):

605-630. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00120-4.

Thøgersen J., Ölander F. 2006. The dynamic interaction of person al norms and

environment-friendly buying behaviour: A panel study. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology 36(7): 1758-1780. DOI: 10.1111/j.0021-

9029.2006.00080.x.

Triandis HC. 1977. Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing

Company.

United Nations. 2016a. Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our

world. http://wwwunorg/sustainabledevelopment/ [3 October 2016]

United Nations. 2016b. Paris Agreement United Nations Treaty Collection 8 July

2016.

Van Houwelingen JH, Van Raaij FW. 1989. The effect of goal- setting and daily

electronic feedback on in-home energy use. Journal of Consumer Research 16

(1): 98–105.

Van Lange PAM, Joireman J, Parks CD, Van Dijk E. 2013. The psychology of social

dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

120: 125-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003.

Verplanken B, Aarts HAG. 1999. Habit attitude and planned behaviour: Is habit

33

an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity?

European Review of Social Psychology 10(1): 101–134. DOI:

10.1080/14792779943000035.

Verplanken B, Aarts H, van Knippenberg A. 1997. Habit information acquisition

and the process of making travel mode choices. European Journal of Social

Psychology 27(5): 539-560. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-

0992(199709/10)27:5<539::AID-EJSP831>3.0.CO;2-A.

Verplanken B, Holland RW. 2002. Motivated decision-making: Effects of

activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 82(3): 434-447. DOI: 10.1037/0022-

3514.82.3.434.

Verplanken B, Roy D. 2013. “My worries are rational climate change is not”:

Habitual ecological worrying is an adaptive response. PLoS ONE 8(9):

e74708. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074708.

Verplanken B, Roy D. 2015. Consumer habits and sustainable consumption. In

Handbook of sustainable consumption. Reisch L, Thøgersen J (eds). Edward

Elgar: Cheltenham, UK; 243-253.

Verplanken B, Roy D. 2016. Empowering interventions to promote sustainable

lifestyles: Testing the habit discontinuity hypothesis in a field experiment.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 127-134. DOI:

10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.008.

Verplanken B, Walker I, Davis A, Jurasek M. 2008. Context change and travel

mode choice: Combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation

34

hypotheses. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28(2): 121-127. DOI:

10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.005.

Verplanken B, Wood W. 2006. Interventions to break and create consumer

habits. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 25(1): 90-103. DOI:

10.1509/jppm.25.1.90.

Walker I, Thomas GO, Verplanken B. 2015. Old habits die hard: Travel habit

formation and decay during an office relocation. Environment & Behavior

47(10): 1089-1106. DOI: 10.1177/0013916514549619.

Weenig MW, Midden CJ. 1991. Communication network influences on

information diffusion and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 61(5): 734-742. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.5.734.

Weenig MWH, Midden CJH. 1997. Mass-media information campaigns and

knowledge gap effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27(11): 945-958.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00280.x.

White K, Simpson B. 2013. When do (and don't) normative appeals influence

sustainable consumer behaviors? Journal of Marketing 77(2): 78-95. DOI:

10.1509/jm.11.0278.

Whitmarsh L. 2009. Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetries of

intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3): 305-314.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.003.

Whitmarsh L, O'Neill S. 2010. Green identity green living? The role of pro-

environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-

environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3): 305-

314. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003.

35

Wood W, Neal DT. 2007. A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface.

Psychological Review 114(4): 843–863. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843.

Wood W, Quinn JM, Kashy DA. 2002. Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion,

and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (6): 1281-1297.

Wood W, Rünger D. 2016. Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology 67:

11.1-11.26. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common

Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Young W, Hwang K, McDonald S, Oates CJ. 2010. Sustainable consumption: Green

consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development

18(1): 20-31. DOI: 10.1002/sd.394.

36

Figure 1: A segmentation model of sustainable behaviour

DESIGN CHOICEARCHITECTURE

HIGH

LOW

Motivation to act

LOW HIGH

High potentialand willing

Low potentialbut willing

Low potentialand unwilling

High potentialbut unwilling

INCENTIVIZE EMPOWER

SUPPORT

Opportunity to act

A B

C D

. Rewards

. Fiscal measures

. Mental models

. Goal setting

. Commitment

. Community-based

. Legislation

. Infrastructure

. Feedback

. Habit discontinuity

. Community-based

Weak unsustainable habits(Potentially) strongsustainable habits

Strongunsustainable habits

37