Many frontrunners in the area of sustainability are great advocates of new and exciting technologies, such as solar panels, windmills, electrical cars or local food production. And while knowledge about all these technologies is rising, scientists have noticed a discrepancy between people’s awareness and their observed behaviour [1]. People know sustainability is important, and more people are adopting sustainable technologies, but it sometimes feels to me like no major strides are being taken. And I wonder how much of that is caused by the fact that we simply don’t like to change our ingrained behaviour. How often this new technology might not lead to people thinking ‘well, I am already doing good, using these new technologies, so I won’t have to feel guilty about acting just a bit less sustainable, since it will lead to a net gain anyway’.
The explanation behind this theory can be found in a phenomenon called risk compensation. This is something that has shown up several times when ‘improvements’ are made to existing technologies. The theory of risk states that people adjust their behaviour in accordance with the perceived level of risk, which means that the less risky an activity is, the more reckless their actions tend to be [2].
Just look at the way car technology developed. When car designers put seatbelts in cars, they immediately noticed automobilists started driving faster [3]. To counteract this, they created better brakes [4], only to notice that people would take greater risks than before, driving even faster, and braking later. On the other hand, methods or structures that make highways seem riskier counteract this, helping people to slow down, thus making the roads safer in contrast.
A similar principle can probably be applied to sustainability. The greater the sustainable effect you are having seems, the less effort you want to spend on behavioural changes that would improve your overall sustainability. If this is true, and it certainly seems logical, it’s absolutely vital that besides these technologies, there will be initiatives focused on behaviour, thus preventing this sustainability compensation from taking place. Unless we start connecting technology with the people who use it, and the way they use it, we won’t get much mileage out of it.
[1] Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K. & Hobman, E.V. (2015). Household energy use: Applying behavioural
economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.026
[2] Wood, C. (2013). The balance of Risk Retrieved December 13th, 2015, from
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-balance-of-risk/
[3] NLP Notes. (2015). Risk compensation Retrieved December 13th, , 2015, from
http://nlpnotes.com/risk-compensation/
[4] Williams, F. (2006). Killer ABS Retrieved December 13th, , 2015, from
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/08/killer-abs-abs-braking-increases-rollover-risk-by-51/
[Image] Williams, F. (2006). Killer ABS Retrieved December 13th, , 2015, from
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/08/killer-abs-abs-braking-increases-rollover-risk-by-51/