You do research on what drives people to act in an environmentally friendly way. Can you talk a bit more about that?

I am an environmental psychologist and research the interaction between humans and the environment. There are two questions I try to answer. On the one hand: what influence does the environment have on our behaviour and well-being? And on the other: what motivates people to act sustainably? The latter question has always had the most emphasis in my research on what drives people to combat climate change. I have also recently started researching climate adaptation. Because it is no longer enough to limit climate change, we also have to adapt. I am particularly interested in sustainable behaviour out of intrinsic motivation. So when people act in an environmentally friendly way not because they like it or because it is financially attractive, but because they themselves think it is important to do something good for the climate.

‍

Can you encourage that intrinsic motivation?

Yes, and one of the things I look at is the role of values. The research my team does shows that many people have quite strong environmental values. These are general goals that people aspire to, which determine whether you act sustainably and whether you find sustainability policies acceptable. I am also researching with my team how people who have less strong environmental values can still be motivated to behave more sustainably. We have found several routes for that. For example, when people realise the good things they already do for the environment, they start to see themselves as sustainable people. Because people want to act in accordance with self-image, this stimulates sustainable behaviour. In addition, environmental values can also come from within the group. For instance, one of our studies found that employees of a company that values sustainability will themselves engage in more sustainable behaviour. In a follow-up study, we investigated whether the same principle applies in relation to a company where you are a customer. In this case, it was an energy company and there we find the same kind of patterns.

‍

So your conclusion was that it works better to remind people of their environmental values than to directly ask them to act sustainably?  

Indeed. The same is evident from a recent study by one of my PhD students. In it, participants were given a message every other day about why eating meat is bad for the environment, e.g. 'meat consumption leads to CO2 emissions'. Based on that information, most decided to act sustainably; it led them to eat less meat. The findings of another PhD student are consistent with this. Her research suggests that freedom of choice is crucial for the intrinsic motivation to act sustainably, and that sustainable behaviour leads to a good feeling especially if one performs the behaviour by choice.

Why do people who care about the environment not always act consistently in an environmentally friendly way?

This is because in many situations it is not convenient or even possible to act in an environmentally friendly way. Not everyone can afford to put solar panels on the roof or completely insulate their house or install a heat pump. The way our society is set up means that some choices are very attractive and others are not. Yet we do all sorts of things that require some effort. In the Netherlands, for instance, we cycle and walk an insane amount instead of taking the car. We also recycle en masse. These are not things that have an immediate positive personal impact, and yet we do it.

‍

Recent months have shown that we are willing to change our behaviour out of fear of corona. The Glasgow climate summit has been pushed back to late 2021. Regarding climate, most people do not seem to feel the urgency (yet). How do you see it?  

The corona crisis is very interesting because it shows that really drastic changes can be realised in a very short time. In my opinion, policymakers generally underestimate public support for environmental policies. The thinking is often that people care more about their own wallets than about the climate. But support does not only depend on the question: do the benefits for me outweigh the costs? It also depends on: is the policy effective in solving the problem? How are costs and benefits distributed across society? Have I had a say and have my concerns been taken into account? At the beginning of the corona crisis, the government clearly told us what needed to be done and clear rules were implemented. That political boldness was fuelled by science. In the field of sustainability, that is not yet happening, whilst also here, sustainable behaviour, it is not only the responsibility of the individual. Governments and companies also have a lot of influence on it. At the end of the first wave of corona we were allowed to fly again, rather than travel by train for example. From a sustainability perspective, that is a very strange decision.

‍

As a social scientist, you contribute to the reports of the United Nations climate agency, which has traditionally been advised mainly by natural scientists. What has changed in recent years?

In 2015, the Paris climate agreement agreed to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees. In 2018, the IPCC's 1.5 degrees report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of which Linda Steg was one of the lead authors, ed.) examined whether it is possible to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. It concluded that such a limitation was indeed feasible and would significantly reduce climate-related risks. Droughts, floods, extreme heat and other serious impacts on hundreds of millions of people would be reduced. But to make that happen, far-reaching and unprecedented measures must be taken in the very short term. Here, social science knowledge can play an important role. At the time, I was the only psychologist involved in the climate report. The next IPCC report is expected by 2021 and I am again contributing but this time together with six or seven fellow social scientists. So our field is receiving increasing attention.

‍

What insights does your field add?

In the upcoming report, we as social scientists take a much broader look at how society can adapt. In any case, the sense of urgency has increased quite a lot recently. When the 1.5 degrees report came out, the findings received a lot of media attention. This was followed by climate protests and school strikes so that publication really triggered action. The reason may be that there was a positive tone in the report that made it clear that we can counter the negative effects of climate change. We know from research that fear-inducing education is counterproductive. It is important to give people an action perspective so that they feel there is still something to be saved.

At the end of September 2020, you will receive the NWO-Stevin Prize what does this award mean for you?

It is a very much appreciated show of recognition for a large group of people. After all, I definitely did not do the research on environmental behaviour for which I received the award alone, but together with both my former and current colleagues. The Stevin Prize is awarded to scientific research with social impact. And that is exactly what I like best and most inspiring about doing research: that the research is scientifically sound but also helps to better understand and solve current problems.

‍

You mention the importance of collaboration, what does your research group look like?

I have long collaborated with spatial scientists, environmentalists, mathematicians, philosophers, sociologists and, more recently, climate modellers. Interdisciplinary teams produce new ideas because everyone has a part of the puzzle. In such collaborations, researchers challenge each other to question their own dogmas. At the moment, I work a lot with mathematicians who design algorithms that drive our energy system, for example. Starting from applied mathematics, they make very basic assumptions about what motivates people. Usually, they assume money as an incentive. Together, we are now trying to make such assumptions more realistic. Psychology can add behavioural science knowledge to mathematical algorithms. At the same time, mathematical logic forces psychology to think much more precisely about human behaviour. Because mathematicians ultimately want to create a formula, psychologists have to become much more rigorous in their reasoning. This is a trade-off where those two fields can really learn from each other.

‍

You are active in many scientific committees. On 1 September 2020, you joined the KNAW Board as chair of the Behavioural, Social and Legal Sciences Domain. How important is administrative involvement to you?

First of all, let me say that I enjoy doing research the most. But because I submit all kinds of research proposals myself, I also find it important to provide services to bodies that enable scientific research, which is why I do committee work for grants and prizes such as, for example, the Ammodo Science Award in 2019. Although I do not aspire to a full-time board position, I certainly have ideas on what could be improved and that being the case, I believe you then have to take responsibility for it. From my role as KNAW domain chair, I can contribute to a number of issues at play in the scientific world. In particular, I think it is important that researchers work within an environment in which they can perform optimally. Our administrative systems have developed into monsters that often result in professors instead of support services doing the administration. Surely we should be able to simplify that. Another topical issue is social safety. Lately, all kinds of cases came to light about unfair treatment in science, towards both students and staff. This also needs to be addressed because it is very important that everyone works in safe conditions.

The positive approach of your research is hopeful. What is your dream for the future?

In my opinion, we need to rely more on trust in science. At the moment, everything has to be accounted for down to the decimal point and that feeds a sense of distrust. This can lead to a certain type of research no longer being done because it does not fall within the mainstream and is therefore too risky. It is a shame if novice researchers no longer dare to pursue side tracks for that reason. When I was just starting out as a scientist, I was also initially told to pursue my career elsewhere, because sustainability research did not fit in the university. Fortunately, that has now changed, but if there had been no confidence in my quality as a scientist back then, I probably wouldn't be here now. Scientists are professionals, so in my opinion you shouldn't micro-manage them or limit them, you should give people space so they can flourish.

‍

Published on 8 September 2020.

‍

Photos: Florian Braakman