Analyzing spillovers from food, energy and water conservation behaviors using insights from systems perspective

Abstract

Spillover effects are considered important in evaluating the impacts of food, energy and water (FEW) conservation behaviors for limiting global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Failure to account for all possible spillovers, or indirect and unintended results of an intervention, not only obscures valuable information pertaining to the dynamic interactions across domains but also results in biased estimates. In this study, we first systematically reviewed articles that investigate the idea that the performance of one pro-environmental behavior influences the conduct of subsequent behaviors(s) from the FEW domains. From our review of 48 studies in the last decade, we note that a big part of the discussion on spillover concerns the nature and direction of causal relationships between individual FEW conservation behaviors. We identify a critical gap in the literature regarding the distinction between spillover effects caused by the interventions as distinct from those caused by the primary behaviors. Next, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis of the reviewed empirical studies to find a modest but overall positive spillover effect. Finally, we reviewed the theoretical and methodological plurality in the FEW spillover literature using a systemic thinking lens to summarize what is already known and identify future challenges and research opportunities with significant policy implications.

The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray

“…A recent Bayesian meta-analysis (Geiger, Brick, Nalborczyk, Bosshard, & Jostmann, 2021) concludes that there is no consistent overall spillover effect across behaviors or intentions for proenvironmental behaviors. In fact, countering the evidence for negative spillovers between proenvironmental behaviors selectively cited by the authors, positive spillover effects do also occur (e.g., Henn, Otto, & Kaiser, 2020;Kumar, Caggiano, Cuite, Felder, & Shwom, 2023;Xu, Zhang, & Ling, 2018).…”

“…For example, a small fee discouraged the use of single-use plastic bags and also increased public support for other environmental policies in the United Kingdom, such as adding changes for plastic bottles, excessive packaging, and fuel consumption . Three recent meta-analyses suggest that positive spillovers tend to occur more often than negative spillovers (Kumar et al, 2023), that positive spillovers tend to occur when i-frame interventions target intrinsic motivation or when the behaviors are similar to each other , or when i-frame interventions support personal autonomy, involve an explicit rationale explaining why the behavior is important, and address normative goals (environmental protection) or personal gain goals (financial savings; Geiger et al, 2021).…”

i-Frame interventions enhance s-frame interventions

“…A recent Bayesian meta-analysis (Geiger, Brick, Nalborczyk, Bosshard, & Jostmann, 2021) concludes that there is no consistent overall spillover effect across behaviors or intentions for proenvironmental behaviors. In fact, countering the evidence for negative spillovers between proenvironmental behaviors selectively cited by the authors, positive spillover effects do also occur (e.g., Henn, Otto, & Kaiser, 2020; Kumar, Caggiano, Cuite, Felder, & Shwom, 2023; Sparkman, Attari, & Weber, 2021; Xu, Zhang, & Ling, 2018).…”

“…For example, a small fee discouraged the use of single-use plastic bags and also increased public support for other environmental policies in the United Kingdom, such as adding changes for plastic bottles, excessive packaging, and fuel consumption (Thomas, Sautkina, Poortinga, Wolstenholme, & Whitmarsh, 2019). Three recent meta-analyses suggest that positive spillovers tend to occur more often than negative spillovers (Kumar et al, 2023), that positive spillovers tend to occur when i-frame interventions target intrinsic motivation or when the behaviors are similar to each other (Maki et al, 2019), or when i-frame interventions support personal autonomy, involve an explicit rationale explaining why the behavior is important, and address normative goals (environmental protection) or personal gain goals (financial savings; Geiger et al, 2021).…”

How do we reinforce climate action?

“…There is currently no single framework that can explain both positive and negative spillovers, as well as the associated behavioral effects. Recent meta-analyses suggest that there are no consistent overall spillovers across pro-environmental behaviors or intentions (Geiger et al, 2021;Kumar et al, 2023;Maki et al, 2019). The multiple existing accounts of spillovers suggest that negative affect-based decisions tend to produce negative spillovers, whereas rolebased decisions that enhance environmental identity tend to produce positive spillovers (Truelove et al, 2014); interventions targeting intrinsic motivations or similar behaviors tend to produce positive spillovers (Maki et al, 2019); and interventions supporting personal autonomy, with an explicit rationale explaining why the behavior is important, and addressing normative goals (environmental protection) or personal gain goals (financial savings) tend to produce positive spillovers (Geiger et al, 2021).…”