Structure of the Chapter

The first section discusses the concept of sustainable development and its associated narratives, starting with an examination of the relationship between humans and the

natural environment. One of the theories in this area is Gaia theory, which suggests that the Earth is a complex adaptive system in which human beings are merely one of many

interdependent, interacting agents (Lovelock 2000). This theory has been influential in challenging the dominant linear view of our relationship with the natural world and exploring differing worldviews in this area will make an important contribution to the discussion around the encouragement of behaviour change for sustainable development.

This section is followed by an examination of sustainable development and its core concept that socio-cultural wellbeing, economic wellbeing and environmental wellbeing cannot be achieved independently of each other, and that poverty, as well as excessive consumption, are causes of environmental stress (Hawken 1993, Porritt 2005). First outlined in 1987 as a concept for social modernisation on a global scale that requires wide spread behaviour change, it was seen as a way of addressing environmental stress, protecting economic development and supporting social equity (triple bottom line) (Porritt 2005) and providing

32

an inclusive way of addressing the on-going debates around the concept of continuous economic growth in a world of finite resources (Daly 2002, Meadows et al 1972, Stern 2006, Mckibben 2007). Although there is a degree of consensus among scientists and policy makers that unless we change our behaviour, anthropogenic environmental damage is likely to cause challenging economic and social problems in the future (Lafferty and Meadowcroft 2000, Stern 2006, IPCC 2007) there is little consensus around the definition of sustainable development or how it can be applied in practice. It has numerous interpretations and is often confused with other phrases, such as, environment, green, eco- friendly, climate change and global warming, which can diffuse the need for action (Lozano 2008, Gladwin et al 1995). The scale and scope of the issues can also make it appear too big to deal with (EAC/CAG 2007c:ii)and sustainable development is therefore presents a difficult challenge for society to address.

As mentioned above, sustainable development suggests there is a need for changes in behaviour by all sectors of society: government, business and individuals (Stern 2006) and the next section looks at how to encourage behaviour change. Dobson (2007) outlined two basic approaches: a structuralist or rational first order approach, based on self-interest which sees attitudes and behaviours as driven by structures, and a voluntarist/valuative or second order approach, which acknowledges that behaviour is affected by a complex web of causal influences, relatively independent of the structures that inform it. According to Dobson, a combination of structural changes initiated by government, and voluntarist approaches to influence attitudes could provide an effective way of bringing about the large scale behaviour change required by sustainable development (Dobson 2007). Some

however (Voss et al 2006, Gustavsson and Harung 1994, Waddock 2007), believe that this will not be enough and that the complexity of sustainable development with its many variables and multiple independent actors, renders the possibility of such simplistic,

universal solutions unlikely. Recognising the interconnected, systemic nature of the problem, they suggest that complex social problems like sustainable development require a new approach - a third order change, or paradigm shift, which transcends both first and second order change.

‘The sheer scope of global activities combined with the interconnectedness and the diversity of the world’s population and societies create an inter-connected, highly complex system

33

where what is done in one part of planet Earth affects what happens in other parts.’

(Waddock 2007:546)

The next section, therefore, explores how complexity thinking, as a third order approach to behaviour change, could encourage behaviour change in a way that overcomes the

weaknesses associated with linear first and second order approaches (Rittel and Webber 1973, Stacey 2007, McMillan 2004). Complexity thinking, drawing on Bohm’s (1980) and Wilber’s (2001) concept of wholeness, is a different way of thinking and understanding that looks at how, in a dynamic system, local changes can influence wider systemic change, as each agent although acting independently, affects and is affected by the other agents in the system (McMillan 2004).

‘Complexity science looks not only at the parts, but at the whole in an effort to gain a deeper qualitatively different understanding of phenomena’. (McDaniel and Driebe 2005:4)

After discussing the development of complexity thinking and its links with systems theory, there is a short section around the role of social learning in complex systems and how complexity thinking supports non-linear learning and behaviour change.

As the focus of this research is on voluntary sector participation in behaviour change, the final section examines the role of the voluntary sector as agents of change at a local level.

The voluntary sector works with those most likely to be adversely affected by unsustainable development, the poor and disadvantaged (Stern 2006, Barings 2010, Porritt 2005), and the Government believes that:

‘voluntary and other non-profit organisations can mobilise millions of people in the fight against climate change to help create and safeguard a better future.’ (Cabinet Office 2007) However, research on the role of the third sector in environmentally oriented behaviour change is limited (EAC/CAG 2007c, Church and Elster 2002, Middlemiss and Parrish 2009, Middlemiss 2009, Hale 2010, HM government 2010, Seyfang and Smith 2007, Buchs et al 2011 and 2012) and there is little evidence of widespread action in the sector to support the government’s agenda around behaviour change.

The conclusion highlights how, in a complex system like human society, the application of complexity principles can encourage social learning and this could have advantages when trying to support behaviour change. It suggests that the creation of opportunities for local

34

participation in learning spaces around sustainable development (CoPs) support social learning and could offer a way of encouraging the voluntary sector to engage in the promotion of sustainable behaviour by increasing their understanding of the relevance of sustainable development to its stakeholders. As changes in understanding increase the likelihood of behaviour change, CoPs based on the principles of complexity thinking could potentially offer a new and different approach to a complex problem like sustainable development that unlike one size fits all linear approaches, provide a flexible framework that enables the local ongoing adaptability needed to deal with a changing environment.

The focus on locally initiated change would enable small voluntary organisations to tailor their activities to the needs of their service users and this could be more attractive to the sector than the top down hierarchical approaches often used by government.

However, consistent with the principles of complexity thinking, the outcomes of change in a complex system cannot be predicted (McMillan 2004) and the outcomes of this approach could have no effect, move the agenda in a completely different direction, or contribute to a large scale paradigm shift that redefines our relationship with the natural environment and moves society along the road to a more sustainable society.