Is tackling plastics the gateway to tackling climate change or is it a ceiling behaviour?

‘Single-use’ became the Collins Dictionary word of 2018 following the awakening in the public conscience on the issues of plastic pollution following the Blue Planet II series of 2017.

It was in fact only 12 minutes of the Blue Planet series that was dedicated to plastic marine litter. So for those of us who have been campaigning on plastics and other environmental issues, it was fascinating to see the uptake in behaviour changes and outcry to tackle single-use plastics.

This has raised many questions, with fellow environmentalists, as to whether these lifestyle changes will be a stepping stone to tackling other environmental issues such as climate change, for people who previously weren’t environmentally motivated.

Previously, attitudes and behaviours around waste have been investigated and related to other pro-environmental behaviours. So in this article, I am going to look at this research and see how these can be applied to the actions of single-use plastic reduction.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

If you are a keen waste reducer and recycler you may assume that other people are motivated by the same reasons. However, Barr’s 2007 study on Exeter citizens, found that there were different motivators for reducing and reusing versus recycling waste.

Reduce and reuse is value based

The motivation for “ reduction is underlain by concern, citizenship, and threat-based factors.” (Barr, 2007, 468). People who choose to reduce and reuse had pro-environmental and community values and saw waste as a threat to these. Furthermore, these people had invariably been making the effort to recycle their waste before Kerbside recycling was introduced.

Recycling as a social norm

In contrast, people who had adopted recycling behaviours following the introduction of kerbside recycling in the UK, mainly did it because it was convenient and their neighbours did it. Unlike reduction and reuse behaviours, there was “negligible effect of environmental values on either intention or behaviour”.

Recycling as a social norm, ‘to keep up with the Jones’s, not be kicked out of the tribe (one of our greatest tribal fears which makes fitting in so important), is useful in increasing recycling rates. However, it also appears that it has become people’s ‘go to’ explanation for their environmental actions. Both DEFRA (2010) and Gould et al’s (2016) San Francisco study on environmental behaviour found that recycling was understood as what an average citizen does. “If you asked five people on the street in a typical U.S. city what they personally do to take care of the environment, chances are many of the first answers you would hear would be ‘‘recycle.’’ Gould et al (2016) conclude that in contrast to reduce and reuse, recycling was the simplest behaviour to adopt, which had concrete results without the need for “massive lifestyle changes”.

Recycling as a ceiling behaviour

In the 1970’s in the UK, there was an environmental campaign around ‘doing your bit’ in which recycling became that ‘doing my bit’ activity which translated as meaning people doing ‘a little bit’ (Bedford et al., 2010).

This is described by psychologists as a ‘single-action’ or ‘ceiling’ behaviour. Weber (2006) suggests that by taking a single action to tackle a worrying or uncertain situation people then worry less about the issue and are less inclined to take additional actions - it is the ceiling action- so they may use it to excuse other actions such as driving short distances.

So what does motivate people to adopt behaviours?

In DEFRA’s (2008) research on pro-environmental behaviour motivators, highlighted that people want to know:

• why they are being asked to act
• what difference their actions will make
• that they are ‘part’ of something
• that other people are taking action, so collectively their actions will have an impact
• that the new behaviours fit within their current lifestyle and/ or are expected by society

This fits with the behavioural economics and psychologies understanding that our brains are wired to undertake behaviours that make us feel good, avoid pain and keep us in the tribe.

So what could this all mean for plastics reduction?

Is tackling plastics value driven?

It certainly seems that action on plastics reduction is value-driven, based on concerns for the oceans, animals and threats to human health. Furthermore, unlike kerbside recycling, reducing plastics can be quite inconvenient, especially if it involves shopping in different locations, making more things from scratch, and carrying reusable and refillable containers everywhere. Although, simply refusing a straw or a plastic bag isn’t really a ‘massive lifestyle change’.

Has tackling plastics become a social norm?

In regards to social norming, like the introduction of the kerbside recycling bin, the plastic bag tax demonstrates the mechanisms required for behaviours to become normalised. Before the plastic bag tax, research found that many people felt uncomfortable and ‘cheap’ taking bags from other shops into competitors stores, and carrying reusable bags (Wouter et al 2012, 2016, & Yeow, Dean and Tucker 2014). Therefore, the tax made it socially acceptable with a reduction from “from seven billion to just over half a billion in the first six months” (DEFRA, 2016). Therefore, whilst it has become more socially acceptable much more infrastructure and mechanisms will need to be put in place before plastics reduction is a social norm as demonstrated by the fact that asking for a coffee in a reusable coffee cup is only done by about 3% of on-the-go coffee drinkers.

Is plastic reduction a ceiling behaviour

It could simply be that tackling plastics does become the ceiling behaviour of our time, because it provides the feel-good factor of being part of a bigger movement, and ‘doing your bit’, which removes concerns about the problem.

So what about tackling climate change?

On a recent Extinction Rebellion post about a video on plastic straws, they asked:

“If we’ll change our daily behaviour to help a sea turtle or a dog, why are so few of us prepared to change our ways to protect the entirety of life on Earth? If we’ll care about a single death in our own country, why won’t we care about hundreds of thousands of people dying in the Global South from the impacts of climate chaos?”

I would suggest that tackling climate change has to be considered separately. As explained by George Marshall, the way climate change has been presented previously doesn’t resonate with the way our brains are wired to process and act upon issues. Our brains are wired to comprehend and act upon immediate problems that impact us and those in our immediate reality, and as highlighted by DEFRA in ways that we feel we are part of a bigger movement and our actions will make a difference.

Now as climate change is being presented as a more immediate threat, twelve years and counting, and about human extinction, it will be interesting to see how people respond. Especially as the latest David Attenborough series ‘Our Planet’ airs on Netflix in April highlighting the impacts of climate change.

References

Barr, S. (2007) Factors Influencing Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: A U.K. Case Study of Household Waste Management Environment and Behavior. 39 (4), pp. 435–473

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2008) A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours. London: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2016) Press release: Billions fewer plastic bags on the streets. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/billions-fewer-plastic-bags-on-the-streets

Gould, K. et al (2016) Environmental Behavior’s Dirty Secret: The prevalence of Waste Management in Discussions of Environmental Concern and Action. Environment Management. 58, pp. 268–282

Weber, E. (2010) What Shapes Perceptions of Climate Change? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIREs): Climate Change [online]. 1 (3) pp. 1–29

Wouter, P., Whitmarsh, L., Suffolk C. (2012) The Introduction of a Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge in Wales: Attitude Change and Behavioural Spillover Effects WSA Working Paper . 01, pp. 1–21

Wouter.P, Sautkina. E, Thomas .G, Wolstenholme, E. (2016) The English Plastic Bag Charge Changes in Attitudes and Behaviour Available from: https://orca.cf.ac.uk/94652/1/Cardiff_University_Plastic_Bag_Report_A4%20(final%20proof).pdf

Yeow, P., Dean. A., Tucker, D. (2014) Bags for Life: The Embedding of Ethical Consumerism J Bus Ethics . 125, pp.87–99