The natural environment is ‘characterised by turbulence and uncertainty’ and the problems posed by sustainable development can be seen as ‘value-laden, open-ended,
multi-dimensional, ambiguous and unstable.’ (Klein J. 2004:4). Complex problems like this often appear intractable and not easily managed by traditional linear problem solving approaches (Mitleton-Kelly 2011). They are thought to require whole society change (paradigm shift or third order change) involving new thinking and new ways of perceiving and visioning ourselves, others, nature and the world (Laszlo 1997, O’Riordan and Voisey 1998, Sterling 2003, Hawkins 1991, Voss et al 1996, Rittel and Webber 1973).
48
Traditional linear approaches to behaviour change can involve first order or second order change. First order change has been described as ‘gradual modifications that make sense within an established framework.’ (Bartunek and Moch 1987:484). They are generally reactive, technological fixes focussing on solutions to individual problems rather than addressing the causes and can involve maintenance, adaptation or doing things better, for example, increasing efficiency or recycling (Sterling 2003, Orr 1992). They don’t challenge the fundamental assumptions behind our consumerist lifestyle based on the premise of continual economic growth.
‘As humans face an ecological crisis throughout the world, they realise increasingly that problems concerning environmental protection are not derived from industrial pollution or technological expansion alone. Rather they are also derived from people’s world views, ideas of value or theories of knowledge.’ (Giradot et al 2001:361)
As Giradot implies, sustainable development appears to require a change in values and in our world view. Value change is associated with second order change which questions assumptions and values within the existing paradigm (Sterling 2003, Ison and Russell 2000, Bartunek and Moch 1994, 1987) and involves ‘a basic shift in attitudes, beliefs and cultural values’ (Bartunek and Moch 1987:486, Golembiewski et al 1979). Second order change however, although it questions values does not necessarily challenge our world view and the basic assumption about the separation of humans from nature.
Moving away from the dominant paradigm of first and second order linear rational change to a new relationary world view would constitute third order change (Bartunek and Moch 1994, Bartunek and Moch 1987, Golembiewski et al 1979). Third order change transcends human cognitive understanding and dissolves the distinction between the perceived and the perceived, the parts and the whole, the individual and the community (Bartunek and Moch 1994). Bartunek and Moch call it an enlarged world view and suggest that the achievement of this enlarged world view requires us to delve into our own cognitive assumptions in ways that allow diversity of perspectives to emerge. They believe it has the potential to lead to greater social concern, change the way participants act towards each other and enable novel and creative ways for the benefit of humanity (Bartunek and Moch 1994). Third order change, therefore, when applied to sustainable development would present a different way of understanding the world that transcends the reductionist split between humans and nature. Reflecting the principles of strong sustainability, in a way that Smyth (2006), Porritt
49
(2005), and Voss et al (2006) suggest is needed to bring about sustainable development, this enlarged or ecological worldview or paradigm (Sterling 2003) is based on systems thinking, which emphasises inclusivity and self-organisation rather than separation and control (Brown and Ritchie 2006, Bohm 1992, Capra 1996, Senge et al 2005, Harman 1988, Wilber 1996).
It must be acknowledged however, that as humans we prefer the familiar and tend to resist change. Memes or paradigms tend to be self-preserving, even when no longer appropriate (Price and Shaw 1998) and conventions, beliefs and systems, shared by many people and perpetrated throughout the society in the institutions, organisations, and family structures, can work to inhibit change (Bartunek and Moch 1994).
‘Culture, in the sense of collective mental programming, is often difficult to change: if it does so at all, it changes slowly.’ (Hofstede 1980:42-63)
Another difficulty when trying to encourage behaviour change for sustainable development is that the truth may be difficult to accept and the changes may not be palatable in our consumer society (Hawken 1993).
‘We are not facing marginal adjustments manageable by simple technical fixes, some temporary tax and spending increases and a few changes in personal habit. We will need profound socio economic transformation which will demand not only new ways of doing things but also not a few genuine sacrifices.’ (Hawken 1993:128)
Encouraging sustainable development therefore, will not be easy or instant. It appears to require a radical re-appraisal and re-evaluation of the influence of the dominant paradigms on our thinking - a new way of thinking that recognises the complex ,interdependent, systemic nature of our lives (third order change). This type of change cannot be easily planned and brought about in a predictable way, especially when the subject of change is human behaviour and I will now look at different approaches to behaviour change and their relevance for sustainable development.
2.3.1 Behavioural change
There are, as indicated, different ways of encouraging behaviour change. The current government is attracted by Thaler and Sunstein’s (2008) nudge behaviour, where experts attempt to inform choices through the provision of architecture or structures that nudge
50
people to do or not do things. This is a first order, structuralist approach based on assumptions about how we respond to stimuli.
Another type of first order, structuralist approach is social marketing, which has been widely used to encourage environmental behavioural change, as in Defra’s ‘Framework for Pro Environmental Behaviours’ (2008a), ‘I will if you will, Towards Sustainable Consumption’
(SDC/NCC 2006), and ‘Changing Behaviour through policy making’, (Defra 2008b) (Jackson 2005).
Social marketing can be described as
‘a systematic application of marketing concepts and techniques to achieve specific
behavioural goals relevant to the social good’ (Lazer and Kelley 1973 quoted in Corner and Randall 2011:2)
This first order change approach uses market segmentation and short term tailored interventions to change behaviour in the belief that small behavioural changes will lead to more far reaching and environmentally significant changes in the future. It does not attempt to challenge existing value frameworks (Chiva et al 2008) and may be an attractive option in modern liberal democracies, which are reluctant to see state intervention in moral or value change (Dobson 2010, Corner and Randall 2011, Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008)
‘Governments and other organisations are often reluctant to openly attempt to influence people’s values, preferring what appear to be more value neutral approaches like social marketing.’ (Corner and Randall 2011:6)
When applied to sustainable development, both social marketing and nudge behaviour take a weak view of sustainability and can be criticised because as the prevailing values of the dominant political rationality are embedded within them, they do not challenge the
normative frameworks that are seen as contributing to unsustainable development (Corner and Randall 2011). First order structural approaches like social marketing and nudge behaviour might be good at solving concrete, behavioural problems, but as sustainable development is not a concrete problem, it seems unlikely that these approaches alone can bring about the changes deemed necessary to achieve sustainable development.
Wagner-Tsukamoto (2008) however, believes moral problems, like sustainable development, can be solved using first order change because they are in essence structural problems,
51
resulting from defective incentive infrastructures. First order change incentives that promote rational self -interested choice by allocating certain benefits and losses to the individual (new infrastructures) can change behaviour and for Wagner-Tsukamoto, this approach, based on rational self-interest, can increase social harmony ‘through the ideal of realising mutual benefits for the agents involved.’ (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008:840). He notes however, that if the benefits or penalties for non-compliance are removed the changed behaviour is unlikely to persist. Wagner-Tsukamoto feels that in pluralist societies this approach is ethically favourable because modern liberal democracies respect value pluralism and this approach does not attempt to change values. A values based approach (second order change) implies behavioural intervention in individual values, norms and beliefs and for Wagner-Tsukamoto any intervention by authorities to influence values threatens value pluralism and could potentially suppress moral disagreement to the extent that those holding different views come to be regarded as outsiders or outcasts who need re- educating (Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008). Normative values based approaches inhibit the expression of opposing values and can result in the homogeneity of values and the creation of strong social norms, or ‘like-mindedness’, which reduces the diversity that is an essential element of a pluralist society (Compton 2010, Wagner-Tsukamoto 2008).
Dobson (2007) takes a slightly different approach, outlining two approaches to behaviour change: a first order structuralist approach, and a second order voluntarist approach. As per Wagner-Tsukamoto, he believes the self-interested rational actor model of human
motivation (first order change) that assumes people will respond to structures, either for personal gain or to avoid harm or penalty, can be effective as attitudes and behaviours are driven by structures, and changing the structures will change behaviour (Dobson and Bell 2006). He illustrates the relevance of this approach to environmental behaviour with an example from the Republic of Ireland. When it started charging for plastic bags, there was a resulting cut in plastic bag use of over 90%. Dobson (2007), like Wagner-Tsukamoto,
acknowledges, however, that first order approaches can’t bring about lasting changes in underlying attitudes and values because the changes are temporary, lasting only as long as the penalties or structures are in place or until ways of getting round them are devised. He therefore, doesn’t believe that a self-interested rational approach (first order) is enough to sustain behaviour change for sustainable development because even if people understand
52
the social and economic implications of destroying the natural environment, the effects may be long term and not affect them directly, (i.e. there is no self-interest) and the penalties for not complying are not enough to sustain the changes.
‘Self-interested behaviour will not always protect or sustain public goods, such as the environment’. (Dobson 2007:280)
For Dobson, behaviour is a result of a complex web of causal influences, and unlike Wagner-Tsukamoto, he suggests that a voluntarist approach, (second order change) where attitudes and behaviours are considered relatively independent of the structures that inform them, is needed for some problems like sustainable development. Individuals need to be encouraged to understand the value of the natural environment, not just to themselves but to those around them, and not because of its economic value or their own self-interest but because it is the ‘right thing’ to do – a moral or ethical issue. Dobson feels this would create a more permanent approach to change but he is however, aware that the relationship between environmental values and behaviour is not always a good predictor of behaviour change and suggests that both types of change should be encouraged simultaneously: structural
changes initiated by government, coupled with educational and informational support to influence attitudes. He refers to this as environmental citizenship, a combination of self- interested rationalist approaches and a ‘values based approach that seeks to draw out the latent values already harboured by an individual’. (Dobson 2010:2)
Grey (2009) acknowledges that behaviour change is a complex arena, not least because humans don’t always act rationally. Some may respond to valuative second order
approaches whereas others will respond to structural instruments, but for Grey (2009) both approaches have an inherent problem. In the natural sciences the objects of study do not have agency making it possible to make predictions and control variables. Human beings however, have agency and in the social sciences, the act of making predictions and setting up schemes to change behaviour sets up the possibility that people will act differently precisely because of the predictions that have been made about them (Grey 2009, Stacey 2007). Furthermore, the actions of individual actors, acting in their own self-interest, can obstruct or subvert planned change outcomes, unintentionally or deliberately. Grey is therefore critical of all change management approaches that attempt to control social and organisational relations on the assumption that people are passive receivers of others’
53
actions rather than actors who can and do respond differentially to events. Any approach to behaviour change, must according to Grey, take into account the fact that human beings have agency and do not always act as intended. This highlights a weakness of linear rational approaches to behaviour change, both first or second order, which are based on
assumptions about predictability, and supports the idea that a different approach may be needed.
The behaviour change approaches discussed so far have focussed primarily on individual behaviour as the unit of analysis, a reductionist approach which largely ignores our relationship with the wider context. Buchs et al (2011) suggest that the factors leading to behaviour change are multiple, inter-related and historically specific, and when considering environmentally responsible behaviour change, decisions involve social structures, context and practices. Social structures (discourses, social norms, rules and resources) are not independent from context, practices and actors but are constituted, reproduced and
transformed by actors in ongoing relationships (Buchs et al 2011). Agency and structure are therefore inter-related as actors continually regenerate social structures through social practices embedded in social structures. In other words, both social structures and actors are constituted, reproduce and transformed in an ongoing, continual process (Buchs et all 2011, Blakie 2000, Southerton et al 2004) and although we may think we act independently, based on rational free choice, we are influenced by our surroundings, and are thus not completely free to act, but nor are our actions entirely determined by social structures.
This is relevant in terms of environmental behaviour change because the degree to which individuals see themselves as part of the natural environment (sensemaking) has been found to influence behaviour change (Schultz 2000, Corner and Randall 2011). However, it is not only our understanding of the natural environment that is important, the influence of social interaction, and the actions of those around us are also influential (Gladwell 2000, Corner and Randall 2011). Behaviour change is therefore, is a social, collective phenomenon, affected by social context, human understanding and social practices, and rather than
focussing exclusively on how to influence individual behaviour through structural incentives or value propositions (first and second order linear approaches) we need to take into account the complex interactions between actors and the broader social, technological and environmental contexts that both constrain and enable practices (Buchs et al 2011,
54
Gatersleben and Vlek 1998). Helping individuals develop an awareness of the inter-dependency between individuals and the environment and the way in which elements in the system co-evolve, in other words, their role as co-creators of the system, might
therefore be a more effective approach to behaviour change for sustainable development.
This is a third order approach to change that supports the views of strong sustainability.
Building on the idea that behaviour change is a social, collective phenomenon and that sustainable development requires us to change our way of thinking about the natural environment and acknowledge the complex systemic interactions that influence us and that we in turn influence, increasing social interaction and networking have been found useful ways of transforming established beliefs and views (Earl 2007).
‘Evidence suggests discursive, elaborate processes are a vital element in behaviour change.’
(Jackson 2005:133)
Increasing opportunities for participation in local environmental decision making through CRAGS groups, Carbon Conversations and Carbon Clubs (discursive processes) can promote learning, provide support and encourage new thinking that can lead to behaviour change (Georg 1999, Hobson 2003, Hargreaves et al 2008, Buchs et al 2012). This suggests that participatory, community based, deliberative processes based on discourse and social engagement could be a way of supporting third order change and influencing behaviour (Corner and Randall 2011, Buchs et al 2011, Jackson 2005, Nye and Burgess 2008).
The next section will examine in more detail the role of discourse and how participation in social networks can bring about social learning that can, in turn influence behaviour change.
2.3.2. Social interaction, discourse and networking - social learning and behaviour change
Behaviour change is, as discussed, complex, affected by structures, values and the social contexts within which individuals are located. Linear approaches to change (first order and second order) are associated with reductionism and tend to target individual behaviour rather than examining the complex interactions between actors and the broader social, technological and environmental contexts that both constrain and enable practices.
Engaging in social interaction however, a non-linear process, can transform established ways of understanding and lead to the co-creation of practices that are likely to result in
55
change (Buchs et al 2011). Social interaction can take many forms, from face to face
conversation to electronic networking, but whatever form it takes, coming together to share the concepts, categories and ideas that provide a framework for making sense of situations offers the potential to transform knowledge and change behaviour (Buchs et al 2011). This approach acknowledges learning as a social activity and knowledge as the product of interaction and communication - what we know and the way we practice it emerges from the interplay between individuals (Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001). Accepting knowledge as a social construct and that people learn from and with others suggests that the
encouragement of social interaction and networking to create relational spaces in which knowledge can be shared disseminated and interchanged can be an effective vehicle for supporting behaviour change (Garcia-Lorenzo and Mitleton-Kelly 2003). The conversation that occurs in these spaces is a mutually constructive act in which information is clarified and understanding agreed in a mutual, often unaware process and as people shape what they say in response to the comments of others they transform their own understanding (social learning). Meaning emerges and changes through the interaction (Shaw 2002) and the resulting changes in understanding can inform changes in behaviour (Weick 2005).
Action learning, developed by Revans in 1940s, is a form of social learning that supports individuals to come up with creative solutions to problems without the need for experts (Bradbury et al 2008). The learning is done through mutual inquiry and exchange among colleagues, where one questions one’s own experiences and learns through asking questions of others. This type of learning also develops confidence and skills in collective decision making, builds relationships and can facilitate the creation of shared repertoires of resources and tools, thus cementing the link between cognitive restructuring (learning) and action (Blewitt 2010).
Lewin’s T groups were an early form of participative or action research/learning that supported social learning by bringing individuals together in a leaderless group. The underlying notion was that interacting and working together would help to expand awareness of taken for granted assumptions and that this would influence choices about behaviour and improve decision making (Bradbury et al 2008).
56
Acknowledging learning as a social activity and recognising that meaningful conversation can generate non-linear learning from which unexpected things can emerge (Garvey et al 2009), Lave and Wenger (1991) developed the idea of Communities of Practice (CoPs) based on the principles of action learning. A Community of Practice (CoP) creates a learning environment where participants engage ‘in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavour.’ (Wenger 2006:1). The work is done in conversation with the belief that learning is a social process that emerges from the experience of participating in daily life (Lave and Wenger 1991), but unlike local community meetings, a CoP meets regularly over a period of time with a specific purpose.
CoPs, like action research groups, support egalitarian, collective, problem solving activities based on mutually supportive dialogue (Bradbury et al 2008) and encourage ‘groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do’ to learn how to do it better through regular interaction (Wenger 2006). The group takes collective responsibility for the learning they need and the problems addressed are real and relevant and are tackled in real time. Unlike traditional planned, management approaches, which can kill the spontaneity from which new meaning can emerge, CoPs encourage new thinking and ideas (Blewitt 2010). Unilever adopted a leadership model based on these principles that involved annual
CoPs, like action research groups, support egalitarian, collective, problem solving activities based on mutually supportive dialogue (Bradbury et al 2008) and encourage ‘groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do’ to learn how to do it better through regular interaction (Wenger 2006). The group takes collective responsibility for the learning they need and the problems addressed are real and relevant and are tackled in real time. Unlike traditional planned, management approaches, which can kill the spontaneity from which new meaning can emerge, CoPs encourage new thinking and ideas (Blewitt 2010). Unilever adopted a leadership model based on these principles that involved annual