ReviewPhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2017
Towards environmentally sustainable human behaviour: targeting non-conscious and conscious processes for effective and acceptable policies.
Review in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review with qualitative comparative analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018Pooled it
- Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis.The Lancet. Planetary health · 2018Pooled it
- Can (dynamic) social norms encourage plant-based food purchases? a quasi-experimental study in real-world Dutch supermarkets.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Effects of increasing the availability of vegetarian options on main meal choices, meal offer satisfaction and liking: a pre-post analysis in a French university cafeteria.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Article
- Shifting norms, static behaviour: effects of dynamic norms on meat consumption.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Editorial: Ethical and sustainable food choice: drivers and health effects.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- An ontological framework for organising and describing behaviours: The Human Behaviour Ontology.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Mapping potential conflicts between global agriculture and terrestrial conservation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Evaluation of OPTIMISE (Online Programme to Tackle Individual's Meat Intake Through Self-regulation): Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Observational
- A framework for application of consumer neuroscience in pro-environmental behavior change interventions.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Review
- Identifying effective interventions to promote consumption of protein-rich foods from lower ecological footprint sources: A systematic literature review.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Changing diets and the transformation of the global food system.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2020Article
- Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Observational
- Why on earth did I buy that? A study of regretted appliance purchases.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2017Article
- Who is reducing their material consumption and why? A cross-cultural analysis of dematerialization behaviours.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2017Article
- Industry 1.61803: the transition to an industry with reduced material demand fit for a low carbon future.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Meeting climate change targets to limit global warming to 2°C requires rapid and large reductions in demand for products that most contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include production of bulk materials (e.g. steel and cement), energy supply (e.g. fossil fuels) and animal source foods (particularly ruminants and their products). Effective strategies to meet these targets require transformative changes in supply as well as demand, involving changes in economic, political and legal systems at local, national and international levels, building on evidence from many disciplines. This paper outlines contributions from behavioural science in reducing demand. Grounded in dual-process models of human behaviour (involving non-conscious and conscious processes) this paper considers first why interventions aimed at changing population values towards the environment are usually insufficient or unnecessary for reducing demand although they may be important in increasing public acceptability of policies that could reduce demand. It then outlines two sets of evidence from behavioural science towards effective systems-based strategies, to identify interventions likely to be effective at: (i) reducing demand for products that contribute most to GHG emissions, mainly targeting non-conscious processes and (ii) increasing public acceptability for policy changes to enable these interventions, targeting conscious processes.This article is part of the themed issue 'Material demand reduction'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.