In climate policy, we speak a lot about transitions. The transition to a green economy. The transition to climate-positive technology. The transition to more sustainable behaviour. Each transition can lead to a healthier and lower-carbon world. Bringing those transitions to life is a case of simply encouraging people to make better choices, but understanding human behaviour can be a complex equation.
Moving a new solution into the norm
One of the best ways to understand the mechanics of how transitions happen is through the lens of Multilevel Perspective (MLP) theory.[1] While there are many variations and embellishments of MLP theory, the core idea is that transitions are governed by three parts of a socio-technological system, whereby human social behaviours and technology intertwine.
Firstly, ‘regimes’ are the dominant ways in which people currently meet their needs. Regimes have developed over decades, leading to well-defined rules for behaviour by consumers. Regime solutions are often adopted instinctively and taken for granted as the only way to meet a given need, or at least the best available way.
Secondly, ‘niche’ solutions are emerging technological or social solutions that show promise, but where consumer uptake is low. A solution might be niche because it is thought to only be practical for certain highly specific applications or because it has not progressed far along the arc of research, development, demonstration, and deployment. But it is equally likely that consumers have not sought them out because they already are satisfying their needs instinctively through a regime solution. They have no motive to look for better solutions, or perhaps no idea that there is a need to look.
Finally, the ‘landscape’ is the collection of laws, policies, economic conditions, and social norms that define the operation of a regime and influence if and how a solution evolves from being niche to being part of the regime. The landscape is well defined for regime solutions, but much less so for niche solutions, which can feed significant scepticism among consumers about the viability of a niche solution, keeping uptake of it low.
When I speak of niche solutions, I am thinking of solutions that reduce the material and energy used in the economy to meet the needs of our daily lives while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They contribute to the greening of the economy. This is in contrast to most regime solutions, which came about and took hold during times when the world had not yet begun to be concerned about climate change.
Today, we are well versed on the reality of climate change, so in the current context, why would someone not instinctively adopt a lower-carbon niche solution?
It’s time to put another theory into the mix.
The power of association
In linguistics and psychology, writers such as Saussure[2] thought of language as being based in a system of signs (semiotics) that point to real objects or actions or emotions in the world that people want to achieve. A sign consists of a ‘signifier’ and a ‘signified.’ This can be adapted in relation to climate action.
A signified is the underlying, real need that a person wants to obtain, such as mobility – the need to get from one place to another. The signifier is what we associate with that need, such as a car. We have a need for mobility (the signified) but what springs to mind instinctively is a car (the signifier). So we come to associate mobility with a car.
To Saussure, there is a process by which the signifier becomes confused with the signified. From that point on, the signifier (a car) becomes the only way in which we instinctively seek out the signified (mobility). When we want to meet the need for mobility, our only way of thinking about that is to hop in the car. In our mind, the signifier has become instinctual. The car becomes the regime.
This process is what is often used to explain why people in Europe instinctively take a train to get from one city to another, while in the US they instinctively take a car. For the European, both of these modes of travel are signifiers for the signified need for mobility. For the American though, a car is also a signifier for freedom, independence, and social status. It is not solely a signifier for mobility. Therefore, encouraging Americans to take a train – which is a niche option in the US but a regime option in Europe – requires, in part, getting them to see a car as being solely related to mobility. They may then begin to consider other solely-mobility options, such as a train.
The subconscious ways people choose
The last piece in this puzzle then, is how to change the way consumers think to increase the uptake of low carbon niche solutions. Prof Michael Grubb of University College London divides consumers into three categories:[3] optimisers, satisficers, and transformers.
Optimisers look at all solutions available to meet a need, perform some kind of multi-criteria analysis of costs and benefits, and select the solution that has the best or optimal balance between ‘levelised cost’ (the total cost over a lifetime of use of something such as a car) and the emission of greenhouse gases. Optimisers give as much credence to niche solutions as regime, so long as their attention is drawn to niche solutions and they have the information to hand to evaluate them.
Satisficers look at the regime solutions they have traditionally used and ask themselves if they are satisfied with those. If they are satisfied, they look no further. If they are not satisfied (perhaps due to cost or high greenhouse gas emissions), they move down through the list of options until they find a solution that does satisfy them. When they reach that solution, their evaluation stops. Their selected solution is ‘good enough;’ it need not be perfect. Satisficers tend to have a list that begins with the most instinctual regime solutions. Niche solutions only appear after those instinctive solutions have been rejected as ‘not good enough.’
Transformers look for niche solutions that will displace the regime and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They want to transform the market to lower-carbon technologies and behaviours. They choose niche solutions even if the levelised cost currently is higher than for regimes. But these consumers are very rare.
The final equation
To put these three ideas together to influence a greater uptake of niche solutions by consumers and we first must build a map of needs, identify the real underlying need, and think about how it can potentially be met.
For example, let’s look at energy efficient appliances. The overall cost of an appliance is divided between initial capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operations and maintenance expenditure (OPEX). Adding these together with discounting for future costs and benefits produces total lifetime expenditure (TOTEX), which is what goes into equations for levelised cost. Imagine that the signified need is something like an appliance that provides ‘good value for money.’ People tend too often to consider only CAPEX, the cost of buying the appliance on the day of purchase, so CAPEX becomes the signifier for ‘good value for money.’ Energy efficient appliances tend to have higher CAPEX but lower OPEX; the consumer’s signifier must become TOTEX if these niche appliances are to become regime. Changing that behaviour requires using tools such as marketing and information campaigns to remove CAPEX as the signifier and replace it with TOTEX.
Another example could be regarding reducing energy consumption. Imagine it’s a winter morning and you feel cold in your home. You turn up the thermostat and feel warmer. Your need for warmth has been met. The regime solution of central heating has met that need, leaving you comfortable. Over time, that regime solution becomes your instinctive response to seeking warmth. Putting on extra clothing would also meet that need for warmth, but that is a niche solution your instinct never considered. The signifier for warmth has become the thermostat. Changing that instinctive behaviour requires removing ‘thermostat’ as the signifier for warmth and replacing it with a set of potential signifiers that includes clothing.
Influencing for a greener economy
The same ideas can be applied to the dozens of signified needs that have over time become associated with the signifiers of high-carbon regime solutions. So how can we contribute to changing people’s instinctive signifiers for meeting their core needs?
It begins with first understanding the historical, social, and psychological process by which a car or thermostat has become the main or even sole signifier for the need for mobility and warmth. It then requires a narrative that causes people to put aside their regime signifier for a moment and return to the true signified need. Once they have done that, they can be pointed towards a larger list of signifiers for lower-carbon solutions, including ones that are niche, which meet that same need in a way that is more climate friendly.
This is a process facilitated by influencers in society, since behavioural economics suggests people respond more to the actions of others they trust than to market conditions loved by economists.
The economic, legal, and policy landscape will also over time frame and reinforce the change in narrative. If stores are required to include TOTEX in their signs for costs of an appliance, this makes it easier for people to find the information needed to make the transition to TOTEX rather than relying solely on CAPEX. If the transport infrastructure makes trains cheap and convenient, this mode of travel will become more attractive to satisficers and optimisers.
Over time, ‘more attractive’ will translate into ‘more instinctual.’ New and lower carbon signifiers will take root in a person’s mind, behaviour, and language. The goal is to influence instinctual rather than purely rational behaviour.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and not Frontier25.
About the author: Dr Crawford-Brown is Emeritus Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of North Carolina in the USA and retired Director of the University of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research in the UK. Since retiring he has been guiding governments, organisations and communities on their trajectories to net zero.
