Why aren’t we taking action? Psychological barriers to climate-positive food choices

Theenvironmentalattitude-behaviorgaphasbeenextensivelystudied,butnoresearchhas examined a wide range of barriers to climate change mitigation. Inspired by Gifford’s (2011) seven categories of psychological barriers to climate change mitigation and adaptation, we examined the role of 36barriers onclimate-positive food-choice intentions.Of the 36, 29were significantly related to weaker intentions. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the barriers cluster into four factors (Denial, Interpersonal Influences, ConflictingGoals andAspirations, andTokenism). Confirmatory factor analysis validated both the four-factor model and the rational seven-factor model proposed earlier. All factors except Interpersonal Influence are related to fewer food-choice intentions, illustrating the value of understanding psychological barriers for pro-environmental intentions. The consensus among climate scientists, and the cumulative physical evidence, is that climate change is occurring and that post-industrial increase in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can largely be attributed to human activities. To prevent an increase in global temperature rise greater than 2 °C over pre-industrial levels, reduction of anthropogenic GHG emissions is urgently necessary (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). A rapidly growing body of literature suggests that citizen mobilization, through aggregated environmentally significant behaviors, is an essential component for global GHG emission reduction (e.g., Bandura 2007; Corbett 2006; Stern 2000). One crucial task of psychologists is to identify and understand barriers that limit behavioral change (Gifford 2008; Swim 2010). To foster this, the current study investigated the connections between a range of psychological barriers and a specific ameliorative behavioral intention—sustainable food choices. 1 Food and climate change impacts Low-carbon transportation and sustainable buildings have been major action areas for meeting GHG reduction targets for governments and other campaigns. However, the need for deep cuts in Climatic Change (2017) 140:165–178 DOI 10.1007/s10584-016-1830-y * Angel K. S. Chen [email protected] 1 Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada emissions has become more pressing for the global food system. In recent decades, global food production has expanded with industrial-based processes in order to meet accelerating food demands (Pelletier and Tyedmers 2010). These processes not only place a strain on depleting natural resources, but also contribute 19 to 29 % of GHG emissions (Vermeulen et al. 2012). Several factors contribute to food’s climate impacts, including the energy used for its production, distribution, storage, waste disposal, and the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Livestock production emits 7.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, accounting for 18 % of global GHG emissions (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2006). The livestock sector also occupies about 30 % of the terrestrial surface on Earth (Ramankutty et al. 2008), generates significant volumes of water pollution, and exacerbates deforestation and land degradation. If the current agricultural trends continue, food production emissions alone will exceed global warming limit of 2 °C by 2050 (Hedenus et al. 2014). Although sustainable agricultural practices should be regulated by policies, individual consumers can further decelerate local and global environmental impacts by adopting more sustainable consumption habits. Clearly, a wide range of effective mitigation options is feasible for individuals. For example, reduced meat-based consumption could reduce mitigation costs by 50 % (Stehfest et al. 2009). Yet, more than currently adopted measures are necessary to lessen the adverse effects of climate change. 2 Psychological barriers to inaction Undeniably, many people are concerned about climate change, but nevertheless often engage in behaviors that are detrimental to the environment or fail to engage in ameliorative actions. This attitude-behavior gap is a topic of ongoing research interest. Broadly, environmental attitudes are relatively poor predictors of pro-environmental behavior (Hines et al. 1987; Staats 2003). However, when barriers or facilitators of behaviors are factored into estimates, the correlation between attitudes and behavior is substantially strengthened (e.g., Corraliza and Berenguer 2000; Kaiser and Gutscher 2003). A variety of psychological (as opposed to structural) barriers have been identified (e.g., Lorenzoni et al. 2007; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). For example, Blake (1999) argued that many models of behavior are limited because they fail to consider three major constraints on environmental actions: individuality (e.g., conflicting attitudes), responsibility (failure to assume personal responsibility to take actions), and practicability (lack of time, money, facilities, and information). Drawing on qualitative data, Lorenzoni et al. (2007) found that the members of UK public perceived two main levels of barriers to climate change engagement—at the individual level (e.g., lack of knowledge and skepticism) and at the societal level (e.g., lack of political actions on climate change). In an attempt to summarize several influential theoretical frameworks on the attitude-behavior gap, Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) developed a conceptual model that demonstrates the complexity of factors that may hinder pro-environmental behavior. These factors were demographics, internal factors (e.g., environmental conscience, locus of control), and external factors (e.g., availability of infrastructure and financial constraints). In a recent review of psychological barriers, Gifford (2011) proposed that climate change mitigation and adaptation may be hindered by almost three dozen of them (Bthe dragons of inaction^) that fall into seven categories. The first category is limited cognition about the problem. Constrained by limited cognitive capacity, humans often make decisions that are irrational, short-term, and self-focused. Thus, pro-environmental behaviors may be hindered 166 Climatic Change (2017) 140:165–178