About the Site Email Newsletter Links to Cycling Organisations
Bicycle and Public Transport Bicycle Network Planning Bicycle Strategies & Plans Bike Share Programs Cycling Data End of Trip Facilities Facility Design / Engineering Land Use Planning Mobility Management
Cycling Skills: Information for Riders Cycling Skills: Programs and Resources Organisations Professional Development Research
Awards and Recognition Behaviour Change Programs Economic Benefits of Cycling Environmental Benefits of Cycling Health Benefits of Cycling Maps Marketing Ride to School Ride to Shops Ride to Work Social Benefits of Cycling Women in Cycling
Bicycle Regulations Overviews Solutions Statistics & Common Crashes
Cycle Tourism: Promotion Cycle Tourism: Strategies Organisations Recreation: BMX Facilities Recreation: Off Road Facilities and Trails Recreation: Publications and Resources Recreation: Strategies Recreation: Trail and Facility Design Research
International Local Government National Government State & Territory Government
Cycling Innovations Encouragement & Promotion Enforcement & Road Safety Engineering & Planning Funding

Search

Font Decrease Font Normal Font Increase Print

Climate Change and Individual Decision Making (EU)

This working paper by Francesca Pongiglione was published by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) in September 2011. It considers three components of environmental decision making and proposes that all three are needed for behaviour change.

In this essay, three separate yet interconnected components of pro-environmental decision making are considered:

  1. knowledge, in the form of basic scientific understanding and procedural knowledge,
  2. risk perception, as it relates to an individual’s direct experience of climate change and
  3. self-interest, either monetary or status-driven.

Drawing on a variety of sources in public policy, psychology, and economics, I examine the role of these concepts in inducing or discouraging pro-environmental behavior. Past researches have often overemphasized the weight of just one of those variables in the decision making. I argue, instead, that none of them alone is capable of bringing about the behavioral change required by the environmental crisis. 

Evidence shows that increasing the public’s scientific knowledge of climate change cannot unilaterally bring about a strong behavioral change. The same can be noticed even when knowledge is joined by risk-perception: deep psychological mechanisms may steer people towards inaction and apathy, despite their direct experience of the detrimental effects of climate change on their lives. Focusing on self-interest alone is similarly unable to induce pro-environmental behavior, due to a host of psychological factors. Instead, in all of the above cases an important missing ingredient may be found in providing the public with locally contextualized procedural knowledge in order to translate its knowledge and concern into action. The importance of this kind of practical knowledge has solid empirical and theoretical underpinnings, and is often overlooked in the climate-change debate that tends to focus on more high-level issues. Yet, for all its essential simplicity, it may carry important public-policy implications.

Read More