IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i21p11582-d660551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change: A Review of Meat Consumption Behaviours

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Graves

    (Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Katy Roelich

    (Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
    School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

Abstract

Meat consumption behaviours contribute significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions. Interventions to enable meat consumption reductions need to consider the psychological barriers preventing behavioural changes. Our aims were twofold; (1) to explore the psychological barriers to reducing meat consumption and how they can be overcome through a Rapid Evidence Review; and (2) to explore the usefulness of integrating the Kollmuss and Agyeman (K&A) model of pro-environmental behaviour and psychological distance, which provides the analytical framework. This review utilised three databases, focussing on empirical studies since 2010, which returned 277 results with seven eligible studies. We found that habit is the most significant psychological barrier to change, however, values and attitudes could act as moderating variables. We found gaps in the behavioural mechanism, indicating the presence of direct and indirect psychological barriers. We identified several actionable policy recommendations, such as utilising co-benefits, the importance of values in messaging, and targeting repeated behaviours. We found that study outcomes did not always translate into policy recommendations, and they were limited by existing policy paradigms. Psychological distance provides additional explanatory power, when combined with the K&A model, therefore, integrating psychological distance across pro-environmental behavioural research and policy could improve the effectiveness of interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Graves & Katy Roelich, 2021. "Psychological Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change: A Review of Meat Consumption Behaviours," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11582-:d:660551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11582/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11582/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruben Sanchez-Sabate & Yasna Badilla-Briones & Joan Sabaté, 2019. "Understanding Attitudes towards Reducing Meat Consumption for Environmental Reasons. A Qualitative Synthesis Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-38, November.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2005. "American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1433-1442, December.
    4. Robert D. Gifford & Angel K. S. Chen, 2017. "Why aren’t we taking action? Psychological barriers to climate-positive food choices," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 165-178, January.
    5. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    6. Singh, Ajay S. & Zwickle, Adam & Bruskotter, Jeremy T. & Wilson, Robyn, 2017. "The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 93-99.
    7. Hunter, Erik & Röös, Elin, 2016. "Fear of climate change consequences and predictors of intentions to alter meat consumption," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 151-160.
    8. Grabs, Janina, 2015. "The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism. A microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 270-279.
    9. Russell, Sally V. & Young, C. William & Unsworth, Kerrie L. & Robinson, Cheryl, 2017. "Bringing habits and emotions into food waste behaviour," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 107-114.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haoran Chu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 758-770, April.
    2. Dang Vu, Hoai Nam & Nielsen, Martin Reinhardt, 2022. "Understanding determinants of the intention to buy rhino horn in Vietnam through the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Liang-Chu Ho & Yu-Hsien Sung & Chia-Chun Wu & Pei-Shan Lee & Wen-Bin Chiou, 2020. "Envisaging Mitigation Action Can Induce Lower Discounting toward Future Environmental Gains and Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Wei Zheng & Hongliang Qiu & Alastair M. Morrison & Wei Wei & Xihua Zhang, 2022. "Landscape and Unique Fascination: A Dual-Case Study on the Antecedents of Tourist Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Francesco La Barbera & Mario Amato & Roberta Riverso & Fabio Verneau, 2022. "Social Emotions and Good Provider Norms in Tackling Household Food Waste: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Menrad, K. & Emberger-Klein, A. & Schops, J., 2018. "Factors influencing consumers behavioral intention towards climate-friendly food consumption in Southern Germany," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277108, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Nik Masdek Nik Rozana & Wong Kelly Kai Seng & Mohd Nawi Nolila & Sharifuddin Juwaidah & Wong Wang Li, 2023. "Antecedents of sustainable food waste management behaviour: Empirical evidence from urban households in Malaysia," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 18(1), pages 53-77, March.
    8. Gkargkavouzi, Anastasia & Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2019. "How do motives and knowledge relate to intention to perform environmental behavior? Assessing the mediating role of constraints," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2017. "Does Size Matter? A Study of Risk Perceptions of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 65-81, January.
    10. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    11. Hu, Saiquan & Jia, Xiao & Zhang, Xiaojin & Zheng, Xiaoying & Zhu, Junming, 2017. "How political ideology affects climate perception: Moderation effects of time orientation and knowledge," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 124-131.
    12. D. Liliana González-Hernández & Raúl A. Aguirre-Gamboa & Erik W. Meijles, 2023. "The role of climate change perceptions and sociodemographics on reported mitigation efforts and performance among households in northeastern Mexico," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1853-1875, February.
    13. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    14. Meifen Wu & Ruyin Long & Hong Chen & Jiaqi Wang, 2023. "The influence of risk perception on climate change communication behavior: a dual perspective of psychological distance and environmental values," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 118(1), pages 785-806, August.
    15. Nicole Betz & John D. Coley, 2022. "Human Exceptionalist Thinking about Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-28, August.
    16. Natasha Juliana & Suddin Lada & Brahim Chekima & Azaze-Azizi Abdul Adis, 2022. "Exploring Determinants Shaping Recycling Behavior Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model: An Empirical Study of Households in Sabah, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, April.
    17. Wang, Haizhong & Shen, Manqiong & (Amy) Song, Yiping & Phau, Ian, 2020. "Do up-displayed eco-friendly products always perform better? The moderating role of psychological distance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 198-212.
    18. Jing Shi & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2015. "Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2183-2201, December.
    19. van der Wal, Arianne J. & van Horen, Femke & Grinstein, Amir, 2018. "Temporal myopia in sustainable behavior under uncertainty," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 378-393.
    20. Carlos Eduardo Lourenco & Nadine Marques Nunes-Galbes & Riccardo Borgheresi & Luciana Oranges Cezarino & Flavio Pinheiro Martins & Lara Bartocci Liboni, 2022. "Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11582-:d:660551. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.