Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:37:59.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2023

Pranay Kumar Open the ORCID record for Pranay Kumar [Opens in a new window] ,
Holly Caggiano ,
Cara Cuite ,
Frank A. Felder  and
Rachael Shwom
Pranay Kumar*
Affiliation:
E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Holly Caggiano
Affiliation:
Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Cara Cuite
Affiliation:
Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Frank A. Felder
Affiliation:
Energy Transitions and Electric Power, KAPSARC, Riyadh, KSA
Rachael Shwom
Affiliation:
Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
*
Corresponding author: Pranay Kumar, Email: pranay.kumar@rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

pro-environmental behaviorsspillover effectsfoodenergy and water (FEW) nexusbehavioral spilloversystems approach
Type
Review Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 2023 , pp. 773 - 807
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdi, H., Shahbazitabar, M. and Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2020), ‘Food, energy and water nexus: a brief review of definitions’, Research, and Challenges Inventions, 5(56): 1–14.Google Scholar
Ackoff, R. L. (1994), ‘Systems thinking and thinking systems’, System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3): 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahir, R. K. and Chakraborty, B. (2021), ‘A meta-analytic approach for determining the success factors for energy conservation’, Energy, 230: 120821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1991), ‘The theory of planned behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. (2011), ‘The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections’, Psychology and Health, 26(9): 1113–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Al-Chalabi, M., Banister, D. and Brand, C. (2018), ‘On target? Examining the effects of information displays on household energy and travel behaviour in Oxford, United Kingdom’, Energy Research & Social Science, 44: 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allcott, H. (2011), ‘Social norms and energy conservation’, Journal of Public Economics, 95: 1082–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelucci, M. and Maro, V. D. (2015), ‘Program Evaluation and Spillover Effects. Policy Research Working Paper 7243’, Bonn, Germany: World Bank Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, C. and Trujillo, C. A. (2020), ‘Perceived consumer effectiveness as a trigger of behavioral spillover effects: a path towards recycling’, Sustainability, 12(11): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. D. and Wade, J. P. (2015), ‘A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach’, Procedia Computer Science, 44: 669–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, A., Cox, J., Barnett, J. and Thomas, C. (2011), Exploring Catalyst Behaviours: Executive Summary. A Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Brook Lyndhurst for Defra, London. London, UK: Defra.Google Scholar
Bazilian, M., Rogner, H., Howells, M., Hermann, S., Arent, D., Gielen, D., Steduto, P., Mueller, A., Komor, P., Tol, R. and Yumkella, K. K. (2011), ‘Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach’, Energy Policy, 39(12): 7896–7906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Befani, B., Ramalingam, B. and Stern, E. (2015), ‘Introduction – towards systemic approaches to evaluation and impact’, IDS Bulletin, 46: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bem, J. (1972), ‘Self-perception theory’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6: 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, H., Shwom, R. and Cuite, C. (2019), ‘Becoming FEW conscious: a conceptual typology of household behavior change interventions targeting the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus’, Sustainability, 18: 1–24.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. and Rothstein, H. R. (2009), Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouman, T., Steg, L. and Kiers, H. A. L. (2018), ‘Measuring values in environmental research: a test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 1–15. Article 564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandon, A., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D., Pricec, M. K. and Rundhammer, F. (2019), ‘Testing for crowd out in social nudges: evidence from a natural field experiment in the market for electricity’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(12): 5293–5298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bridges, A., Felder, F. A., McKelvey, K. and Niyogi, I. (2014), ‘Uncertainty in energy planning: estimating the health impacts of air pollution from fossil fuel electricity generation’, Energy Reserach & Social Science, 6: 74–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brügger, A. and Höchli, B. (2019), ‘The role of attitude strength in behavioral spillover: attitude matters—but not necessarily as a moderator’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 160–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J. and Harrison, C. M. (1998), ‘Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(8): 1445–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caggiano, H. B., Kumar, P., Shwom, R., Cuite, C. and Axsen, J. (2021), ‘Explaining green technology purchases by US and Canadian households: the role of pro-environmental lifestyles, values, and environmental concern’, Energy Efficiency, 14(5): 1–16.Google Scholar
Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Nash, N., Haggar, P. and Lord, J. (2019), ‘Compensatory and catalyzing beliefs: their relationship to pro-environmental behavior and behavioral spillover in seven countries’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlsson, F., Jaime, M. and Villegas, C. (In press), ‘Behavioral spillover effects from a social information campaign’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102325.Google Scholar
Carman, J. P. and Zint, M. T. (2020), ‘Defining and classifying personal and household climate change adaptation behaviors’, Global Environmental Change, 61(March): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and Young, O. (2006), ‘Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world’, Ecology and Society, 11(2): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. and Loewenstein, G. (2022), The i-Frame and the s-Frame: How Focusing on the Individual-Level Solutions has led Behavioral Public Policy Astray. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4046264.Google Scholar
Cleophas, T. J. and Zwinderman, A. H. (2017), Modern Meta-Analysis: Review and Update of Methodologies, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cody, M. L. and Smallwood, J. A. (1996), Long-Term Studies of Vertebrate Communities. California, USA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
d'Adda, G., Capraro, V. and Tavoni, M. (2017), ‘Push, don't nudge: behavioral spillovers and policy instruments’, Economics Letters, 154: 92–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLaurentiis, V., Hunt, D. V. and Rogers, C. D. (2016), ‘Overcoming food security challenges within an energy/water/food nexus (EWFN) approach’, Sustainability, 8(95): 1–23.Google Scholar
Dolan, P. and Galizzi, M. M. (2015), ‘Like ripples on a pond: behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 47: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, G., Sovacool, B., Aall, C., Nilsson, M., Barbier, C., Herrmann, A., Bruyère, S., Andersson, C., Skold, B., Nadaud, F., Dorner, F., Moberg, K. R., Ceron, J. P., Fischer, H., Amelung, D., Baltruszewicz, M., Fischer, J., Benevise, F., Louis, V. R. and Sauerborn, R. (2019), ‘It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures’, Energy Research & Social Science, 52: 144–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and Liere, K. D. V. (1978), ‘The new environmental paradigm’, The Journal of Environmental Education, 9: 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elf, P., Gatersleben, B. and Christie, I. (2019), ‘Facilitating positive spillover effects: new insights from a mixed-methods approach exploring factors enabling people to live more sustainable lifestyles’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 68–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanghella, V., d'Adda, G. and Tavoni, M. (2019), ‘On the use of nudges to affect spillovers in environmental behaviors’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10(61): 50–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festinger, L. (1957), Theory of Cognitive Dissonance AU, Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014), The Water-Energy-Food Nexus A New Approach in Support of Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture. https://www.fao.org/3/bl496e/bl496e.pdf [12 December 2021].Google Scholar
Fornara, F., Pattitoni, P., Mura, M. and Strazzerac, E. (2016), ‘Predicting intention to improve household energy efficiency: the role of value-belief-norm theory, normative and informational influence, and specific attitude’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrester, J. W. (1994), ‘System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR’, System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3): 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froio, Z., Kumar, P. and Felder, F. A. (2020), ‘Not adding up: free ridership and spillover calculations in energy efficiency evaluations’, Energy Efficiency, 13(5): 991–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galizzi, M. M. and Whitmarsh, L. (2019), ‘How to measure behavioral spillovers: a methodological review and checklist’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 145–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geiger, S. J., Brick, C., Nalborczyk, L., Bosshard, A. and Jostmann, N. B. (2021), ‘More green than gray? Toward a sustainable overview of environmental spillover effects: a Bayesian meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78: 101694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghesla, C., Grieder, M. and Schmitz, J. (2019), ‘Nudge for good? Choice defaults and spillover effects’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10(178): 84–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K. and Viswanath, K. (2015), Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J. Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E. and Tourangeau, R. (2009), Survey Methodology, 2nd edn, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN: 9780470465462.Google Scholar
Hagmann, D., Ho, E. H. and Loewenstein, G. (2019), ‘Nudging out support for a carbon tax’, Nature Climate Change, 9(6): 484–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henn, L., Otto, S. and Kaiser, F. G. (2020), ‘Positive spillover: the result of attitude change’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69: 101429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höchli, B., Brügger, A., Abegglen, R. and Messner, C. (2019), ‘Using a goal theoretical perspective to reduce negative and promote positive spillover after a bike-to-work campaign’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 127–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoff, H. (2011), Understanding the Nexus, Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.Google Scholar
Howells, M., Hermann, S., Welsch, M., Bazilian, M., Segerström, R., Alfstad, T., Gielen, D., Rogner, H., Fischer, G., van Velthuizen, H., Wiberg, D., Young, C., Roehrl, R. A., Mueller, A., Steduto, P. and Ramma, I. (2013), ‘Integrated analysis of climate change, land-use, energy and water strategies’, Nature Climate Change, 3(7): 621–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, H., Fang, W. and Yu, X. (2020), ‘Enhancing individual commitment to energy conservation in organizational settings: identity manipulation for behavioral changes’, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 156: 104720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC (2007), IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M. and Creutzig, F. (2020), ‘Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options’, Environmental Research Letters, 15(9): 093001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessoe, K., Lade, G. E., Loge, F. and Spang, E. (2017), Spillovers from Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Water and Energy Use. https://e2e.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/workingpapers/WP033.pdf.Google Scholar
Jones, C. R., Whitmarsh, L. E., Byrka, K., Capstick, S., Kaklamanou, D., Galizzi, M. M., Carrico, A. R. and Uzzell, D. (2019), ‘Editorial: methodological, theoretical and applied advances in behavioural spillover’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 5–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klöckner, C. A., Nayum, A. and Mehmetoglu, M. (2013), ‘Positive and negative spillover effects from electric car purchase to car use’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 21: 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2010), ‘Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?’, Environmental Education Research, 8: 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajhanzl, J. (2010), ‘Environmental and proenvironmental behavior’, School and Health, 21(1): 251–274.Google Scholar
Krpan, D., Galizzi, M. M. and Dolan, P. (2019), ‘Looking at spillovers in the mirror: making a case for “behavioral spillunders”’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumpal, I. (2013), ‘Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review’, Quality & Quantity, 47(4): 2025–2047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacasse, K. (2016), ‘Don't be satisfied, identify! Strengthening positive spillover by connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an “environmentalist” label’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48: 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanzini, P. and Thøgersen, J. (2014), ‘Behavioural spillover in the environmental domain: an intervention study’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40: 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesic, V., De Bruin, W. B., Davis, M. C., Krishnamurti, T. and Azevedo, I. M. (2018), ‘Consumers’ perceptions of energy use and energy savings: a literature review’, Environmental Research Letters, 13(3): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, M. and Azar, E. (2019), ‘Mixing work and leisure? Energy conservation actions and spillovers between building occupants at work and at home in the UAE’, Energy Research & Social Science, 47: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y. and Forrest, B. (2012), Systemic Structure Behind Human Organizations: From Civilizations to Individuals. New York, USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. and Wilson, D. B. (2001), Practical Meta-analysis, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 49, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Maki, A., Carrico, A. R., Raimi, K. T., Truelove, H. B., Araujo, B. and Yeung, K. L. (2019), ‘Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover’, Nature Sustainability, 2: 307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margetts, E. A. and Kashima, Y. (2017), ‘Spillover between pro-environmental behaviours: the role of resources and perceived similarity’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 49: 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, J. S., Clark, M. A. and Jaramillo, D. (2011), ‘The role of the five factor model of personality in the perceptions of negative and positive forms of work–nonwork spillover: a meta-analytic review’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79: 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midgley, G. (2000), Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midgley, G. (2007), Systems Thinking for Evaluation. Systems Concepts in Evaluation: An Expert Anthology. 11-34. Point Reyes, CA: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
Nash, N., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., Hargreaves, T., Poortinga, W., Thomas, G., Sautkina, E. and Xenias, D. (2017), Climate-Relevant Behavioral Spillover and the Potential Contribution of Social Practice Theory. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wcc.481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, N., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., Thøgersen, J., Gouveia, V., de Carvalho, R., Araújo, R., Harder, M. K., Wang, X. and Liu, Y. (2019), ‘Reflecting on behavioral spillover in context: how do behavioral motivations and awareness catalyze other environmentally responsible actions in Brazil, China, and Denmark?’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 212–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, J. P., Goldstein, B. and Foster, A. (2019), ‘A 40-year review of food–energy–water nexus literature and its application to the urban scale’, Environmental Research Letters, 14(7): 073003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigg, C., Burbank, P. M., Padula, C., Dufresne, R., Rossi, J. S., Velicer, W. F., Laforge, R. G. and Prochaska, J. O. (1999), ‘Stages of change across ten health risk behaviors for older adults’, The Gerontologist, 39(4): 473–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nilsson, A., Bergquist, M. and Schultz, W. P. (2016), ‘Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: a review and research agenda’, Environmental Education Research, 23(4): 573–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, M. (2005), ‘Studying individual and family development: linking theory and research’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 67: 880–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OpenLearn (2015), Managing Complexity: A Systems Approach – Introduction. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/computing-and-ict/systems-computer/managing-complexity-systems-approach-introduction/content-section-0?active-tab=description-tab.Google Scholar
Poortinga, W., Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2004), ‘Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use’, Environment and Behavior, 36(1): 70–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L. and Suffolk, C. (2013), ‘The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: attitude change and behavioural spillover effects’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36: 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rashid, N. R. N. A. and Mohammad, N. (2012), ‘A discussion of underlying theories explaining the spillover of environmentally friendly behavior phenomenon’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50: 1061–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, M., Gates, E., Hummelbrunner, R., Marra, M. and Williams, B. (2016), ‘Towards systemic evaluation’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(5): 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, B. (1993), ‘Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond’, System Dynamics Review, 9(2): 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickerby, D. G. and Serventi, A. M. (2010), ‘Nanostructured metal oxide gas sensors for air-quality monitoring’, in Environanotechnology, Oxford, UK: Elsevier, pp. 99–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogan, J. E. and Lacher, J. T. E. (2018), ‘Impacts of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Terrestrial Biodiversity’, Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, 99–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10913-3.Google Scholar
Sanders, M., Snijders, V. and Hallsworth, M. (2018), ‘Behavioural science and policy: where are we now and where are we going?’, Behavioural Public Policy, 2(2): 144–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanneh, E. S. (2018), Systems Thinking for Sustainable Development Climate Change and the Environment. Madison, WI, USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlor, H., Marker, C. and Venghaus, S. (2021), ‘Developing a nexus systems thinking test – a qualitative multi- and mixed methods analysis’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 138: 110543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnittker, J., Uggen, C., Shannon, S. K. and McElrath, S. M. (2015), ‘The institutional effects of incarceration: spillovers from criminal justice to health care’, The Milbank quarterly, 93(3): 516–560. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, S. H. (1977), Normative Influences on Altruism. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Madison.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. and Bilsky, W. (1987), ‘Toward a universal psychological structure of human values’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebauer, S., Fleiß, J. and Schweighart, M. (2017), ‘A household is not a person: consistency of pro-environmental behavior in adult couples and the accuracy of proxy-reports’, Environment and Behavior, 49(6): 603–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. B. and Jewitt, G. P. W. (2019), ‘The development of the water-energy-food nexus as a framework for achieving resource security: a review’, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7(8): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somda, J., Zougmoré, R., Sawadogo, I., Bationo, B. A., Buah, S. and Abasse, T. (2017), ‘Chapter 14 Adaptation Processes in Agriculture and Food Security: Insights from Evaluating Behavioral Changes in West Africa’, in Uitto, J. I., Puri, J., and van den Berg, R. D. (eds), Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development, Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, pp. 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, A., Leygue, C., Bedwell, B. and O'Malley, C. (2014), ‘Engaging with energy reduction: does a climate change frame have the potential for achieving broader sustainable behaviour?’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G. and Werff, E. v. d. (2015), ‘Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition’, Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinhorst, J., Klöckner, C. A. and Matthies, E. (2015), ‘Saving electricity – for the money or the environment? Risks of limiting pro-environmental spillover when using monetary framing’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43: 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, P. C. (2000), ‘Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior’, Journal of Social Issues, 56: 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, P. C., Sovacool, B. K. and Dietz, T. (2016), ‘Towards a science of climate and energy choices’, Nature Climate Change, 6(6): 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thøgersen, J. (2012) Review of Research on the Different Pathways Through Which Performing One Pro-Environmental Behaviour Can Influence the Likelihood of Performing Another. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e9f1/b3f089e19a428ec747cdc8312beef96810c4.pdf?_ga=2.184799723.337153108.1599015604-1020869207.1597749561.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. and Sharp, V. (2013), ‘Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: a review of social norms and recycling’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, G. O., Sautkina, E., Poortinga, W., Wolstenholme, E. and Whitmarsh, L. (2019), ‘The English plastic bag charge changed behavior and increased support for other charges to reduce plastic waste’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 98–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K. and Sachs, O. (2013), ‘For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign’, Energy Efficiency, 57: 160–171.Google Scholar
Trachtman, H. (2021) Does Promoting One Behavior Distract from Others? Evidence from a Field Experiment. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3941884 [9 September 2022].Google Scholar
Truelove, H. B. and Nugent, M. R. (2020), ‘Straw wars: pro-environmental spillover following a guilt appeal’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72: 101521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truelove, H. B., Carricob, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T. and Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014), ‘Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework’, Global Environmental Change, 29: 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trung, N. B. (2019), ‘The spillover effects of US economic policy uncertainty on the global economy: a global VAR approach’, The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 48: 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tudor, T., Barr, S. and Gilg, A. (2007), ‘A tale of two locational settings: is there a link between pro-environmental behaviour at work and at home?’, Local Environment, 12: 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN (2019), unwater.org/water-facts. http://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-food-and-energy/.Google Scholar
Uzzell, D. and Rathzel, N. (2018), ‘Border crossing and the logics of space: a case study in pro-environmental practices’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verfuerth, C. and Gregory-Smith, D. (2018) ‘Chapter 20: Spillover of Pro-environmental Behaviour’, in: Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviour., s.l.: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1–28. https://www.elgaronline.com/.Google Scholar
Verfuerth, C., Jones, C. R., Gregory-Smith, D. and Oates, C. (2019), ‘Understanding contextual spillover: using identity process theory as a lens for analyzing behavioral responses to a workplace dietary choice intervention’, Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 110–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Violette, M. D. and Rathbun, P. (2014) Chapter 23: Estimating Net Savings: Common Practices The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Violette/publication/279194259_Estimating_Net_Savings__Common_Practices/links/558de92008ae15962d894fd0.pdf.Google Scholar
Wells, V. K., Taheri, B., Gregory-Smith, D. and Manika, D. (2016), ‘The role of generativity and attitudes on employees home and workplace water and energy saving behaviours’, Tourism Management, 56: 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werff, E. V. D. and Steg, L. (2018), ‘Spillover benefits: emphasizing different benefits of environmental behavior and its effects on spillover’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 34–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Whitmarsh, L. E., Haggar, P. and Thomas, M. (2018), ‘Waste reduction behaviors at home, at work, and on holiday: what influences behavioral consistency across contexts?’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 1–13. Article 2447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, B. (2015), ‘Prosaic or profound? The adoption of systems ideas by impact evaluation’, Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 46: 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F. and Whiteman, G. (2017), ‘Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 148: 866–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, L., Zhang, X. and Ling, M. (2018), ‘Spillover effects of household waste separation policy on electricity consumption: evidence from Hangzhou, China’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129: 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V. and Paillé, P. (2018), ‘Overcoming the barriers to pro-environmental behaviors in the workplace: a systematic review’, Energy Research & Social Science, 182: 379–394.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. and Wang, X. (2020), ‘Nudging to promote household waste source separation: mechanisms and spillover effects’, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 162: 105054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar