Sustainability
Media
Part of Sustainability
- Title
- Sustainability
- extracted text
-
Sustainability
JOSEPH A. TAINTER, TEMIS G. TAYLOR, ROSLYNN G. BRAIN, and JOSÉ LOBO
Abstract
Research needs in sustainability encompass a range of topics spanning much
of social and behavioral science. Sustainability requires understanding human
cognition, capacity to reason and make decisions, capacity for long-term planning,
understanding trade-offs, risk perceptions, communication techniques, innovation,
the consequences of improvements in efficiency, energy and other resources, complexity in problem solving, and other matters. We discuss research accomplishments
and needs in the four most important areas of sustainability: (i) risk perceptions; (ii)
influencing behavior; (iii) resources and economics; and (iv) problem solving and
complexity.
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability has moved into mainstream discourse, so that the term sustainable has become like a Rorschach test. People project onto it whatever issues
concern them. “Sustainable” is now applied to everything from Middle East
ceasefires to eye shadow and Facebook. The term sustain comes originally
from the Latin sustinere, and into English through the Old French soustenir.
Both terms mean literally “to hold underneath”—in other words, to uphold
or support. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, sixth edition, lists nine definitions of “sustain.” Two of these read “Cause to continue in a certain state;
maintain at the proper level or standard” and “Support life in; provide for
the life or needs of.” Both definitions are consistent with the original Latin
and French terms: to sustain something is to support its continuation.
Vagueness in the term sustainable requires that specific sustainability goals
be articulated. We use sustainability here in the sense that is intended by
those concerned about humanity’s future, and the relationship of that future
to resources. Sustainability concerns the future sufficiency of the resources
needed to support the diverse ways of human life, and people’s resilience
in pursuing those ways of life. Sustainability research potentially involves
all of social life, and all resource use. We concentrate here on the following,
highest-priority topics:
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Risk Perceptions. Many previous societies proved unsustainable and collapsed. Yet there is a widespread belief that contemporary societies have
overcome this threat. Concern for sustainability requires that people recognize the risks of unsustainability. Such risks may come from resource depletion, overpopulation, pollution, climate change, unsupportable complexity,
or other factors. Extensive discourse on these threats has barely changed
behavior. Responses to risk are compromised by the tendency to discount
future probabilities. Progress requires that we understand better how people
recognize risk, discuss it, and act on it.
Influencing Behavior. Projections of the future are abstractions. People
seem unwilling to change current behavior (such as consumption habits)
based on abstractions. The immediacy of daily life is more compelling
than the—perhaps distant—future. Yet that future is being shaped today.
Emerging research is addressing questions about how to use communication
tools to influence consumption decisions and related behaviors.
Resources and Economics. Resource consumption and technical innovation
lie at the heart of sustainability issues. Particularly in recent centuries, societies have overcome resource limitations through innovation, improving the
efficiency of using resources, or developing new ones. While risk perceptions and communication tools can change consumption habits, prices are
considered the fundamental incentive. We do not know if innovation can
overcome constraints forever, making it important to understand how innovation comes about.
Problem Solving and Complexity. The factors that make a society sustainable
or not emerge over the long term, periods of decades to centuries. Solving
problems today sets the stage for other problems in the future. Problem solving generates complexity and costs that can make a society unsustainable,
as happened to some past societies. Finding ways to evaluate the effects of
added complexity will be critical to sustainability efforts.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH1
RISK PERCEPTIONS
The term risk is commonplace, but as with “sustainability” it varies and
depends on the context and agents involved. The concept of risk has roots
in maritime trade, financial speculation, and actuarial science developed to
protect investments. In the late twentieth century, environmental damage
and disasters exposed new facets of risk. Risks that threaten our ways of life
are often hypothetical, involving new or rare hazards, and a great deal of
1. More extensive discussions of the issues discussed in this section, and the next, can be found in the
list of suggested readings.
Sustainability
3
uncertainty. Those who bear the costs of risk can be distant in both time and
place from the decision maker.
Risk perception is the judgment of risk. It depends on intuitive, experiential, emotional, and cultural factors, which contribute to the heuristics and
biases we use when evaluating risk. Risk perception contrasts with risk assessment, the scientific and professional estimates of risk. Risk perception and
assessment can result in disparate conclusions. Researchers seek to clarify
the factors contributing to widely varying perspectives on risks.
Initial efforts to understand risk perception in relationship to sustainability
were largely theoretical. To mediate temporal aspects and create a long view
of risk, the potential for harm to future generations has been introduced into
decision-making. The precautionary principle has been developed, and in
some cases adopted into policy, to direct a course of action when science is
compelling but uncertain, and risk is high.
Early empirical research focused on subjective and psychometric aspects of
risk. Sociocultural and demographic differences influence risk perceptions.
Psychometric researchers found that beyond the technical risk measures of
probability and magnitude, factors influencing perceptions include dread,
familiarity, voluntariness, visibility of effects, immediacy, severity, and numbers affected.
INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR
Research in sustainability-oriented behavior is prevalent in the natural
resources, business, psychology, and communications fields. This research
originated with questions of why certain individuals are inclined to act in an
environmentally sustainable manner, and whether we can use that research
to influence others.
Studies traced human worldviews or values, and differentiated biospheric,
altruistic, and egoistic value orientations. Value orientations have helped
explain attitudes, and serve as predictors of behavior. Communications
based in core values should elicit environmentally sustainable behavior. In
close relation to human value orientations, studies also emerged investigating whether individuals practiced sustainability-oriented behaviors because
of motivations that are extrinsic (such as financial incentives) or intrinsic
(because it felt like the right thing to do). Normative research (observation
and replication of behavior) measured the impact of influential others, such
as family, close friends, or neighbors, in decision making. Experiments
tested the impact of communicating percentages or numbers of similar
others engaged in a behavior, such as whether one would turn off a shower
to lather in a public swimming facility if another does, or shut off the engine
in a traffic jam once others did. The question then arose how innovations
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
diffuse through society, exploring who the leaders, change-agents, or
innovators are, and how they influence the majority.
In addition to values, motivations, and normative influences, strong connections were found between significant life experiences, such as an influential teacher or commercial development of one’s hometown, and decisions to
pursue careers dedicated to the natural environment. Research recently transitioned from explaining and predicting sustainability-oriented behaviors,
and analyzing tools and message framing, to fostering lasting and large-scale
behavior change.
RESOURCES AND ECONOMICS
The branches of economics most directly connected to sustainability—growth
and behavioral economics—have produced literature that is indirectly useful. Environmental and energy economics are also relevant. The dominant
perspective in growth economics, endogenous growth theory, places the
generation and exchange of ideas (knowledge) as the principal driver
of economic development. Understanding the diffusion of ideas is also
pertinent.
Ideas, in contrast to other types of economic goods, are nonrival (the cost
of providing an idea to an additional consumer is zero) and nonexcludable
(it is difficult to prevent non-paying consumers from using the idea). The
production of nonrival goods seems to defy the law of diminishing returns.
Endogenous growth theory has had an indirect bearing on sustainability discussions as it supports the claim that humans can always innovate to overcome resource challenges.
Sustainable paths of socioeconomic development will ultimately require a
change in consumption behaviors. The approach favored by economists is
to rely on prices and incentives. The price elasticity of demand for a particular good or service (peoples’ responsiveness to a change in price) can be
used to estimate, for example, how much the price of fuel would have to
increase before consumers significantly reduce driving. But the transition to
a sustainable economy must involve more than price responsiveness. Citizens would have to make choices about risks and payoffs, and opportunities
and costs. More ambitiously, citizens would need to envision living in a context in which increasing wealth is not manifested in more consumer goods.
Research in behavioral economics (which studies the effects of social, cognitive, and emotional factors on economic rationality) shows that individuals
find it difficult to assess risk, evaluate rewards, perform discounting, compare cost and benefits, and engage in probabilistic reasoning.
Sustainability
5
PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPLEXITY
Sustainability programs should begin by asking four questions: (i) Sustain
what? Sustainability is a common term, but people often do not specify what
they want to sustain. (ii) Sustain for whom? At least in the short term, sustainability actions may promote winners and losers, thus generating conflict.
This is exemplified in the debate over climate change. Conflict generates complexity (in managing and adjudicating it) and increases costs. (iii) Sustain
for how long? Sustainability depends on specific social, economic, and environmental contexts. As these change, sustainability goals must change also.
(iv) Sustain at what cost? Solving problems requires resources, and historical
societies that achieved sustainability mainly did so by increasing complexity
and resource consumption. Even if sustainability comes through simplification and conservation, there are opportunity costs. People would need to
forego desired consumption.
Sustainability emerges from success at solving problems. Yet actions to
promote sustainability can generate further problems. Human societies
grow increasingly complex as they address problems, including challenges
of sustainability. Complexity consists of differentiation in structure (more
kinds of parts in a system), and greater organization (behavioral controls)
to integrate the parts. This is evident in such spheres as technology, social
and political roles, institutions, the economy, and information processing.
Increasing in complexity to solve problems is exemplified in the growth of
US government agencies and behavioral constraints following the terrorist
attacks of 11 September 2001. In the technological realm, problems of pollution and fuel consumption in transportation are addressed by developing
automobiles with two propulsion systems, where previously one was
sufficient. Increasing complexity carries a metabolic cost. In human societies
the cost of complexity is paid by money, labor, and time, all of which are
surrogates for energy. Past societies that overcame sustainability challenges
increased complexity and resource consumption, yet over time the costs
undermined further sustainability.
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
RISK PERCEPTIONS
Increasing information does not lead to better understanding of risks, and
may be counterproductive. Statistics do not overcome the propensity to
believe one is less likely than average to experience negative outcomes.
When there are conflicting risk messages, people select the information that
fits previous beliefs. Scientific uncertainty is confusing or counterproductive, often resulting in mistrust. Appraisals of trustworthiness are made
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
of decision makers, regulatory agencies, risk initiators, communicators,
and scientists. These appraisals affect public willingness to accept risk
assessments.
Risks are not independently evaluated. Assessments are heavily influenced
by perceptions of benefits. When benefits are potentially high, risks are perceived to be lower. Positive and negative emotional content makes risk information more salient.
Cultural theory proposes that perception of risk is related to constructed
values and norms. Cultural cognition of risk blends psychometrics with the
cultural theoretical approach, explaining perceptions of risk within a cultural
perspective. It explores failures of science to influence opinion about controversial issues.
The social amplification of risk framework (SARF) integrates risk-related
research into a unified approach to the understanding of risk perception, risk
communication, and social responses to risk. SARF proposes that in reacting
to a risk, social interactions influence perceptions and risk-related behaviors,
which lead to institutional responses and protective actions. The effects ripple outward to individuals, groups, and institutions, creating change.
INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR
Earlier practices involving connecting values, enhancing knowledge, altering
attitudes, and understanding normative influences were found to be insufficient to change behavior. New tools and techniques are therefore being developed to influence behavior, based on how values, attitudes, and norms guide
people. One of the leading sets of tools in this area is community-based social
marketing. This promotes change by targeting behaviors, identifying perceived and actual barriers and benefits, developing strategies to overcome
barriers and increase benefits, pilot testing an action plan, implementing the
plan on a broad scale, and finally, evaluating impact. Within this approach, a
targeted action plan has been proposed to foster behavior change. This plan
includes:
•
•
•
•
Developing effective communication tools (e.g., repetitive messaging,
catchy phrasing, appealing terminology, and design).
Establishing norms (e.g., displaying behavior and sharing statistics of
how many local, similar people are engaged in the behavior).
Using prompts placed as close to the target behavior as possible (e.g.,
cashiers handing out grocery lists that state “bring bags” at the top, or
printing messages on disposable cups that there is a discount if customers bring their own mugs).
Providing and marketing incentives.
Sustainability
•
•
7
Gaining commitment (e.g., actions ranging from a handshake to a public
pledge).
Removing external barriers (e.g., providing information on what is recyclable by creating a poster illustrating what can be recycled, and placing
the poster on or near the bin).
Other marketers are looking at ways to appeal to the public, through
approaches such as “making green more macho.” One example is the “Don’t
Mess with Texas” anti-littering campaign. Branding involved masculine
messaging and connecting with Texans’ core value of independence. This
campaign is recognized worldwide as one of the most successful environmental campaigns, reducing highway litter within the first 15 years by 72%.
Communication using popular technology (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blogs,
Pinterest, web sites, YouTube, apps, and Ted Talks) is being explored as a
way to reach youth. Environmental topics ranging from upcycling, to urban
farming, to sustainable seafood systems, have had over a million views on
pertinent web sites, and are connecting a sustainability community larger
than the environmental movement. Many now claim that we have reached a
“tipping point” in public interest.
RESOURCES AND ECONOMICS
Standard economics suggests that, to change behavior, one must change
incentives. Most public policy is based on this view, which assumes that
people operate purely as individuals, and that they systematically compare
the costs and benefits of alternatives. Within this theory, individuals then
make the best choice for themselves. Policy is therefore based on changing
the incentives that people face, altering the costs and benefits of different
choices. This approach is not wrong but it is only partial. We now know
that individuals’ preferences, choices, and assessments are affected by their
social networks, much as are perceptions of risk and susceptibility to communications. Ideas and behaviors either spread or are constrained within
networks. Early adopters are especially important in influencing behavior.
Incentives matter, but could be of secondary importance compared to the
influence of peers. Research is developing ways to identify the strength
of network effects versus individual selection on behavior, classify the
network topology and how it affects behavior, and develop strategies to
alter behavior within network effects.
PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPLEXITY
Humans first use the resources that are easiest to find and produce. In time,
this forces exploration and production to shift to resources that are deeper,
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
more remote, difficult to extract, or occurring in lower concentrations. This
process is evident in petroleum production. The profitability of an energy
source is given by its ratio of energy returned to energy invested (EROI).
In 1940 the United States produced oil and gas at an EROI of 100 : 1. This has
now declined to about 18 : 1. EROI of oil shale production is below 2 : 1, while
for Canadian tar sands the figure is between 4 : 1 and 2 : 1. Both sources are
energetically feasible only because production uses on-site natural gas to free
the oil. Renewable energy sources also have low EROI. Photovoltaic energy in
Spain has an EROI of 2.45 : 1. EROI below about 8 : 1 causes the energetic profitability of energy production to plunge rapidly. As EROI declines, more complex and costly technologies are needed to find and produce energy. Finance
may become a constraint to energy production. Complex technologies are
prone to accidents, as evident in the Deepwater Horizon blowout of 2010.
Many argue that technological improvement will reduce energy use per
unit of economic output, and improve the profitability of resource production. As the easiest technical questions are answered, however, science grows
more complex and costly, and produces diminishing returns. From 1974 to
2005, the productivity of research (measured as US patents per inventor)
declined by 22%. This suggests that efficiency improvements cannot forever
offset resource depletion, as research will eventually become too expensive
and unproductive. The energy sector, including renewable energy technologies, has seen declines in research productivity.
Increasingly complex problems require increasingly complex solutions, which are more costly in money and resources. Since problems
are inevitable, it will be difficult for societies to constrain their resource
consumption voluntarily over the long term.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
RISK PERCEPTIONS
Risk perceptions research contributes to overall knowledge, but neglects
important aspects of the particular concerns of sustainability risks such as
long-term prospects, cumulative effects, and consequences to others. We
need to understand how to align the risks of actions or non-actions in the
present with the values held for the future, especially when evaluations
must overcome the appeal of financial or other benefits in the present.
Sustainability is not well served by existing models of risk behavior that
indicate what people should do or what people actually do. This includes
such approaches as economic risk analysis, game theory, and prospect theory.
Economic models of risk perception do not account for alternative motivations, such as altruism, and suggest, contrary to evidence, that additional
Sustainability
9
information should alter peoples’ perceptions of risk. Game theory predicts
what people do (and/or what they should do), but it presumes rationality and neglects social factors that are important in sustainability. Prospect
theory applies when probabilities are known, but in sustainability matters
they usually are not. The explanatory value of current risk perception models
remains low to moderate for individuals, requiring additional research.
Because the things people fear are not always the risks they act on, research
is needed to understand what motivates people to respond to technological
and environmental risks. One factor to be investigated is the role of emotion
in risk evaluation and communication. Perceptions of risks which have complex or multiple causes, long latency, or compounded effects have also been
insufficiently explored.
Some critics assert that individuals are left to evaluate and cope with risk
alone, lacking social support, adequate understanding, and accurate information. There is a need for further investigation into what constitutes a trustworthy source of information, as well as the effects of trust and credibility in
risk perception.
Scientists, policy-makers, and laypersons use different rationalities in their
assessments of risk. They have different methods and requirements for establishing knowledge. This creates confusion when specialists communicate
among each other, and with the public.
Mass media shape the experience and perceptions of risk. The processes
and effects of media are critical to SARF, yet they have been incompletely
explored. The role of new communication technologies (see above), and
the loss of traditional forms of media, present opportunities to investigate
changes in social amplification processes. Finally, it will be important to
evaluate the cross-cultural and international applicability of the research
findings and models of perceptions of risk. In summary, important research
questions include:
•
•
•
•
•
What factors influence perceptions of risks that motivate people to
action?
How can we encourage long-term risk perspectives that are based in values we wish to project into the future?
How can scientists and policy makers communicate about the uncertainties of risks and weigh them against known benefits in ways that
promote future sustainability?
What are the processes and effects of mass media and new media in creating and influencing perceptions of risk?
How does context shape risk perception and response among different
cultures and nationalities, and what can be learned from such variation?
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR
Behavior changes can be fostered at levels ranging from individuals to households, communities, and societies. Effective communication is necessary to
establish buy-in and behavior change at all levels. Lack of effective communication allows opposition to emerge. Social scientists have established an
excellent theoretical foundation and set of marketing tools for fostering individual, household, and community change in sustainability-oriented behaviors. There is still a gap, however, in fostering change on a larger scale. This
includes government, large corporations, and our education system. At the
societal level researchers are investigating aspects of the communication process that have led to wide-scale resistance to the climate change message. Can
new communication tools help change behavior?
There are many examples of effective communication at the individual
level. Concerns about our food production system, for example, inspire
people to try innovative ways to grow and harvest food. This is no longer
a movement for affluent, upper-class citizens; at-risk youth are joining
urban farms such as “Brother Nature” or “Grow Power.” This movement,
and other examples, prompt a series of broad-scale research questions, as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
How can we align environmental messaging with specific cultural
groups to foster cross-spectrum commitment? Can we effectively and
efficiently find connections in culture and terminology, and use these to
design tools and messages that can bring about lasting change?
How do we successfully facilitate institutional change, resulting in
nation-wide impacts?
How can various types of social media be used to foster environmentally
sustainable behavior? How do we measure whether there is an association between a message and a behavior change? What are the best tools
to reach a large audience and foster change?
What influences whether people engage such things as sustainable food
systems, recycling, or other activities? What are the restrictions to these
influences?
What models and messages about sustainability work best in different
social and geographic settings?
RESOURCES AND ECONOMICS
The generation, recombination, and exchange of ideas are the main drivers
of economic growth. These are also major factors in achieving sustainability. Work by Charles Jones and Paul Romer indicates that there is a virtuous
cycle for economic growth between population size and the generation of
Sustainability
11
ideas. Larger populations have a larger repertoire of intellectual capabilities, thereby facilitating the creation and recombination of ideas, including
ideas related to sustainability. This process can lead to technological, organizational, and cultural innovations that underpin wealth creation and the
ability to sustain larger populations.
Every human endeavor, including the creation of knowledge, requires
energy. Energy is the basis of wealth, knowledge creation, and sustainability,
yet we know little about the energetics of innovation. It is important also to
understand how the innovations induced by increasing population and the
energy needs of an increasing population interact with and mediate each
other. We suggest the following topics for future research:
•
•
Is innovation more productive or efficient in respect to energy use at the
aggregate, societal level than at the level of the individual inventor? Do
interactive effects in innovation produce increasing returns relative to
the energy cost of innovative activities? What, in other words, are the
energetics of social knowledge creation?
We know at the level of the individual person or firm that the generation
of ideas exhibits diminishing returns, but there are reasons, both empirical and theoretical, to think that at the societal level, through positive
externalities, it does not. The conditions under which these externalities operate, however, may not be self-perpetuating. Are there, in fact,
increasing returns to research at the societal level?2 How, in this context, do we disentangle research and development, invention, and idea
creation, which are all different aspects of the innovative process?
PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPLEXITY
Sustainability requires thinking about the long-term future, an abstraction
that competes poorly with current material consumption. The inclination to
think and act in regard to the future varies with culture and language. In our
history as a species, evolution did not select for concern about the distant
future. People generally think in terms of the immediacy of their daily lives,
perhaps planning for such matters as retirement and their children’s education. In the time scale of societal sustainability, such matters are short term.
Sustainability requires shifting thinking from what Daniel Kahneman calls
System 1 (automatic, culturally-conditioned thinking) to System 2 (rigorous,
analytical thought). Thinking in System 2 is difficult. It requires conscious
effort, on a continuing basis. In short, to be sustainable requires modes of
thinking that do not come easily to many people.
2. Even though research investments seem to produce diminishing returns in innovations per inventor (see above), the ideas generated may produce increasing returns in the economy.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Several analyses suggest that economies cannot grow forever, or even
continue indefinitely at current rates of resource consumption. The solution
commonly proposed is to reduce resource use by voluntary conservation, by
innovation producing greater technical efficiency, or by some combination of
these. An alternative, common in economic reasoning (see above), is to allow
rising prices, resulting from resource scarcity or increasing costs of procurement, to curtail consumption. Yet as the British economist William Stanley
Jevons pointed out in the nineteenth century, conservation and efficiency
reduce the cost of resources to such a degree that consumption actually
increases. This is known as the Jevons Paradox, or the Rebound Effect. For
example, as Americans began to drive more fuel-efficient cars in the 1970s
and 1980s, they responded to greater fuel economy by driving more miles.
It has been suggested that the Rebound Effect can be counteracted by taxing
savings from increasing efficiency. But any use of such savings—consumer
spending, investment, or government spending—consumes resources, as
Jevons would have predicted.
There is also the matter of complexity, and the resources that it requires. Sustainability, as noted, results from success at solving existential problems, and
problem solving generates increasing complexity. Sustainability is not free. It
takes resources to solve problems, and past societies achieved periods of sustainability by increasing their resource consumption. The alternative is not to
solve societal problems, but this involves opportunity costs. We can expect
problems in our own future, requiring resources to solve. Yet sufficiency of
resources is precisely the problem we expect to face. In addition to the Jevons
Paradox, which suggests that technical innovation does not save resources,
there is the further dilemma that the productivity of innovation investments
is declining. As we address the easiest scientific questions, those next in line
become more challenging to resolve, requiring larger research teams, greater
complexity, and higher costs. This produces diminishing returns. If the trend
of declining productivity of research continues for another generation, solving sustainability problems through technical innovation will become unproductive and unaffordable.
These conundra are the essence of whether we can have a sustainable
future. They suggest the following topics for future research:
•
•
Can the human inclination to think short-term, and in System 1, be overcome by early childhood education? Can children (or enough children)
be taught to think in ways that for many people do not come automatically? Addressing these questions would require longitudinal studies of
the kind done in some medical and other research.
Can increasing efficiency in resource use be decoupled from saving
money, thereby circumventing the Jevons Paradox?
Sustainability
•
•
•
13
Can major societal problems be addressed without increasing complexity and resource consumption? Is it possible to simplify and consume
less, yet meet existential challenges and continue a desired way of life?
These questions can be addressed in part by historical research, focusing
on case studies that illustrate general ways that humans solve problems.
Is it possible to produce the material standard of living that people currently want, including economic growth, while reducing resource consumption and while also avoiding both the Jevons Paradox and further
complexity?
Can technical innovation continue to overcome resource constraints
under diminishing returns to research inputs?
FURTHER READING
Allen, T. F. H., Tainter, J. A., & Hoekstra, T. W. (2003). Supply-side sustainability. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, J. H., Burnside, W. R., Davidson, A. D., Delong, J. R., Dunn, W. C., Hamilton,
M. J., … , Zuo, W. (2011). Energetic limits to economic growth. BioScience, 1, 19–26.
doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.1.7
Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on
sources of environmental sensitivity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 3,
11–21. doi:10.1080/00958969809599114
Gattig, A., & Hendrickx, L. (2007). Judgmental discounting and environmental
risk perception: Dimensional similarities, domain differences, and implications
for sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 1, 21–39. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.
00494.x
Jones, C. I., & Romer, P. M. (2010). The new Kaldor facts: Ideas, institutions, population, and human capital. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(1), 224–245.
doi:10.2307/25760291
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific
consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to
community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of risk. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Schultz, W. P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self,
other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 327–339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. Washington, DC:
Earthscan.
Smil, V. (2008). Energy in nature and society: General energetics of complex systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (2012). Making green more macho. Solutions, 3,
25–29.
Strumsky, D., Lobo, J., & Tainter, J. A. (2010). Complexity and the productivity
of innovation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 5, 496–509. doi:10.1002/
sres.1057
Tainter, J. A., & Patzek, T. W. (2012). Drilling down: The Gulf oil debacle and our energy
dilemma. New York, NY: Copernicus Books.
JOSEPH A. TAINTER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Joseph A. Tainter is Professor of Sustainability at Utah State University
(USU), Logan. He is the author of The Collapse of Complex Societies, and the
co-author of Supply-Side Sustainability and Drilling Down: The Gulf Oil Debacle
and Our Energy Dilemma.
TEMIS G. TAYLOR SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Temis G. Taylor earned her MS in Bioregional Planning at USU and is currently pursuing a PhD in Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Science and Management under the direction of the lead author. Interest in social aspects of
sustainability, perceptions of risk, and construction of knowledge in relation
to energy development drive her current research.
ROSLYNN G. BRAIN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Roslynn G. Brain is an Assistant Professor in Sustainable Communities
at Utah State University. She uses conservation theory, communication
techniques, and social marketing tools to foster a broad spectrum of
environmentally-sustainable behaviors, with a focus on waste reduction
and local food movements. Roslynn developed and launched Extension
Sustainability (http://extension.usu.edu/sustainability), a set of tools and
information for the general public to engage in sustainability-oriented
behaviors. She also teaches Communicating Sustainability at USU, helps
coordinate the University’s annual Earth Week, and has launched a statewide
program to connect farmers with restaurants, called Utah Farm-Chef-Fork.
She designed and co-teaches a summer sustainability camp for children
in Utah.
Sustainability
15
JOSÉ LOBO SHORT BIOGRAPHY
José Lobo is Associate Research Professor in the School of Sustainability,
Arizona State University. Trained in physics, economics, and regional science, Dr. Lobo’s research has focused on the determinants of urban economic
development, the nature of cities, and the origins of technological innovation.
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Rent, Rent-Seeking, and Social Inequality (Sociology), Beth Red Bird and
David B. Grusky
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby
Sociological Theory After the End of Nature (Sociology), Robert J. Brulle
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Lawmaking (Political Science), Jamie L. Carson and Mark E. Owens
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
The Inherence Heuristic: Generating Everyday Explanations (Psychology),
Andrei Cimpian
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Cities and Sustainable Development (Sociology), Christopher Cusack
Culture and Globalization (Sociology), Frederick F. Wherry
Global Income Inequality (Sociology), Glenn Firebaugh
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Food Sharing (Anthropology), Michael Gurven and Adrian V. Jaeggi
Behavioral Economics (Sociology), Guy Hochman and Dan Ariely
Modeling Coal and Natural Gas Markets (Economics), Franziska Holz
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Niche Construction: Implications for Human Sciences (Anthropology), Kevin
N. Laland and Michael O’Brien
Why Do States Sign Alliances? (Political Science), Brett Ashley Leeds
Understanding Risk-Taking Behavior: Insights from Evolutionary Psychology (Psychology), Karin Machluf and David F. Bjorklund
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Domestic Political Institutions and Alliance Politics (Political Science),
Michaela Mattes
16
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Built Environments and the Anthropology of Space (Anthropology), Gary W.
McDonogh
Rationing of Health Care (Sociology), David Mechanic
Below-Replacement Fertility (Sociology), S. Philip Morgan
Natural Resources and Development (Political Science), Kevin M. Morrison
Economics of Renewable Energy Production (Economics), Gregory F. Nemet
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
Migration and Globalization (Political Science), Margaret E. Peters
Limits to Human Longevity (Sociology), Samuel H. Preston and Hiram
Beltrán-Sánchez
The Politics of Disaster Relief (Political Science), Alexander J. Oliver and
Andrew Reeves
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
(Psychology), Lisa L. Shu and Daniel A. Effron
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
The Social Science of Sustainability (Political Science), Johannes Urpelainen
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu
-
Sustainability
JOSEPH A. TAINTER, TEMIS G. TAYLOR, ROSLYNN G. BRAIN, and JOSÉ LOBO
Abstract
Research needs in sustainability encompass a range of topics spanning much
of social and behavioral science. Sustainability requires understanding human
cognition, capacity to reason and make decisions, capacity for long-term planning,
understanding trade-offs, risk perceptions, communication techniques, innovation,
the consequences of improvements in efficiency, energy and other resources, complexity in problem solving, and other matters. We discuss research accomplishments
and needs in the four most important areas of sustainability: (i) risk perceptions; (ii)
influencing behavior; (iii) resources and economics; and (iv) problem solving and
complexity.
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability has moved into mainstream discourse, so that the term sustainable has become like a Rorschach test. People project onto it whatever issues
concern them. “Sustainable” is now applied to everything from Middle East
ceasefires to eye shadow and Facebook. The term sustain comes originally
from the Latin sustinere, and into English through the Old French soustenir.
Both terms mean literally “to hold underneath”—in other words, to uphold
or support. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, sixth edition, lists nine definitions of “sustain.” Two of these read “Cause to continue in a certain state;
maintain at the proper level or standard” and “Support life in; provide for
the life or needs of.” Both definitions are consistent with the original Latin
and French terms: to sustain something is to support its continuation.
Vagueness in the term sustainable requires that specific sustainability goals
be articulated. We use sustainability here in the sense that is intended by
those concerned about humanity’s future, and the relationship of that future
to resources. Sustainability concerns the future sufficiency of the resources
needed to support the diverse ways of human life, and people’s resilience
in pursuing those ways of life. Sustainability research potentially involves
all of social life, and all resource use. We concentrate here on the following,
highest-priority topics:
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Risk Perceptions. Many previous societies proved unsustainable and collapsed. Yet there is a widespread belief that contemporary societies have
overcome this threat. Concern for sustainability requires that people recognize the risks of unsustainability. Such risks may come from resource depletion, overpopulation, pollution, climate change, unsupportable complexity,
or other factors. Extensive discourse on these threats has barely changed
behavior. Responses to risk are compromised by the tendency to discount
future probabilities. Progress requires that we understand better how people
recognize risk, discuss it, and act on it.
Influencing Behavior. Projections of the future are abstractions. People
seem unwilling to change current behavior (such as consumption habits)
based on abstractions. The immediacy of daily life is more compelling
than the—perhaps distant—future. Yet that future is being shaped today.
Emerging research is addressing questions about how to use communication
tools to influence consumption decisions and related behaviors.
Resources and Economics. Resource consumption and technical innovation
lie at the heart of sustainability issues. Particularly in recent centuries, societies have overcome resource limitations through innovation, improving the
efficiency of using resources, or developing new ones. While risk perceptions and communication tools can change consumption habits, prices are
considered the fundamental incentive. We do not know if innovation can
overcome constraints forever, making it important to understand how innovation comes about.
Problem Solving and Complexity. The factors that make a society sustainable
or not emerge over the long term, periods of decades to centuries. Solving
problems today sets the stage for other problems in the future. Problem solving generates complexity and costs that can make a society unsustainable,
as happened to some past societies. Finding ways to evaluate the effects of
added complexity will be critical to sustainability efforts.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH1
RISK PERCEPTIONS
The term risk is commonplace, but as with “sustainability” it varies and
depends on the context and agents involved. The concept of risk has roots
in maritime trade, financial speculation, and actuarial science developed to
protect investments. In the late twentieth century, environmental damage
and disasters exposed new facets of risk. Risks that threaten our ways of life
are often hypothetical, involving new or rare hazards, and a great deal of
1. More extensive discussions of the issues discussed in this section, and the next, can be found in the
list of suggested readings.
Sustainability
3
uncertainty. Those who bear the costs of risk can be distant in both time and
place from the decision maker.
Risk perception is the judgment of risk. It depends on intuitive, experiential, emotional, and cultural factors, which contribute to the heuristics and
biases we use when evaluating risk. Risk perception contrasts with risk assessment, the scientific and professional estimates of risk. Risk perception and
assessment can result in disparate conclusions. Researchers seek to clarify
the factors contributing to widely varying perspectives on risks.
Initial efforts to understand risk perception in relationship to sustainability
were largely theoretical. To mediate temporal aspects and create a long view
of risk, the potential for harm to future generations has been introduced into
decision-making. The precautionary principle has been developed, and in
some cases adopted into policy, to direct a course of action when science is
compelling but uncertain, and risk is high.
Early empirical research focused on subjective and psychometric aspects of
risk. Sociocultural and demographic differences influence risk perceptions.
Psychometric researchers found that beyond the technical risk measures of
probability and magnitude, factors influencing perceptions include dread,
familiarity, voluntariness, visibility of effects, immediacy, severity, and numbers affected.
INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR
Research in sustainability-oriented behavior is prevalent in the natural
resources, business, psychology, and communications fields. This research
originated with questions of why certain individuals are inclined to act in an
environmentally sustainable manner, and whether we can use that research
to influence others.
Studies traced human worldviews or values, and differentiated biospheric,
altruistic, and egoistic value orientations. Value orientations have helped
explain attitudes, and serve as predictors of behavior. Communications
based in core values should elicit environmentally sustainable behavior. In
close relation to human value orientations, studies also emerged investigating whether individuals practiced sustainability-oriented behaviors because
of motivations that are extrinsic (such as financial incentives) or intrinsic
(because it felt like the right thing to do). Normative research (observation
and replication of behavior) measured the impact of influential others, such
as family, close friends, or neighbors, in decision making. Experiments
tested the impact of communicating percentages or numbers of similar
others engaged in a behavior, such as whether one would turn off a shower
to lather in a public swimming facility if another does, or shut off the engine
in a traffic jam once others did. The question then arose how innovations
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
diffuse through society, exploring who the leaders, change-agents, or
innovators are, and how they influence the majority.
In addition to values, motivations, and normative influences, strong connections were found between significant life experiences, such as an influential teacher or commercial development of one’s hometown, and decisions to
pursue careers dedicated to the natural environment. Research recently transitioned from explaining and predicting sustainability-oriented behaviors,
and analyzing tools and message framing, to fostering lasting and large-scale
behavior change.
RESOURCES AND ECONOMICS
The branches of economics most directly connected to sustainability—growth
and behavioral economics—have produced literature that is indirectly useful. Environmental and energy economics are also relevant. The dominant
perspective in growth economics, endogenous growth theory, places the
generation and exchange of ideas (knowledge) as the principal driver
of economic development. Understanding the diffusion of ideas is also
pertinent.
Ideas, in contrast to other types of economic goods, are nonrival (the cost
of providing an idea to an additional consumer is zero) and nonexcludable
(it is difficult to prevent non-paying consumers from using the idea). The
production of nonrival goods seems to defy the law of diminishing returns.
Endogenous growth theory has had an indirect bearing on sustainability discussions as it supports the claim that humans can always innovate to overcome resource challenges.
Sustainable paths of socioeconomic development will ultimately require a
change in consumption behaviors. The approach favored by economists is
to rely on prices and incentives. The price elasticity of demand for a particular good or service (peoples’ responsiveness to a change in price) can be
used to estimate, for example, how much the price of fuel would have to
increase before consumers significantly reduce driving. But the transition to
a sustainable economy must involve more than price responsiveness. Citizens would have to make choices about risks and payoffs, and opportunities
and costs. More ambitiously, citizens would need to envision living in a context in which increasing wealth is not manifested in more consumer goods.
Research in behavioral economics (which studies the effects of social, cognitive, and emotional factors on economic rationality) shows that individuals
find it difficult to assess risk, evaluate rewards, perform discounting, compare cost and benefits, and engage in probabilistic reasoning.
Sustainability
5
PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPLEXITY
Sustainability programs should begin by asking four questions: (i) Sustain
what? Sustainability is a common term, but people often do not specify what
they want to sustain. (ii) Sustain for whom? At least in the short term, sustainability actions may promote winners and losers, thus generating conflict.
This is exemplified in the debate over climate change. Conflict generates complexity (in managing and adjudicating it) and increases costs. (iii) Sustain
for how long? Sustainability depends on specific social, economic, and environmental contexts. As these change, sustainability goals must change also.
(iv) Sustain at what cost? Solving problems requires resources, and historical
societies that achieved sustainability mainly did so by increasing complexity
and resource consumption. Even if sustainability comes through simplification and conservation, there are opportunity costs. People would need to
forego desired consumption.
Sustainability emerges from success at solving problems. Yet actions to
promote sustainability can generate further problems. Human societies
grow increasingly complex as they address problems, including challenges
of sustainability. Complexity consists of differentiation in structure (more
kinds of parts in a system), and greater organization (behavioral controls)
to integrate the parts. This is evident in such spheres as technology, social
and political roles, institutions, the economy, and information processing.
Increasing in complexity to solve problems is exemplified in the growth of
US government agencies and behavioral constraints following the terrorist
attacks of 11 September 2001. In the technological realm, problems of pollution and fuel consumption in transportation are addressed by developing
automobiles with two propulsion systems, where previously one was
sufficient. Increasing complexity carries a metabolic cost. In human societies
the cost of complexity is paid by money, labor, and time, all of which are
surrogates for energy. Past societies that overcame sustainability challenges
increased complexity and resource consumption, yet over time the costs
undermined further sustainability.
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
RISK PERCEPTIONS
Increasing information does not lead to better understanding of risks, and
may be counterproductive. Statistics do not overcome the propensity to
believe one is less likely than average to experience negative outcomes.
When there are conflicting risk messages, people select the information that
fits previous beliefs. Scientific uncertainty is confusing or counterproductive, often resulting in mistrust. Appraisals of trustworthiness are made
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
of decision makers, regulatory agencies, risk initiators, communicators,
and scientists. These appraisals affect public willingness to accept risk
assessments.
Risks are not independently evaluated. Assessments are heavily influenced
by perceptions of benefits. When benefits are potentially high, risks are perceived to be lower. Positive and negative emotional content makes risk information more salient.
Cultural theory proposes that perception of risk is related to constructed
values and norms. Cultural cognition of risk blends psychometrics with the
cultural theoretical approach, explaining perceptions of risk within a cultural
perspective. It explores failures of science to influence opinion about controversial issues.
The social amplification of risk framework (SARF) integrates risk-related
research into a unified approach to the understanding of risk perception, risk
communication, and social responses to risk. SARF proposes that in reacting
to a risk, social interactions influence perceptions and risk-related behaviors,
which lead to institutional responses and protective actions. The effects ripple outward to individuals, groups, and institutions, creating change.
INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR
Earlier practices involving connecting values, enhancing knowledge, altering
attitudes, and understanding normative influences were found to be insufficient to change behavior. New tools and techniques are therefore being developed to influence behavior, based on how values, attitudes, and norms guide
people. One of the leading sets of tools in this area is community-based social
marketing. This promotes change by targeting behaviors, identifying perceived and actual barriers and benefits, developing strategies to overcome
barriers and increase benefits, pilot testing an action plan, implementing the
plan on a broad scale, and finally, evaluating impact. Within this approach, a
targeted action plan has been proposed to foster behavior change. This plan
includes:
•
•
•
•
Developing effective communication tools (e.g., repetitive messaging,
catchy phrasing, appealing terminology, and design).
Establishing norms (e.g., displaying behavior and sharing statistics of
how many local, similar people are engaged in the behavior).
Using prompts placed as close to the target behavior as possible (e.g.,
cashiers handing out grocery lists that state “bring bags” at the top, or
printing messages on disposable cups that there is a discount if customers bring their own mugs).
Providing and marketing incentives.
Sustainability
•
•
7
Gaining commitment (e.g., actions ranging from a handshake to a public
pledge).
Removing external barriers (e.g., providing information on what is recyclable by creating a poster illustrating what can be recycled, and placing
the poster on or near the bin).
Other marketers are looking at ways to appeal to the public, through
approaches such as “making green more macho.” One example is the “Don’t
Mess with Texas” anti-littering campaign. Branding involved masculine
messaging and connecting with Texans’ core value of independence. This
campaign is recognized worldwide as one of the most successful environmental campaigns, reducing highway litter within the first 15 years by 72%.
Communication using popular technology (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blogs,
Pinterest, web sites, YouTube, apps, and Ted Talks) is being explored as a
way to reach youth. Environmental topics ranging from upcycling, to urban
farming, to sustainable seafood systems, have had over a million views on
pertinent web sites, and are connecting a sustainability community larger
than the environmental movement. Many now claim that we have reached a
“tipping point” in public interest.
RESOURCES AND ECONOMICS
Standard economics suggests that, to change behavior, one must change
incentives. Most public policy is based on this view, which assumes that
people operate purely as individuals, and that they systematically compare
the costs and benefits of alternatives. Within this theory, individuals then
make the best choice for themselves. Policy is therefore based on changing
the incentives that people face, altering the costs and benefits of different
choices. This approach is not wrong but it is only partial. We now know
that individuals’ preferences, choices, and assessments are affected by their
social networks, much as are perceptions of risk and susceptibility to communications. Ideas and behaviors either spread or are constrained within
networks. Early adopters are especially important in influencing behavior.
Incentives matter, but could be of secondary importance compared to the
influence of peers. Research is developing ways to identify the strength
of network effects versus individual selection on behavior, classify the
network topology and how it affects behavior, and develop strategies to
alter behavior within network effects.
PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPLEXITY
Humans first use the resources that are easiest to find and produce. In time,
this forces exploration and production to shift to resources that are deeper,
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
more remote, difficult to extract, or occurring in lower concentrations. This
process is evident in petroleum production. The profitability of an energy
source is given by its ratio of energy returned to energy invested (EROI).
In 1940 the United States produced oil and gas at an EROI of 100 : 1. This has
now declined to about 18 : 1. EROI of oil shale production is below 2 : 1, while
for Canadian tar sands the figure is between 4 : 1 and 2 : 1. Both sources are
energetically feasible only because production uses on-site natural gas to free
the oil. Renewable energy sources also have low EROI. Photovoltaic energy in
Spain has an EROI of 2.45 : 1. EROI below about 8 : 1 causes the energetic profitability of energy production to plunge rapidly. As EROI declines, more complex and costly technologies are needed to find and produce energy. Finance
may become a constraint to energy production. Complex technologies are
prone to accidents, as evident in the Deepwater Horizon blowout of 2010.
Many argue that technological improvement will reduce energy use per
unit of economic output, and improve the profitability of resource production. As the easiest technical questions are answered, however, science grows
more complex and costly, and produces diminishing returns. From 1974 to
2005, the productivity of research (measured as US patents per inventor)
declined by 22%. This suggests that efficiency improvements cannot forever
offset resource depletion, as research will eventually become too expensive
and unproductive. The energy sector, including renewable energy technologies, has seen declines in research productivity.
Increasingly complex problems require increasingly complex solutions, which are more costly in money and resources. Since problems
are inevitable, it will be difficult for societies to constrain their resource
consumption voluntarily over the long term.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
RISK PERCEPTIONS
Risk perceptions research contributes to overall knowledge, but neglects
important aspects of the particular concerns of sustainability risks such as
long-term prospects, cumulative effects, and consequences to others. We
need to understand how to align the risks of actions or non-actions in the
present with the values held for the future, especially when evaluations
must overcome the appeal of financial or other benefits in the present.
Sustainability is not well served by existing models of risk behavior that
indicate what people should do or what people actually do. This includes
such approaches as economic risk analysis, game theory, and prospect theory.
Economic models of risk perception do not account for alternative motivations, such as altruism, and suggest, contrary to evidence, that additional
Sustainability
9
information should alter peoples’ perceptions of risk. Game theory predicts
what people do (and/or what they should do), but it presumes rationality and neglects social factors that are important in sustainability. Prospect
theory applies when probabilities are known, but in sustainability matters
they usually are not. The explanatory value of current risk perception models
remains low to moderate for individuals, requiring additional research.
Because the things people fear are not always the risks they act on, research
is needed to understand what motivates people to respond to technological
and environmental risks. One factor to be investigated is the role of emotion
in risk evaluation and communication. Perceptions of risks which have complex or multiple causes, long latency, or compounded effects have also been
insufficiently explored.
Some critics assert that individuals are left to evaluate and cope with risk
alone, lacking social support, adequate understanding, and accurate information. There is a need for further investigation into what constitutes a trustworthy source of information, as well as the effects of trust and credibility in
risk perception.
Scientists, policy-makers, and laypersons use different rationalities in their
assessments of risk. They have different methods and requirements for establishing knowledge. This creates confusion when specialists communicate
among each other, and with the public.
Mass media shape the experience and perceptions of risk. The processes
and effects of media are critical to SARF, yet they have been incompletely
explored. The role of new communication technologies (see above), and
the loss of traditional forms of media, present opportunities to investigate
changes in social amplification processes. Finally, it will be important to
evaluate the cross-cultural and international applicability of the research
findings and models of perceptions of risk. In summary, important research
questions include:
•
•
•
•
•
What factors influence perceptions of risks that motivate people to
action?
How can we encourage long-term risk perspectives that are based in values we wish to project into the future?
How can scientists and policy makers communicate about the uncertainties of risks and weigh them against known benefits in ways that
promote future sustainability?
What are the processes and effects of mass media and new media in creating and influencing perceptions of risk?
How does context shape risk perception and response among different
cultures and nationalities, and what can be learned from such variation?
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR
Behavior changes can be fostered at levels ranging from individuals to households, communities, and societies. Effective communication is necessary to
establish buy-in and behavior change at all levels. Lack of effective communication allows opposition to emerge. Social scientists have established an
excellent theoretical foundation and set of marketing tools for fostering individual, household, and community change in sustainability-oriented behaviors. There is still a gap, however, in fostering change on a larger scale. This
includes government, large corporations, and our education system. At the
societal level researchers are investigating aspects of the communication process that have led to wide-scale resistance to the climate change message. Can
new communication tools help change behavior?
There are many examples of effective communication at the individual
level. Concerns about our food production system, for example, inspire
people to try innovative ways to grow and harvest food. This is no longer
a movement for affluent, upper-class citizens; at-risk youth are joining
urban farms such as “Brother Nature” or “Grow Power.” This movement,
and other examples, prompt a series of broad-scale research questions, as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
How can we align environmental messaging with specific cultural
groups to foster cross-spectrum commitment? Can we effectively and
efficiently find connections in culture and terminology, and use these to
design tools and messages that can bring about lasting change?
How do we successfully facilitate institutional change, resulting in
nation-wide impacts?
How can various types of social media be used to foster environmentally
sustainable behavior? How do we measure whether there is an association between a message and a behavior change? What are the best tools
to reach a large audience and foster change?
What influences whether people engage such things as sustainable food
systems, recycling, or other activities? What are the restrictions to these
influences?
What models and messages about sustainability work best in different
social and geographic settings?
RESOURCES AND ECONOMICS
The generation, recombination, and exchange of ideas are the main drivers
of economic growth. These are also major factors in achieving sustainability. Work by Charles Jones and Paul Romer indicates that there is a virtuous
cycle for economic growth between population size and the generation of
Sustainability
11
ideas. Larger populations have a larger repertoire of intellectual capabilities, thereby facilitating the creation and recombination of ideas, including
ideas related to sustainability. This process can lead to technological, organizational, and cultural innovations that underpin wealth creation and the
ability to sustain larger populations.
Every human endeavor, including the creation of knowledge, requires
energy. Energy is the basis of wealth, knowledge creation, and sustainability,
yet we know little about the energetics of innovation. It is important also to
understand how the innovations induced by increasing population and the
energy needs of an increasing population interact with and mediate each
other. We suggest the following topics for future research:
•
•
Is innovation more productive or efficient in respect to energy use at the
aggregate, societal level than at the level of the individual inventor? Do
interactive effects in innovation produce increasing returns relative to
the energy cost of innovative activities? What, in other words, are the
energetics of social knowledge creation?
We know at the level of the individual person or firm that the generation
of ideas exhibits diminishing returns, but there are reasons, both empirical and theoretical, to think that at the societal level, through positive
externalities, it does not. The conditions under which these externalities operate, however, may not be self-perpetuating. Are there, in fact,
increasing returns to research at the societal level?2 How, in this context, do we disentangle research and development, invention, and idea
creation, which are all different aspects of the innovative process?
PROBLEM SOLVING AND COMPLEXITY
Sustainability requires thinking about the long-term future, an abstraction
that competes poorly with current material consumption. The inclination to
think and act in regard to the future varies with culture and language. In our
history as a species, evolution did not select for concern about the distant
future. People generally think in terms of the immediacy of their daily lives,
perhaps planning for such matters as retirement and their children’s education. In the time scale of societal sustainability, such matters are short term.
Sustainability requires shifting thinking from what Daniel Kahneman calls
System 1 (automatic, culturally-conditioned thinking) to System 2 (rigorous,
analytical thought). Thinking in System 2 is difficult. It requires conscious
effort, on a continuing basis. In short, to be sustainable requires modes of
thinking that do not come easily to many people.
2. Even though research investments seem to produce diminishing returns in innovations per inventor (see above), the ideas generated may produce increasing returns in the economy.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Several analyses suggest that economies cannot grow forever, or even
continue indefinitely at current rates of resource consumption. The solution
commonly proposed is to reduce resource use by voluntary conservation, by
innovation producing greater technical efficiency, or by some combination of
these. An alternative, common in economic reasoning (see above), is to allow
rising prices, resulting from resource scarcity or increasing costs of procurement, to curtail consumption. Yet as the British economist William Stanley
Jevons pointed out in the nineteenth century, conservation and efficiency
reduce the cost of resources to such a degree that consumption actually
increases. This is known as the Jevons Paradox, or the Rebound Effect. For
example, as Americans began to drive more fuel-efficient cars in the 1970s
and 1980s, they responded to greater fuel economy by driving more miles.
It has been suggested that the Rebound Effect can be counteracted by taxing
savings from increasing efficiency. But any use of such savings—consumer
spending, investment, or government spending—consumes resources, as
Jevons would have predicted.
There is also the matter of complexity, and the resources that it requires. Sustainability, as noted, results from success at solving existential problems, and
problem solving generates increasing complexity. Sustainability is not free. It
takes resources to solve problems, and past societies achieved periods of sustainability by increasing their resource consumption. The alternative is not to
solve societal problems, but this involves opportunity costs. We can expect
problems in our own future, requiring resources to solve. Yet sufficiency of
resources is precisely the problem we expect to face. In addition to the Jevons
Paradox, which suggests that technical innovation does not save resources,
there is the further dilemma that the productivity of innovation investments
is declining. As we address the easiest scientific questions, those next in line
become more challenging to resolve, requiring larger research teams, greater
complexity, and higher costs. This produces diminishing returns. If the trend
of declining productivity of research continues for another generation, solving sustainability problems through technical innovation will become unproductive and unaffordable.
These conundra are the essence of whether we can have a sustainable
future. They suggest the following topics for future research:
•
•
Can the human inclination to think short-term, and in System 1, be overcome by early childhood education? Can children (or enough children)
be taught to think in ways that for many people do not come automatically? Addressing these questions would require longitudinal studies of
the kind done in some medical and other research.
Can increasing efficiency in resource use be decoupled from saving
money, thereby circumventing the Jevons Paradox?
Sustainability
•
•
•
13
Can major societal problems be addressed without increasing complexity and resource consumption? Is it possible to simplify and consume
less, yet meet existential challenges and continue a desired way of life?
These questions can be addressed in part by historical research, focusing
on case studies that illustrate general ways that humans solve problems.
Is it possible to produce the material standard of living that people currently want, including economic growth, while reducing resource consumption and while also avoiding both the Jevons Paradox and further
complexity?
Can technical innovation continue to overcome resource constraints
under diminishing returns to research inputs?
FURTHER READING
Allen, T. F. H., Tainter, J. A., & Hoekstra, T. W. (2003). Supply-side sustainability. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, J. H., Burnside, W. R., Davidson, A. D., Delong, J. R., Dunn, W. C., Hamilton,
M. J., … , Zuo, W. (2011). Energetic limits to economic growth. BioScience, 1, 19–26.
doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.1.7
Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on
sources of environmental sensitivity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 3,
11–21. doi:10.1080/00958969809599114
Gattig, A., & Hendrickx, L. (2007). Judgmental discounting and environmental
risk perception: Dimensional similarities, domain differences, and implications
for sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 1, 21–39. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.
00494.x
Jones, C. I., & Romer, P. M. (2010). The new Kaldor facts: Ideas, institutions, population, and human capital. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(1), 224–245.
doi:10.2307/25760291
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific
consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to
community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of risk. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Schultz, W. P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self,
other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 327–339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. Washington, DC:
Earthscan.
Smil, V. (2008). Energy in nature and society: General energetics of complex systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (2012). Making green more macho. Solutions, 3,
25–29.
Strumsky, D., Lobo, J., & Tainter, J. A. (2010). Complexity and the productivity
of innovation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 5, 496–509. doi:10.1002/
sres.1057
Tainter, J. A., & Patzek, T. W. (2012). Drilling down: The Gulf oil debacle and our energy
dilemma. New York, NY: Copernicus Books.
JOSEPH A. TAINTER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Joseph A. Tainter is Professor of Sustainability at Utah State University
(USU), Logan. He is the author of The Collapse of Complex Societies, and the
co-author of Supply-Side Sustainability and Drilling Down: The Gulf Oil Debacle
and Our Energy Dilemma.
TEMIS G. TAYLOR SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Temis G. Taylor earned her MS in Bioregional Planning at USU and is currently pursuing a PhD in Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Science and Management under the direction of the lead author. Interest in social aspects of
sustainability, perceptions of risk, and construction of knowledge in relation
to energy development drive her current research.
ROSLYNN G. BRAIN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Roslynn G. Brain is an Assistant Professor in Sustainable Communities
at Utah State University. She uses conservation theory, communication
techniques, and social marketing tools to foster a broad spectrum of
environmentally-sustainable behaviors, with a focus on waste reduction
and local food movements. Roslynn developed and launched Extension
Sustainability (http://extension.usu.edu/sustainability), a set of tools and
information for the general public to engage in sustainability-oriented
behaviors. She also teaches Communicating Sustainability at USU, helps
coordinate the University’s annual Earth Week, and has launched a statewide
program to connect farmers with restaurants, called Utah Farm-Chef-Fork.
She designed and co-teaches a summer sustainability camp for children
in Utah.
Sustainability
15
JOSÉ LOBO SHORT BIOGRAPHY
José Lobo is Associate Research Professor in the School of Sustainability,
Arizona State University. Trained in physics, economics, and regional science, Dr. Lobo’s research has focused on the determinants of urban economic
development, the nature of cities, and the origins of technological innovation.
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Rent, Rent-Seeking, and Social Inequality (Sociology), Beth Red Bird and
David B. Grusky
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby
Sociological Theory After the End of Nature (Sociology), Robert J. Brulle
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Lawmaking (Political Science), Jamie L. Carson and Mark E. Owens
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
The Inherence Heuristic: Generating Everyday Explanations (Psychology),
Andrei Cimpian
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Cities and Sustainable Development (Sociology), Christopher Cusack
Culture and Globalization (Sociology), Frederick F. Wherry
Global Income Inequality (Sociology), Glenn Firebaugh
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Food Sharing (Anthropology), Michael Gurven and Adrian V. Jaeggi
Behavioral Economics (Sociology), Guy Hochman and Dan Ariely
Modeling Coal and Natural Gas Markets (Economics), Franziska Holz
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Niche Construction: Implications for Human Sciences (Anthropology), Kevin
N. Laland and Michael O’Brien
Why Do States Sign Alliances? (Political Science), Brett Ashley Leeds
Understanding Risk-Taking Behavior: Insights from Evolutionary Psychology (Psychology), Karin Machluf and David F. Bjorklund
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Domestic Political Institutions and Alliance Politics (Political Science),
Michaela Mattes
16
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Built Environments and the Anthropology of Space (Anthropology), Gary W.
McDonogh
Rationing of Health Care (Sociology), David Mechanic
Below-Replacement Fertility (Sociology), S. Philip Morgan
Natural Resources and Development (Political Science), Kevin M. Morrison
Economics of Renewable Energy Production (Economics), Gregory F. Nemet
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
Migration and Globalization (Political Science), Margaret E. Peters
Limits to Human Longevity (Sociology), Samuel H. Preston and Hiram
Beltrán-Sánchez
The Politics of Disaster Relief (Political Science), Alexander J. Oliver and
Andrew Reeves
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
(Psychology), Lisa L. Shu and Daniel A. Effron
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
The Social Science of Sustainability (Political Science), Johannes Urpelainen
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu