social experiments in sustainable consumption: an evidence-based approach with potential for...

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 01 December 2014, At: 22:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Social experiments in sustainableconsumption: an evidence-basedapproach with potential for engaginglow-income communitiesTom Hargreaves a , Michael Nye a & Jacquelin Burgess aa School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia ,Norwich, UKPublished online: 11 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Tom Hargreaves , Michael Nye & Jacquelin Burgess (2008) Social experimentsin sustainable consumption: an evidence-based approach with potential for engaging low-incomecommunities, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 13:8,743-758, DOI: 10.1080/13549830802475666

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830802475666

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13549830802475666

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830802475666

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Social experiments in sustainableconsumption: an evidence-basedapproach with potential for engaginglow-income communities

Tom Hargreaves�, Michael Nye and Jacquelin Burgess

School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

ABSTRACT This paper considers the potential of Global Action Plan UK’s (GAP) facilitatedteam-based approach to changing consumption practices for working with low-incomecommunities. It outlines the two dominant approaches for encouraging sustainableconsumption in UK policy: attitude–behaviour connection models (A–Bc) and consumermotivation theories. It then contrasts these with GAP’s group-based approach and presentsquantitative evidence for its effectiveness in reducing waste and electricity consumption. Wesuggest that three features of GAP’s approach (i) measurement and feedback, (ii) contextualisedknowledge production, and (iii) a supportive social context are critical to its success becausethey enable individuals to expose their taken-for-granted routines and behaviours to reflexivescrutiny in a trusted community. We argue that these factors make GAP’s approach sensitive tothe needs of low-income communities, but that such innovative social experiments requiremore support to build on their experiences, expand in size, and maintain a focus on bothsustainable consumption and inequality.

Keywords: sustainable consumption; pro-environmental behaviour change; inequality;group-based approaches; Global Action Plan

Introduction

Gross inequalities in consumption patterns between the affluent North and poorcountries of the South drove the emergence of sustainable development in thelate 1980s and early 1990s (United Nations 1987). But it is clear Gandhi’s rallyingcry that “the rich must live more simply so that the poor can simply live” equally

Local EnvironmentVol. 13, No. 8, 743–758, December 2008

�Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

1354-9839 Print/1469-6711 Online/08/080743-16# 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13549830802475666http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

applies to the increasing gulf between poorer and more affluent communitieswithin countries. Poor families spend a much higher percentage of their incomeon basic provisioning such as domestic heating and food (Dowler et al. 2001,Summerton 2004) and, contrary to received wisdom, often consume morebecause goods that they purchase require replacement more often (Wilk 2004).If “behavioural change is fast becoming the ‘holy grail’ for sustainable develop-ment policy” (Jackson 2005, p. xi), then the question of whether, and how, thelives of poorer families might be improved through pro-environmental behaviourchange interventions is a fundamental element of the quest.

In this paper, we discuss an approach to behaviour change based on the use ofteams developed by Global Action Plan in the UK (hereafter GAP). GAP, anational charity and member of the international family of Global Action Planorganisations (Georg 1999), leads practical experiments in behaviour change. Inthe late 1990s, GAP launched a programme called Small Change working withlow-income communities in East London and the North West to find ways of redu-cing fuel and food poverty while also addressing sustainability goals (GlobalAction Plan UK 2000). Funded by starter grants from government, this earlyinitiative was not able to secure sufficient support to expand its remit and has sub-sequently been rolled up into GAP’s EcoTeam projects (see below). We will there-fore focus in this paper on GAP’s generic, team-based approach to changingconsumption practices, reflecting on what lessons this might have for futurework with disadvantaged groups.

First, to indicate the theoretical and policy context of GAP’s approach, webriefly outline the two dominant approaches to pro-environmental behaviourchange: attitude–behaviour connection models (A–Bc), and consumer motivationtheories (CMT) in theory and current policy practice. Second, we summariseGAP’s team-based approach working with residential communities, workplacesand schools. Third, and for the first time, we present quantitative evidence of beha-vioural changes based on 6 years data, which suggest that GAP’s approach iscapable of delivering real and substantive reductions in environmental impacts.Fourth, we outline three aspects of the team-based approach that merit furtherresearch and social experimentation: (i) measurement and feedback, (ii) contex-tualised knowledge production, and (iii) a supportive social context. We arguethat these three factors are critical to the effectiveness of GAP’s approachbecause they enable individuals to safely expose their taken-for-granted routinesand behaviours to reflexive scrutiny in a trusted community of peers or colleagues.We conclude by suggesting that the combination of these factors makes GAP’sapproach especially sensitive to the needs of low-income communities, but thatmore consistent support is needed for such innovative social experiments if theyare to build on their experiences, expand in size, and maintain a simultaneousfocus on both sustainable consumption and inequality.

Pro-environmental behaviour change: dominant perspectives

Attitude–behaviour connection models (A–Bc) and mass media campaigns

Traditional models of pro-environmental behaviour change posit a causal relationshipbetween beliefs, values, attitudes, and observed behaviour. The attitude–behaviour

744 T. Hargreaves et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

connection (A–Bc) is rational: behaviour will change if the receipt of newinformation challenges or creates dissonance with existing cognitive schema(Festinger 1957). Information is therefore the basis of the A–Bc models, andself-interested utility for the individual is its intended outcome (Fishbein 1973).

In the 1970s, the insight that environmental problems are consequences of“maladaptive human behaviour” (Maloney and Ward 1973) led social and beha-vioural scientists to undertake experimental and public opinion research. Thissought to measure environmental beliefs, values, attitudes, and knowledge and toestablish a causal relationship between these variables and specific, (usually self-reported) environmental behaviours (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, Dunlap and VanLiere 1978, De Young 1986, Vining and Ebreo 1992, Stern 2000). In general, thisresearch has managed only to establish weak linkages between generalised pro-environmental attitudes and environmentally responsible behaviour (Ungar 1994,Bamberg 2003, Thøgersen 2004, Poortinga et al. 2004). Where attitudes do reliablypredict behaviours, it is in relation to context-specific attitudes/values and specificbehaviours (Vining and Ebreo 1992, Axelrod and Lehman 1993). Findings likethese led Ungar (1994) to conclude that the “environment” is a meta-category,too abstract to produce the kinds of causal relationships proposed by A–Bc theory.

In light of these shortcomings, several refinements have been made to try toimprove the predictive qualities of A–Bc models. Some attempt to bridge thevalue-action gap (Blake 1999), most notably Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theoryof reasoned action or Ajzen’s (1991) updated theory of planned behaviour whichintroduced new variables such as subjective norms and perceptions of behaviouralcontrol. Stern (2000) and colleagues have developed the value–belief–norm modelwhich relies more on socially derived notions of altruism and environmental beliefsto predict behaviour. However, as a range of recent studies show, difficulties remainin predicting pro-environmental behaviours from such models (De Young 2000,Kaplan 2000, Knussen et al. 2004, Mannetti et al. 2004). As more intermediaryfactors are identified, the main effect is less an increase in explanatory power ofthe models, but more an increase in their complexity, resulting in methodologicallimitations for their application (interested readers should see Jackson [2005] fora detailed review of these approaches).

Despite these weaknesses, A–Bc theory in one form or another has underpinnedpolicy attempts to encourage pro-environmental behaviour change over the lastthree decades. Its practical application focuses on information provision to raiseawareness of behaviours which have detrimental environmental consequencesand to provide expert instruction and guidance on what changes individualsshould make. These awareness-information-decision-action programmes (AIDA)are aimed at manipulating the attitude–behaviour relationship and, in the UK,have largely taken the form of mass-media information campaigns such asHelping the Earth Begins at Home (Hinchliffe 1996, Blake 1999) and Are YouDoing Your Bit? (Barr 2003, DEMOS 2003). Although tracker questionnairesurveys record higher levels of public awareness during and immediately aftersuch campaigns, this awareness rarely becomes a primary driver for behaviourchange (Harrison et al. 1996, Burgess et al. 1998). Information may be a necessarycomponent of action, but it is not sufficient (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999).Critics of the AIDA approach question its paternalistic, exhortatory style, its

Local Environment 745

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

costliness, and ineffectiveness in delivering observable behavioural changes(Bedford et al. 2004, Poortinga et al. 2004). In light of these criticisms, over thelast few years, there have been developments both in theoretical and policy con-texts to better promote pro-environmental behaviour change.

CMT and social marketing: a new policy paradigm or more of the same?

Current policy discourse in the UK appears to recognise the limitations of mass infor-mation approaches (House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 2003,HM Government 2005, Sustainable Consumption Roundtable 2006). Particularlythrough the influential work of Jackson and colleagues (Jackson and Marks 1999,Jackson et al. 2004), UK policy-makers are beginning to engage with social theorythat emphasises the importance of social symbols to human action and the culturalsignificance of consumption practices. Under its rubric, CMT embraces the complex-ity of personal and social benefits derived from consumption practices and asks howthese might be diverted into more sustainable pathways. Some strands of CMT havere-engaged with Maslow’s (1954) theory that a hierarchy of needs motivates humanbehaviour. Recognising the patronising overtones that such a hierarchical modeladopts towards the poor, Jackson and Marks (1999) brought Max-Neef’s taxonomyof needs (1991) into play to suggest that consumption practices fulfil a wide variety ofhuman needs for which “satisfiers” will vary through time and in different cultures.They map trends in UK consumption patterns from 1954 to 1994 and note theincreasing use of material satisfiers to fulfil non-material needs and conclude, as aresult, that “modern society is seriously adrift in its pursuit of human well-being”(Jackson and Marks 1999, p. 439).

Other academics, notably from anthropology, sociology, and the humanitiesreject the functionalist overtones of the needs debate (Douglas and Isherwood1979, Campbell 2003, Belk et al. 2003). From these perspectives, material con-sumption practices have profound symbolic importance since “everyday socialrelationships are created, maintained, symbolized and actualised using materialculture” (Wilk 2004, p. 26). In other words, the “needs” which material goodsfulfil are not universal. They are socially constructed, symbolic needs that are criti-cal to the formation of identities in social relations. These approaches highlight thepotential difficulties of changing individuals’ consumption patterns. The use ofmaterial goods as “synergistic satisfiers” (Max-Neef 1991) that simultaneouslyfulfil material and non-material needs suggests that people will not be willing tochange their consumption patterns without resistance. In particular, if goods areused to pursue social status, asking people to change their consumption patternsposes a significant threat to their self-identities.

In response to these theoretical advances, policy makers are beginning to adoptsocial marketing strategies to make sustainable consumption a more desirable life-style choice. Unlike traditional mass media campaigns, social marketing stronglysegments consumers and targets messages more closely to different socio-economicand demographic groups (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999, McKenzie-Mohr2000). Figure 1, for example, illustrates the UK Government’s latest behaviourchange strategy which has the hallmarks of a social marketing approach. Theseinclude a bricolage of different conceptual frameworks and a policy “intervention


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

mix” to encourage, enable, engage, and exemplify what is necessary to achievesustainable consumption and production.

Although the social and cultural underpinnings of CMT suggest a morecontextually embedded understanding of consumers’ activities, policy-makersstill rely on communication strategies to motivate pro-environmental behaviourchanges. Although trials of specific social marketing interventions have achievedsome success (McKenzie-Mohr 2000, Haq et al. 2008), the approach still funda-mentally depends on top-down information provision, in this case to socio-economically segmented groups of consumers in the hope that they will respondpositively. Thus, the primary difference between a social marketing and anAIDA strategy is that social marketing meets people “where they are”, developingtailored, more culturally relevant, and appealing messages often using techniquesborrowed from commercial advertising. The basic assumption of linkages betweenattitudes and behaviour that underpin the A–Bc models is still very much a part of

Figure 1. UK Government’s approach to behaviour change. Reproduced from HM Government(2005, p. 26).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

social marketing, even as it recognises that social cachet influences preferences.Shove (2003, p. 6) is particularly critical of such approaches, arguing that theydo little more than “encourage consumers to make ‘the environment’ theirpreferred brand”.

Issues of equity have largely been neglected in both A–Bc and CMT approaches(Agyeman and Evans 2004), although social marketing type initiatives have achievedlimited success in addressing issues such as fuel poverty (see, for example, the EnergySaving Trust; www.est.org.uk). However, the continued reliance on top-down infor-mation provision seems especially problematic when addressing low-income groups.Hearing exhortations to reduce consumption from the lips of distant and poorlytrusted official sources increases the likelihood of the messages, however finelycrafted, receiving a poor reception.

GAP’s team-based approach to behaviour change

Over the last 14 years, GAP has developed a distinctively social approach to changingroutine consumption practices. Some of this work is oriented towards low-incomecommunities. The charity began to experiment with engaging disadvantaged familiesin the mid-1990s. It commissioned an independent qualitative study to assess themost appropriate mechanisms for helping families to deal with food and fuelpoverty. This study, in Tower Hamlets, London, recommended that any workableprogramme would need to be based in a trustworthy local institution. The SmallChange programme, which grew out of this sought to work with local primaryschools to develop curriculum-based activities promoting healthy eating, recycling,and energy savings. Parents and carers were drawn into the project through arange of facilitated outreach activities based in the school. Groundwork helped tofund a trial of Small Change in NW England (1999–2000). This was followed bymore pilot work in two of the poorest London Boroughs. Despite considerable enthu-siasm from the participating boroughs and a more general commitment to roll outSmall Change, GAP was unable to secure DETR1 funding for expansion of the pro-gramme. Further innovation in this area has been hampered by changes in grant-aiding structures. As a small, independent charity, GAP has been obliged to devoteits energies since 2003 to other forms of intervention, and the development of exper-tise in engaging low-income communities has been hampered.

Running alongside Small Change during this time were GAP’s mainstream team-based programmes, including Action at School and Action at Work, and a socialmarketing approach called Action at Home (AaH). These were used extensively byLocal Authorities to support their Local Agenda 21 initiatives (Global Action PlanUK 2004). Hobson’s (2001, 2003) detailed critique of AaH’s social marketingapproach encouraged GAP to fully embrace the principle of achieving changethrough small groups of people working together: the charity revisited its inter-national sister organisations’ operation of EcoTeams (Staats and Harland 1995,Georg 1999, Staats et al. 2004), and substantially revised it for application withinUK communities.

Similar to other group-based behaviour change approaches such as “Weight-WatchersTM” (see www.weightwatchers.co.uk) and “Simplicity Circles” (seewww.newdream.org), GAP’s current approach has three distinctive features.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

First, “action-teams” who meet to discuss environmental issues and jointly designstrategies to change aspects of their everyday practices are drawn from relevant,pre-existing communities, e.g. a neighbourhood, workplace, or school. Second,the programmes use trained facilitators to focus discussions, coordinate meetings,and help clarify points of confusion. Third, participants are asked to weigh theirdomestic waste outputs and to read their electricity meters at regular intervalsthroughout the programme. These data are collected by GAP. The results aremade available to participants to show the impacts of the changes they are making.

As of 2006, GAP operates three programmes based on these core principles.EcoTeams is designed to change behaviours within households. Small teams ofsix to eight people are recruited from the same neighbourhood. Working with afacilitator and drawing on resources provided by the EcoTeams workbook andvideo (Global Action Plan UK 2006), the group meets once a month for 4months to discuss and practice changing their everyday routines. At eachmeeting, participants discuss the local and global issues pertaining to thatmonth’s theme (Waste, Energy, Water, Transport, etc.) and, starting from theireveryday routines and habits, consider the practical changes they could make athome as well as the limits to what it is possible for individuals to achieve.Between meetings, EcoTeam members try out changes, do some “homework”on the next month’s theme, and take regular measurements to monitor theimpacts their behavioural changes are having. EcoTeams have been recruited indifferent regions of England over the last 6 years, and the total number of teamsis approximately 390, totalling roughly 2300 people who have or are currentlyengaged in change. Ongoing research by Nye and Burgess (2008) is evaluatingthe contributions EcoTeam participation makes to household reductions inmunicipal solid waste (MSW) in a large-scale GAP project being undertaken insocio-economically differentiated neighbourhoods in Kent and Sussex.

Environment Champions takes place in the workplaces of organisations. Withthe support of senior management, action-teams of up to 20 employees are recruitedto drive the change initiative. The team hold a facilitated planning meeting wherethey design a strategy to reduce their environmental impacts (typically Energy orWaste). The meeting may involve planning structural changes such as installinglow-energy lightbulbs, as well as designing a campaign to change colleagues’ beha-viours. With these structural changes in place, the action-team then runs the cam-paign for 3–4 months with regular meetings, before a final facilitated meetingreviews the impact of the programme. Prior to the meetings, eco-audits arecarried out and the organisation commits to regular measurements of theirenergy and waste consumption. Environment Champions has been conducted inpublic, private and voluntary sector organisations ranging in size from 22 to over6000 employees. Action at School follows the same process: here the action-teamconsists of around 20 pupils who are supported by a “lead teacher” and a GAP facil-itator. Since its introduction in 1996, the programme has been run in over 160schools, the majority of which have been secondary schools, often involving excit-ing and creative techniques such as songs and plays written by pupils to communi-cate messages and which support more formal education.

In response to increasing government calls for evidence of behaviour change, wehave worked with GAP to analyse the quantitative data collected by the action


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

teams over the last 6 years. These are summarised in Table 1. Although there are someproblems with the collection of data, especially at household level which we discussbelow, the data in Table 1 demonstrate the quantified impact of GAP’s action-team-based approach to behaviour change.

Municipal solid waste disposal

As Table 1 shows, all three programmes achieve substantial reductions in MSW.The average results from the programmes are all highly statistically significant.Households are achieving an average reduction of nearly 20% over the inter-vention, with more striking reductions in workplaces (38%) and schools (43%).The data also illustrate the range between the highest and lowest teams in reducingMSW. Even in the worst cases, the Environment Champions and Action at Schoolprogrammes realise substantial savings. These savings are being achieved through acombination of increases in levels of recycling, increased composting, and areduction in the overall volume of waste. Early qualitative research (Nye andBurgess 2006) suggests that the EcoTeams programme encourages participants tominimise their waste by, for example, refusing packaging when shopping.

Table 1 also shows an apparent anomaly in MSW. In the worst case, oneEcoTeam apparently increased its MSW by 24%. We think this is most likely tobe a result of measurement error. Encouraging people to weigh their bin bags ona regular basis is challenging; measurement procedures are not necessarily standar-dised as some participants may weigh their waste using bathroom scales, whereasothers may use more accurate Salter scales. Moreover, it is not certain that partici-pants necessarily measure all their waste: for example, some may weigh only theirkitchen bin, whereas others may weigh all waste put out for collection. Althoughabsolute figures from the domestic sector may therefore be unreliable, we haveassumed that similar errors were made in both before and after measurementsand thus the observed changes have a greater degree of validity. But there may

Table 1. Quantitative results from GAP UK’s team-based programmes.

ChangeEcoTeams

(n ¼ 58 teams)

EnvironmentChampions

(n ¼ 44 teams)

Action atSchool

(n ¼ 84 teams)

MSWMax 246.90% 270.00% 283.00%Min þ23.93% 213.00% 22.10%Average 219.66% 237.96% 242.65%

RecyclingAverage proportion of recycling þ7.71% No data No data

ElectricityMax 240.64% 222.00% 234.00%Min þ57.69% þ3.74% þ15.00%Average 26.86% 212.07% 212.00%

Note: All average figures are statistically significant to P � 0.01 using a paired sample t-test.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

also be other factors in play. The EcoTeams programme lasts for 4 months. Livingsituations, family sizes, and lifestyles can change dramatically over this period andthis is not accounted for in the current data set. Finally, we cannot rule out the possi-bility of active resistance to change from other members of the household, adynamic that merits further research (Gram-Hanssen 2004).

Electricity consumption

Table 1 demonstrates that all three programmes also achieved statistically signifi-cant reductions in electricity consumption. Across the different sectors, theEcoTeam households were achieving an average reduction of nearly 7%, whereasthe reductions in workplaces and schools were consistent at 12%. Again, therange between the maximum and minimum is interesting. It is worth noting the sub-stantial improvements the programmes make in organisational performance andthat these are higher than those by EcoTeam households. There is evidence tosuggest that EcoTeam volunteers are already pro-environmental and undertakingactions at home which means their baseline performance is better than the majorityof households in the UK, and there is less opportunity for “easy wins”. Certainly,this was the case in the Dutch EcoTeam experiment (Staats et al. 2004).

In the worst cases, however, all three programmes generated apparent increases inenergy consumption. In the Environment Champions programme, one result shows a3.74% increase in electricity use, although this is explained by a growth in organis-ation size during the programme for which the data set has not been adjusted.Similar factors may account for the school result. The 57.69% increase for oneEcoTeam might be accounted for by measurement error, although additionallythere is no seasonal adjustment in the data set. GAP is working to address theseissues by producing an online database to which participants can directly add theirdata during meetings, which will account for seasonal variation and organisationalgrowth and will provide detailed and standardised instructions on measurementprocedures.

Although we should not expect savings in electricity to equal those achieved inwaste because different structural and behavioural changes are required for each,interviews with programme facilitators have suggested that it can be hard to encou-rage participants to discuss issues other than waste (Nye and Burgess 2006). Theyexplain that 15–20 years of “thou shalt recycle” messages coming from local andcentral government organisations have produced an assumption that “takingenvironmental action” means “recycling” and nothing more. This highlights a poten-tial problem with initiatives that aim to change only single behaviours, however care-fully they are targeted. Against this background, persuading people that more is nowrequired and that “carbon reduction” to meet the 60% target for 2050 needs to beadded to waste reduction will be challenging, but it would appear from theseinitial data that GAP’s action-team approach may offer one effective way forward.

The strengths of a team-based approach to pro-environmental behaviour change

To date, Staats et al. (2004) provide the most detailed analysis and evaluation ofthe EcoTeams model. The original Harland and Staats study (1997) demonstrated


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

that the changes in domestic routines effected by Dutch EcoTeam householdsremained in place 2 years after the end of the intervention. Statistical analysisusing a matched control group showed clearly that the changes made were adirect consequence of participation in the EcoTeam process. Staats et al. (2004)conclude that the unique combination of information provision, feedback, andsocial interaction afforded by EcoTeams was the key to achieving the durablepro-environmental behaviour changes observed. But the onerous nature of theinternational model (with expectations of 9 months participation by households,a workbook running to some 800 pages, and tens of different measurements)meant that only the most enthusiastic and dedicated households take part (seealso Georg 1999). The authors conclude a “streamlined” EcoTeam process –“a leaner instrument. . .would be a precious instrument in the struggle for pro-environmental change” (Staats et al. 2004, p. 363). Unusually, for a small NGO,GAP has worked closely with the academic community2 over the last decade, in aseries of social experiments designed to produce the “leaner instrument” requiredto meet the task of shifting consumption practices into more sustainable path-ways (Maiteny 2000, Hobson 2001, 2003, Michaelis 2004). Having received evi-dence from GAP in its 2003 enquiry into Education for Sustainable Developmentand visited an EcoTeam in Nottingham, the Environmental Audit Committee(House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 2003) urged the govern-ment to fund the expansion of the EcoTeams programme into diverse commu-nities across the UK to support further experimentation and evaluation. In thefollowing discussion, it will be clear we concur with Staats et al. (2004) withrespect to the importance of measurement and feedback and the importance ofsocial interaction in the action-teams, but we emphasise the critical importanceto team members of facilitated discussions and practical actions that allowthem to contextualise environmental knowledge claims within their own dom-estic (and workplace-based) practices.

Measurement and feedback

The process of measuring and receiving feedback on specific changes in routinebehaviours helps action-team participants gauge their environmental impacts inboth an absolute and a relative sense. Absolute changes in, for example, amountsof waste are directly experienced by weighing: “I really, really enjoy weighing mycompost and I’m actually doing it all the time now because I’m doing a small com-munity composting. And I get so excited if I get 5 kilos – that’s unbelievable!”(comment from an EcoTeam participant; see Nye and Burgess 2006). Both A–Bcand CMT paradigms suggest that feedback is important for behaviour changebecause it offers a sense of efficacy, intrinsic satisfaction, and competence (Eden1993, De Young 1993, 2000). Testimony from action-team members supportsthis claim: “It makes you aware of how much you’re using because it’s almost anon-thing for you to turn on the tap or switch on electricity . . . I didn’t have theconnection with the energy before. Although I did find it a bit of a pain I have tosay I’m glad I did it”. We would argue, however, that measurement and feedbackis much more effective in conjunction with peer group discussion. Its effectivenessstems from allowing participants to expose their taken-for-granted routines and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

behaviours to reflexive scrutiny in the context of the environmental issues beingdiscussed, and in comparison with other members of the group. The process ofmeasurement and feedback, however, can act as a deterrent to recruitment aseven committed EcoTeam members acknowledge: “My heart sank! I thought‘not another job to do’, as we work and everything else and already being up tomy eyeballs. . .”. Second, and as discussed above, when participants are committedenough to take measurements, there are some problems with the ways in which dataare produced. More development work is needed to increase standardisation andreliability of measurements, since these are fundamental to claims about the effec-tiveness of this kind of intervention. It is worth noting that data variability is less ofan issue with action-teams based in organisations where administrative mechan-isms are already in place to record waste and energy consumption.

Contextualised knowledge

The second important element of the action-team approach is that it is capableof generating three distinct types of locally contextualised knowledge. First,knowledge of global environmental issues comes from the workbook, the facil-itator, and from “homework” whereby participants are encouraged to talk withfamily and friends, follow media debates, and seek out further information viathe internet, etc. Second, knowledge of local environmental issues, local facilitiesand programmes for action, and crucially, ideas and methods for change withinthe household emerge from the groups’ discussions. Third, and as mentionedabove, knowledge of participants’ own personal environmental impacts comesfrom the measurement processes. Local, tacit knowledge and contextualisationare paramount. Unlike the dominant approaches which provide information(however well targeted) in a top-down fashion, in GAP-facilitated action-teams, practical solutions for change are exchanged between members. Ratherthan making assumptions about what behaviours people perform and howthey should be changed, the group discussions start from what groupmembers actually do, how they make sense of it to themselves, and whatchanges they think are realistic. Information is therefore immediately discussedin participants’ own language and related to their everyday lifestyles. Atrained facilitator is present to clarify matters should the need arise. In allthree contexts – home, work, and school – GAP programmes seem to have sur-mounted communication problems which beset dominant policy measures(DEMOS 2003, Darnton 2004a,b, Hounsham 2006). The programmes createa “localised deliberative space” within which participants critically reflect onwhat Georg (1999) calls the “conventional logic of everyday life”. Given thespace (and time) to work together, with highly relevant information, action-teams enable social learning to take place in which members develop theirown expertise in living more sustainably. The approach thus differs fundamen-tally from those discussed earlier which involve top-down information provision,and we believe this makes it especially appropriate for use with low-incomegroups. Rather than suggesting that distanced and dis-embedded policy-makers(Hobson 2002) have the expertise to tell these groups how they should changetheir consumption practices, GAP’s approach “hands over the stick” (Chambers


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

1997) to group members enabling them to define their own sustainable lifestylesbased on their shared experience and ways of living.

Supportive social contexts and the value of a teambased approach for low-income communities

One major distinction between GAP’s action-team approach and other behaviourchange initiatives is the employment of trained facilitators to recruit and then leadthe deliberations of the action-teams. The combination produces a supportivecontext in which participants feel confident enough to experiment with newways of behaving. The dominant approaches assume that existing behaviourscan be unproblematically replaced with more sustainable practices. GAP’s pro-grammes recognise, however, that changing lifestyles involves a potentially unset-tling process of re-negotiating what counts as appropriate behaviour in differentcontexts (Georg 1999, Burgess et al. 2003). The importance of supportingpeople through this process cannot be underestimated and GAP’s facilitatorshelp to provide this support. Facilitators never criticise participants or pressurisethem to undertake particular behavioural changes. Instead, they support partici-pants in making whatever changes they deem practical and appropriate. Facilita-tors also try to generate a convivial atmosphere within discussions in which allparticipants feel that their thoughts and opinions are valued. Furthermore, inter-views with facilitators suggest that the group dynamics of the teams also help toprovide a supportive context. They suggest that drawing teams together fromexisting social networks is helpful as participants can support each other moreeffectively as they undertake the programmes (Nye and Burgess 2008).

In the case of lower-income communities, such as those originally targeted by theEcoTeams programme, this contextually sensitive approach might prove to be par-ticularly beneficial. Whereas some current environmental policy approaches, suchas those taking the social marketing approach, pay at least some regard to“context” there is little real commitment in current policy efforts to engagingpeople “where they are” in terms of factors such as levels of education, ethnic back-ground, or community life. Much research on the diffusion of innovations or ideaswithin populations and sub-groups suggests that social interaction and the structureof relationships can affect the power of ideas and the degree to which they are favour-ably diffused through a population living in similar circumstances (see Burt (1987,1999) for an introduction to these ideas). Although we do not wish to engage inany in-depth discussion of the fairly complicated field of social network theory, wedo wish to make the more general point that pro-environmental behaviour changeis facilitated through contextualised interaction, as well as direct intervention.

EcoTeams builds in a significant degree of contextualisation and pre-existingsocial ties by recruiting participants from the same neighbourhoods and roughlythe same living circumstances. In this respect, it harnesses the power of in-builtsocial networks both to attract participants and spread ideas and rationales forpositive change more effectively. Preliminary research for the low-income SmallChange project identified the importance of establishing a trustworthy sourcefrom which to network out into the wider community. In this case, and as pre-viously discussed, local primary schools were identified as offering potential to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

engage children in curriculum-based activities such as more healthy eating. Theseinitiatives could then be supported further through school “gardening clubs” inwhich parents, carers, and children worked together to prepare meals from thevegetables they had grown and harvested (Global Action Plan UK 2000). Althoughfunding constraints curtailed further development of these programmes, GAP’scurrent approach retains the core belief that information from peers, colleagues,and neighbours who perform similar practices in similar settings is likely to bemore relevant and trusted and therefore more useful and effective in attempts todevelop personal strategies for more sustainable living.

Conclusions

In this short paper, we have shown that GAP’s action-team-based approach can helpindividuals, families, and organisations to take more control over their everyday rou-tines and make more informed choices about what to do. More research is needed tofully evaluate the mechanisms and reasons for the apparent success of the approach;in particular, there is a need for longitudinal research to establish whether, and forhow long, changes in routines remain changed. There are also three major challengesto the further expansion of the action-team approach, especially in communitiesrather than organisations. The first is recruitment: evidence so far suggests that themajority of EcoTeam members are already predisposed to environmental action.Attending regular group meetings is vital to success but is also time-consuming andcan be off-putting for potential members. GAP continues to experiment with differentmethods of recruitment, from door-knocking to recruiting groups through existingnetworks, e.g. the Quakers or Women’s Institute. The second is a concern that facili-tated EcoTeams are costly relative to the numbers of people they reach. The third is aneed for consistent priorities from funding agencies to support the development ofeffective and innovative social experiments which address both sustainable consump-tion and inequality at the same time.

In regard to low-income communities, addressing these challenges would appearall the more important to addressing intractable problems of food and fuel poverty.As the results in this paper have shown, GAP’s approach helps achieve significantenvironmental savings. Given that lower-income families spend a higher pro-portion of their disposable income on energy costs, savings like these could alsomake a substantial contribution to financial well-being. The question remains:how can innovative social experimentation be supported in a way that builds effec-tively on previous experience, while at the same time taking into account the par-ticular challenges of working in low income communities?

Notes

1. The Department for Environment, Transport, and the Regions (DETR) merged with the Ministry of Agricul-

ture, Fisheries, and Food (MAFF) to become the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs(DEFRA) in 2001.

2. Jacquelin Burgess joined the Board of Trustees for GAP in 1996 (acting as Chair from 2000–06), establishing

links with researchers in the Geography department at University College, London, and, more recently,with researchers in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA). ESRC

funded a CASE studentship (Hobson 2001) to evaluate GAP’s programmes, and DEFRA is currently


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

funding an evaluation of the effectiveness of EcoTeams in reducing domestic waste being undertaken by MikeNye at UEA. Tom Hargreaves, a PhD candidate at UEA, carried out the research reported in this paper in

early 2006.

References

Agyeman, J. and Evans, B., 2004. “Just sustainability”: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in

Britain? The Geographical Journal, 170 (2), 155–164.

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2),

179–211.

Axelrod, L. and Lehman, D., 1993. Responding to environmental concerns: what factors guide individual action?

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13 (2), 149–159.

Bamberg, S., 2003. How does environmental concern influence specific environmental behaviors?: a new answer

to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1), 21–32.

Barr, S., 2003. Strategies for sustainability: citizens and responsible environmental behaviour. Area, 35 (3),

227–240.

Bedford, T., Jones, P., and Walker H., 2004. “Every little bit helps . . .”: overcoming the challenges to researching,

promoting and implementing sustainable lifestyles. London: University of Westminster, Centre for Sustain-

able Development.

Belk, R.W., Ger, G., and Askegaard, S., 2003. The fire of desire: a multisited inquiry into consumer passion.

Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 326–351.

Blake, J., 1999. Overcoming the “value-action gap” in environmental policy: tensions between national policy

and local experience. Local Environment, 4 (3), 257–278.

Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., and Filius, P., 1998. Environmental communication and the cultural politics of

environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A, 30 (8), 1445–1460.

Burgess, J., et al., 2003. (Un)sustainable consumption. In: F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and I. Scoones, eds. Negotiating

environmental change: new perspectives from social science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Burt, R., 1987. Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of

Sociology, 92 (6), 1287–1355.

Burt, R., 1999. The social capital of opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, 566 (1), 37–54.

Campbell, C., 2003. I shop therefore I know that I am: the metaphysical basis of modern consumerism. In:

K. Ekstrom and H. Brembeck, eds. Elusive consumption: tracking new research perspectives. Oxford: Berg.

Chambers, R., 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the last first. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Darnton, A., 2004a. The impact of sustainable development on public behaviour: Report 1 of Desk Research

commissioned by COI on behalf of DEFRA. London: Andrew Darnton Research and Analysis. Available

from: www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/pdf/desk-research1.pdf [Accessed 25

October 2008].

Darnton, A., 2004b. Driving public behaviours for sustainable lifestyles: Report 2 of Desk Research commissioned

by COI on behalf of DEFRA. London: Andrew Darnton Research and Analysis. Available from: www.defra.

gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/pdf/desk-research2.pdf [Accessed 25 October 2008].

De Young, R., 1986. Some psychological aspects of recycling. Environment and Behavior, 18 (4), 435–449.

De Young, R., 1993. Changing behavior and making it stick: the conceptualization and management of conser-

vation behaviour. Environment and Behavior, 28 (3), 485–505.

De Young, R., 2000. Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behaviour. Journal of

Social Issues, 56 (3), 509–526.

DEMOS, 2003. Carrots, sticks and sermons: influencing public behaviour for environmental goals. London:

DEMOS/Green Alliance. Available from: www.demos.co.uk/files/CarrotsSticksSermons.pdf [Accessed 25

October 2008].

Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B., 1979. The world of goods: towards an anthropology of consumption. London

and New York: Routledge.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dowler, E., Turner, S., and Dobson, B., 2001. Poverty bites: food, health and poor families. London: Child

Poverty Action Group.

Dunlap, R. and Van Liere, K., 1978. The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument and

preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9 (4), 10–19.

Eden, S.E., 1993. Individual environmental responsibility and its role in public environmentalism. Environment

and Planning A, 25 (12), 1743–1758.

Festinger, L., 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: University of California Press.

Fishbein, M., 1973. The prediction of behaviour from attitudinal variables. In: C. Mortensen and K. Sereno, eds.

Advances in communication research. New York: Harper and Row.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: an introduction to theory and

research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Georg, S., 1999. The social shaping of household consumption. Ecological Economics, 28 (3), 455–466.

Global Action Plan UK, 2000. Small change: North West Pilot Final Report. London: Global Action Plan.

Global Action Plan UK, 2004. Consuming passion: do we have to shop until we drop? London: Global Action

Plan.

Global Action Plan UK, 2006. The EcoTeams workbook. London: Global Action Plan.

Gram-Hanssen, K., 2004. Domestic electricity consumption – consumers and appliances. In: L.A. Reisch and

I. Røpke, eds. The ecological economics of consumption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Haq, G., et al., 2008. The use of personalised social marketing to foster voluntary behavioural change for a sus-

tainable travel and lifestyles. Local Environment, 13 (7), 549–569.

Harland, P. and Staats, H., 1997. Long term effects of the EcoTeam Program in the Netherlands: the situation

two years after participation. Leiden: Leiden University, Centre for Energy and Environmental Research.

Harrison, C.M., Burgess, J., and Filius, P., 1996. Rationalizing environmental responsibilities: a comparison of

lay publics in the UK and the Netherlands. Global Environmental Change, 6 (3), 215–234.

Hinchliffe, S., 1996. Helping the earth begins at home: the social construction of socio-environmental responsi-

bilities. Global Environmental Change, 6 (1), 53–62.

HM Government, 2005. Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy. London: Stationery

Office.

Hobson, K., 2001. Talking habits into action: an investigation into Global Action Plan’s “action at home”

programme. Unpublished PhD thesis. London: University College London.

Hobson, K., 2002. Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: does the “rationalisation of lifestyles”

make sense? Environmental Politics, 11 (2), 95–120.

Hobson, K., 2003. Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning household

consumption practices. Local Environment, 8 (1), 95–112.

Hounsham, S., 2006. Painting the Town Green: how to persuade people to be environmentally friendly – a report

for everyone involved in promoting greener lifestyles to the public. London: Green-Engage.

House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee – HoC, 2003. Learning the Sustainability Lesson: Tenth

Report of Session 2002–03. London: Stationery Office.

Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating sustainable consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and beha-

vioural change. London: Sustainable Development Research Network. Available from: http://sdrnadmin.

rechord.com/wp-content/uploads/motivatingscfinal_000.pdf [Accessed 25 October 2008].

Jackson, T. and Marks, N., 1999. Consumption, sustainable welfare and human needs: with reference to UK

expenditure patterns between 1954 and 1994. Ecological Economics, 28 (3), 421–441.

Jackson, T., Jager, W., and Stagl, S., (2004) Beyond insatiability – needs theory, consumption and sustainability.

In: L.A. Reisch and I. Røpke, eds. The ecological economics of consumption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Kaplan, S., 2000. Human nature and environmentally responsible behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3),

491–508.

Knussen, C., et al., 2004. An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: the roles of past behaviour,

perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (2), 237–246.

Maiteny, P., 2000. Learning to live with the earth as our home: exploring the meaning, use and experience of

Global Action Plan UK’s Action at Home Programme. London: Grubb Institute.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Maloney, M.P. and Ward, M.P., 1973. Ecology: let’s hear from the people. An objective scale for the measure-

ment of attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 28 (7), 583–586.

Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., and Livi, S., 2004. Recycling: planned and self-expressive behaviour. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 24 (2), 227–236.

Maslow, A., 1954. Motivation and Personality New York, Harper and Row.

Max-Neef, M., 1991. Human-Scale Development: conception, application and further reflection. London, Apex

Press.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000. Promoting sustainable behaviour: an introduction to community-based social

marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), pp. 543–554.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W., 1999. Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based

social marketing. 2nd ed. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society.

Michaelis, L., 2004. Community, reflexivity and sustainable consumption. In: L.A. Reisch and I. Røpke, eds. The

Ecological Economics of Consumption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Nye, M. and Burgess, J., 2006. Findings from pilot data collection and support for thematic priorities. London:

Global Action Plan.

Nye, M. and Burgess, J., 2008. Promoting durable change in household waste and energy use behaviour. Tech-

nical research report for DEFRA (02/2008). Norwich: University of East Anglia. Available from:

www.uae.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/ext/evaluating_ecoteams.pdf [Accessed 25 October 2008].

Poortinga, W., Steg, L., and Vlek, C., 2004. Values, environmental concerns and environmental behaviour:

a study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36 (1), 70–93.

Shove, E., 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social organization of normality. Oxford: Berg.

Staats, H. and Harland, P., 1995. The EcoTeam Program in the Netherlands: Study 4 – a longitudinal study on

the effects of the EcoTeam Program on environmental behaviour and its psychological backgrounds. Leiden:

Leiden University, Centre for Energy and Environmental Research.

Staats, H., Harland, P., and Wilke, H.A.M., 2004. Effecting durable change: a team approach to improve environ-

mental behaviour in the household. Environment and Behavior, 36 (3), 341–367.

Stern, P., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior, Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3),

407–424.

Summerton, J., 2004. The new “energy divide”: politics, social equity and sustainable consumption in changing

infrastructures. In: D. Southerton, B. Van Vliet, and H. Chappells, eds. Sustainable consumption: the impli-

cations of changing infrastructures of provision. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Sustainable Consumption Roundtable – SCR, 2006. I will if you will: towards sustainable consumption. London:

Sustainable Development Commission/National Consumer Council.

Thøgersen, J., 2004. A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally

responsible behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (1), 93–103.

Ungar, S., 1994. Apples and oranges: probing the attitude–behaviour relationship for the environment. Canadian

Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 31 (3), 288–304.

United Nations, 1987. Our common future: the world commission on environment and development. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Vining, J. and Ebreo, A., 1992. Predicting recycling behaviours from global and specific environmental attitudes

and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (20), 1580–1607.

Wilk, R., 2004. Questionable assumptions about sustainable consumption. In: L.A. Reisch and I. Røpke, eds.

The ecological economics of consumption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

55 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

social experiments in sustainable consumption: an evidence-based approach with potential for...

Documents