Keywords

1 Introduction

There is a widely accepted scientific consensus that human behavior has significantly contributed to the deterioration of the environment, including climate change and biodiversity loss (Gelino et al. 2021). While it is difficult to pinpoint a single behavior as the sole cause of these complex issues, various human behaviors have altered environmental conditions. To address these problems, it is crucial to understand the factors that influence individuals’ choices regarding resource consumption, waste disposal, sustainable transportation, and environmental advocacy.

Engaging in sustainable behaviors often incurs costs in economics, effort, and time. For example, biodegradable products may be more expensive, waste sorting requires additional time and effort, and choosing sustainable modes of transportation might take longer. When discussing sustainable behavior, two essential aspects often conflict and influence individual decisions: the environmental benefits or disadvantages and the individual costs or benefits. Indeed, individuals can be differentiated into “pro-socials,” prioritizing sustainable actions, and “pro-selves,” prioritizing personal benefits over others (Van Horen et al. 2018).

In general, the literature defines pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) as actions that benefit the environment (e.g., recycling) or avoid behaviors that harm it (e.g., air travel) (Lange and Dewitte 2019). While considering the consequences of our actions on the environment is crucial, in decision-making, short-term results and immediate benefits to our daily lives take precedence over long-term environmental considerations. It is important to note that something providing immediate benefits may not be favorable for the individual in the long run.

In recent years, the Behavioral Design approach has emerged to study and modify behaviors detrimental to individuals, society, and the environment, aiming to promote beneficial behaviors (Khadilkar and Cash 2020). “Beneficial” refers to behaviors that balance individual, collective, and environmental interests. By analyzing current behavioral patterns, interventions can be planned to replace target behaviors with more desirable ones effectively.

Although this approach is typical of behavior analysis (which will be discussed in the next section), the currently most popular orientation is the so-called nudge theory (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Nudging involves altering the “choice architecture” to predictably influence behavior without eliminating options or significantly changing economic incentives. An illustrative (albeit anecdotal) example is the sticker of a fly placed into the urinals at Amsterdam-Schiphol airport, which significantly reduced unhygienic behavior (spillage) by gently nudging users toward more desirable actions (aiming at the fly).

The concept of nudging has recently attracted academic and nonacademic audiences. The contributions of behavior analysis to the object of study of “nudge theory” have been largely ignored and rarely acknowledged in the literature (Simon and Tagliabue 2018). Yet, the concept of “choice architecture” (aspects of which alter behavior predictably) is entirely superimposable on that of “contingency”: the functional relationship between desired behavior and its context. Both nudge theory and behavior analysis operate from the same point: the ubiquitous influence of environmental events on behavior. Even a “random” environmental disposition can influence behavior in one way or another. In any case, the key distinction between the behavioral approach and nudge theory is that the former focuses on consequences, while the latter focuses on antecedents. Nevertheless, the fact that there is a focus on antecedents does not mean that choices do not produce consequences. Accordingly, we strongly advocate for the use of the term “Behavior-Based Design” to describe our approach, as it emphasizes the alignment with the fundamental principles of functional analysis of behavior. The term “Behavior-Based Design” underscores the importance of understanding the underlying functions and determinants of behavior in the context of designing interventions for sustainable living.

By adopting the Behavior-Based Design framework, we recognize the significance of analyzing the antecedents, consequences, and environmental factors that shape human behavior. This approach acknowledges that behavior is influenced by a complex interplay of variables, including individual motivations, social norms, environmental cues, and reinforcement contingencies.

Through the lens of Behavior-Based Design, interventions can be specifically tailored to address the unique behavioral challenges associated with sustainable living. By thoroughly examining the functions and contexts of behaviors, interventions can be designed to effectively modify behavior patterns, promote sustainable practices, and ultimately achieve positive environmental outcomes.

Furthermore, by aligning with the principles of the functional analysis of behavior, Behavior-Based Design offers a systematic and evidence-based approach to behavior change. It encourages researchers and practitioners to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, allowing for a better understanding of which strategies and techniques are most successful in promoting long-term sustainable behaviors.

In summary, the term “Behavior-Based Design” captures our approach to behavior change for sustainable living, highlighting the importance of understanding behavior functions and utilizing evidence-based strategies. By adopting this framework, we can create interventions that are more targeted, effective, and capable of fostering sustainable practices in individuals and communities.

A significant contribution to the considerations discussed in this chapter stems from the meticulous work conducted by Gelino et al. (2021). In their comprehensive review of the literature, the authors examined the application of behavior analysis to sustainability, shedding light on the importance of this approach in designing targeted interventions that have a reliable and measurable impact on individuals’ choices toward sustainable practices.

To provide a comprehensive overview of the topic, Gelino et al. categorized the articles based on the type of intervention employed to promote sustainable behaviors or reduce unsustainable ones. This categorization identified nine distinct categories: incentives, feedback, punishments, prompting and education, response effort, stimulus control, self-monitoring, modeling, and commitment and goal. By organizing the literature this way, the authors aimed to capture the breadth of interventions applied in the field and provide a framework for understanding their effectiveness.

Nevertheless, Gelino et al. (2021) acknowledge that other principles may be worth exploring to determine the most effective strategies. This recognition highlights the evolving nature of research in this area and the need for ongoing exploration and innovation. It encourages future studies to delve deeper into behavior analysis principles and examine their applicability to sustainability more systematically and rigorously.

Building upon Gelino et al.’s (2021) work, this chapter aims to clarify concepts and terms of the behavior analysis. By exploring each aspect in detail and examining the empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness, we can better understand how behavior analysis can inform sustainable practices.

By delving into these topics, we can contribute to the growing body of knowledge on behavior analysis and sustainability. Through a more comprehensive understanding of effective intervention strategies, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners can design and implement behavior change initiatives that have a meaningful and lasting impact on promoting sustainable behaviors and mitigating environmental challenges.

2 Reinforcement

To fully comprehend sustainability interventions from a behavioral standpoint, delving into the terminology used and clarifying their distinct meanings is essential. Functional analysis of behavior emphasizes the importance of understanding these terms when studying or designing interventions.

One area of confusion arises from the interchangeable use of the terms “incentive,” “reward,” and “reinforcement.” However, these terms carry different implications and should not be used interchangeably (Cameron and Pierce 1994). An incentive is a stimulus presented to an individual before the behavior occurs, intending to encourage the desired behavior. On the other hand, a reward is a stimulus offered to an individual after the behavior has been performed, typically as a positive consequence. In contrast, reinforcement refers to a contingency that increases the frequency of a behavior. It can involve the presentation or removal of a stimulus following the behavior. Positive reinforcement occurs when a stimulus is presented, while negative reinforcement (distinct from punishment) occurs when a stimulus is removed (Skinner 1963). Unlike a reward, reinforcement always increases the frequency of the preceding behavior. Of course, a reward that is provided contingent to the emission of a behavior and that eventually increases the frequency of that behavior is, by definition, a reinforcer.

Reinforcement is the foundation for many energy-efficiency policy interventions, primarily relying on positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement, such as social approval or praise, is relatively easy to understand in shaping behavior. However, comprehending how negative reinforcement can foster sustainable behavior is more complex.

In the context of sustainable behavior, negative reinforcement involves increasing pro-environmental behavior by avoiding aversive stimuli. It is crucial to differentiate negative reinforcement from punishment, as these terms are often confused. Reinforcement and punishment yield opposite outcomes: increasing and decreasing the likelihood of a response, respectively. In negative reinforcement, a beneficial stimulus is subtracted, resulting in an increased response probability, unlike punishment. To illustrate this in the context of sustainable mobility behaviors, if the targeted behavior is adopting sustainable transportation, it can be reinforced by avoiding punishment or social disapproval.

For instance, a study by Tempestini and Di Nocera (2023) aimed to explore the effectiveness of negative reinforcement in guiding individuals toward sustainable mobility behaviors. The hypothesis posited that introducing an aversive stimulus, such as a delay, associated with unsustainable modes of transportation would act as a negative reinforcer, encouraging the choice of alternative and more sustainable means of transportation. To investigate this, the authors developed a board game where participants aimed to reach 100 destinations in the shortest possible time. The game offered four options: driving, public transportation, cycling, and walking. The player who reached all destinations in the shortest cumulative time determined the winner. After selecting a vehicle, each participant received a “scenario card” indicating the presence or absence of an unexpected event that could increase travel time if driving was chosen. Consequently, sustainable behavior was negatively reinforced by avoiding the less beneficial driving option. Despite driving being the quickest mode of transportation, it was chosen in only 25% of cases overall, while cycling was chosen 54% of the time.

During the initial phase of the game, participants opted for cycling to avoid time increases caused by the unexpected cards. As the game progressed, behavior stabilized, revealing a more realistic pattern of choices. On average, sustainable behavior was negatively reinforced in 80% of cases. This resulted in a significant increase in the choice of cycling over driving due to the presentation of negative reinforcement during the game.

The study by Tempestini and Di Nocera exemplifies how negative reinforcement can effectively influence individuals’ decision-making toward sustainable mobility behaviors. By introducing an aversive stimulus associated with unsustainable transportation options, participants were motivated to select alternative and more sustainable modes of transportation. This demonstrates the potential of negative reinforcement for promoting sustainable behavior change.

In conclusion, understanding the nuances of terminology is crucial when studying behavior change interventions in the context of sustainability.

Negative reinforcement encompasses more than just the phenomenon of loss aversion in behavioral economics, which refers to individuals’ tendency to avoid unexpected changes rather than pursuing advantages. To delve deeper into this concept, Nicolson et al. (2017) conducted a pioneering study investigating loss aversion among energy bill payers through an online survey. The findings shed light on the participants’ preferences, revealing that 93% preferred to avoid switching to a time-based energy tariff, despite the potential financial savings it could offer. The participants’ inclination to avoid this change stemmed from their focus on avoiding the unexpected, such as occasional payment increases due to higher consumption, and their desire to minimize financial losses rather than prioritize saving money. Loss aversion, therefore, contributes to greater resistance to change.

It is essential to recognize that loss aversion extends beyond the realm of energy bill payment and can have broader implications. This cognitive bias impacts people’s willingness to alter their current situations and makes them less inclined to take risks or embrace new perspectives. Whether it’s making career choices, navigating personal relationships, making health-related decisions, or considering environmental matters, individuals with a propensity for loss aversion may be more resistant to change.

However, it is crucial to emphasize that loss aversion does not necessarily result in complete resistance to change. Individuals can overcome this tendency when they perceive that the potential benefits outweigh the possible losses or feel motivated and confident enough to embark on new paths. While loss aversion may make people more hesitant to change, it should not be regarded as an inherent and unchangeable characteristic. With proper awareness of the potential benefits and effective communication, even the most loss-averse individuals can be encouraged to explore new life directions and embrace change.

Understanding the influence of loss aversion on decision-making and behavior can inform the design of interventions and strategies to promote sustainable behaviors. Addressing individuals’ concerns about potential losses and emphasizing the benefits and positive outcomes associated with sustainable choices makes it possible to mitigate the impact of loss aversion and motivate individuals to adopt more sustainable lifestyles.

3 Punishment

When promoting sustainable behaviors, punishment is often employed in the form of direct fines and taxes or indirect consequences, such as higher consumer prices resulting from industry taxes. While these measures, such as carbon taxes, can effectively reduce consumption, there are several important considerations to keep in mind regarding the effectiveness of punitive interventions.

First and foremost, it is crucial to recognize that punishment does not inherently encourage the development of new desirable behaviors. Punishment involves the presentation of a stimulus (positive punishment) or removing a stimulus (negative punishment), which leads to a decrease in the targeted behavior. However, for punishment to be effective, it must meet specific criteria outlined by Pierce and Cheney (2017): it should be introduced immediately after the undesired response, consistently applied every time the behavior occurs and delivered at a sufficiently high intensity to effectively suppress the behavior. Even when these criteria are met, and the punished response is initially suppressed, it is important to note that punishment only offers temporary suppression. Over time, when the organism encounters the reinforcer that initially increased the frequency of the behavior, there is a potential for the behavior to rebound and return to its pre-punishment level. This illustrates the limited and temporary effectiveness of punishment in behavior change.

A study conducted by Agras et al. (1980) examined the impact of fines on water consumption during the California drought from 1976 to 1978 and assessed their effectiveness in promoting conservation efforts. The results of the study were mixed. While water use was slightly reduced when fines were implemented, consumption levels returned to near baseline in the subsequent months. From a behavior-analytic perspective, this outcome aligns with the expectations of punishment. As mentioned earlier, punishment must be delivered immediately and consistently after each response that is intended to be punished. In real-world contexts, it becomes challenging to apply punishment functionally since it is not feasible to monitor and control every individual’s actions outside of controlled laboratory settings.

Given the limitations and challenges associated with punishment as a sustainable behavior change strategy, alternative approaches should be considered. Instead of solely relying on punitive measures, interventions should focus on positive reinforcement, which involves the presentation of stimuli following desired behaviors acting as reinforces. Positive reinforcement is more likely to facilitate long-lasting behavior change and encourage the development of sustainable habits. By offering incentives, rewards, and benefits contingent to the engagement of sustainable behaviors, individuals are more likely to be motivated to continue and internalize these actions as part of their daily lives.

In summary, while punishment may temporarily impact behavior suppression, there are better approaches for promoting sustainable behaviors due to its limitations and challenges in real-world contexts. To foster lasting change, interventions should prioritize positive reinforcement strategies that provide useful consequences for sustainable actions. By shifting the focus toward positive reinforcement, it becomes possible to create a supportive environment that encourages and sustains pro-environmental behaviors.

4 Feedback

Feedback is crucial in promoting behavior change by providing individuals with information about their past performance and suggestions for improving future performance (Brand et al. 2020; Daniels and Bailey 2014). Two critical aspects of the feedback are timing and accuracy. Timing refers to the delay between task completion and feedback delivery, while accuracy pertains to the specificity of the feedback provided to participants (Aljadeff-Abergel et al. 2017). Numerous studies have explored the impact of feedback on electricity consumption, shedding light on its effectiveness.

Hayes and Cone (1981) conducted a study to examine the effects of monthly feedback on reducing electricity usage. Participants received a letter 1 week after the monthly meter reading, separate from their electricity bill, which indicated the percentage change in consumption, the number of kilowatts used, and the actual dollar amount. The results demonstrated that participants who received monthly feedback achieved energy savings, with a 4.7% reduction from the baseline. This study highlights the positive impact of providing individuals periodic feedback on their electricity consumption, enabling them to make informed decisions and adjust their behavior accordingly.

In another study, Kohlenberg and colleagues (1976) investigated how the presentation of feedback could influence energy consumption behaviors in three households. The researchers implemented a system where a light bulb would turn on every time a predefined energy consumption threshold was exceeded, serving as feedback. The results showed that presenting such feedback effectively reduced excessive energy usage in each household. This suggests that immediate and tangible feedback can create awareness and motivate individuals to modify their behavior, leading to more sustainable energy consumption practices.

In a different study, Tiefenbech et al. (2018) employed real-time feedback to guide individuals’ water consumption during showering. This feedback directly provided information that made water consumption salient and allowed subjects to immediately modify their behavior. The results revealed a significant 22% reduction in water consumption compared to participants’ average consumption per shower. This reduction occurred immediately and remained consistent throughout the experiment, indicating that real-time feedback can have a lasting impact on behavior change.

The growing emphasis on environment-related activities and the increased availability of technologies have contributed to the rising interest in eco-feedback technologies. Often viewed as an extension of persuasive technology research, these technologies aim to address the “environmental literacy gap” by automatically detecting individuals’ daily behaviors, such as commuting or showering and providing related information through automated means (Froehlich et al. 2010). By leveraging technologies like computers, tablets, smartphones, and smartwatches, eco-feedback interventions can enhance individuals’ awareness and understanding of how their daily actions impact the environment. This increased awareness can motivate individuals to adopt more sustainable behaviors and contribute to positive environmental change.

In summary, feedback, mainly when delivered with appropriate timing and accuracy, has shown to be effective in promoting behavior change in the context of electricity consumption. Studies have demonstrated that providing feedback, whether in monthly reports or real-time notifications, can significantly reduce energy usage. Furthermore, the emergence of eco-feedback technologies offers innovative opportunities to bridge the gap between individuals’ behaviors and their environmental impact, fostering greater environmental literacy and encouraging sustainable practices.

5 Shaping

The shaping method, as described by Skinner (1975), is a behavioral technique that involves reinforcing increasingly closer approximations to the final desired performance. When implementing a shaping intervention, it is crucial to consider the animal’s repertoire, which encompasses the behaviors it is capable of exhibiting based on its species and environmental history (Pierce and Cheney 2017). Shaping becomes particularly useful when you aim to train an animal to perform a response it currently does not exhibit, such as activating a switch. If the baseline observation indicates that the animal does not emit this response (i.e., the operant level is zero), shaping can be employed to establish the desired behavior.

To illustrate the application of the shaping technique in promoting desirable behaviors, let’s consider the case of “Motion in Seattle,” a program designed to increase sustainable transportation usage on a weekly basis. At the outset, participants were asked a series of questions to assess their starting point, providing insights into their initial repertoire of travel-related behaviors. As an initial incentive, participants were given free public transportation cards to encourage their engagement with sustainable transportation options.

Following the initial assessment, customized programs were created for each participant, taking into account their unique starting point and goals. The shaping process involved progressively reinforcing participants as they achieved specific milestones aligned with sustainable transportation practices. Rewards and congratulations were provided to participants as they made incremental progress toward their goals. This approach allowed individuals to experience a sense of accomplishment and motivated them to continue improving their sustainable transportation behaviors.

Implementing a shaping program with precise customization certainly adds complexity, as it requires careful tailoring to each participant’s specific needs and abilities. However, the use of real-time feedback mechanisms can significantly enhance the effectiveness of such programs. By providing immediate feedback that automatically reinforces and encourages improved behaviors, participants can receive timely reinforcement for their efforts and stay motivated throughout their journey of behavior change. This real-time feedback can come in various forms, such as personalized progress updates, reminders, or virtual rewards, further enhancing the shaping process and promoting sustained behavior change.

In summary, the shaping technique is a valuable approach for training animals and promoting behavior change in various contexts. When applied to human behaviors, such as encouraging sustainable transportation choices, shaping programs can be customized to individuals’ starting points and gradually reinforce desired behaviors through rewards and feedback. Although implementing such programs with precise customization may be complex, leveraging real-time feedback mechanisms can enhance their effectiveness by providing immediate reinforcement and encouragement to individuals striving for behavior change.

6 Gamification

Gamification, a strategy rooted in incorporating gamelike elements into non-game contexts, has proven to be a powerful tool for facilitating learning objectives and motivating behavior change (Deterding et al. 2011). By leveraging gaming dynamics and mechanics, such as earning points, advancing levels, receiving rewards, and earning badges, gamification enhances personal engagement and encourages individuals to achieve goals and overcome challenges. It has found particular application in promoting sustainable behaviors, where it helps bridge information gaps, enhance learning, and motivate individuals to adopt more environmentally friendly practices.

A wide range of products and interventions have been developed based on gamification principles to promote sustainability. These include team competitions, digital games, smartphone applications, data collection tools, and board games (for comprehensive reviews on sustainability games and applications, refer to Douglas and Brauer 2021). By infusing sustainability-related activities with elements of gamification, these interventions create an immersive and interactive experience that captures individuals’ attention and drives their engagement.

One example of applying gamification techniques to encourage sustainable behaviors is the work of Merugu et al. (2009). They developed an incentive program called INSTANT (Infosys-Stanford Traffic) with the aim of reducing commute times, enhancing travel comfort, and addressing issues such as congestion, fuel consumption, and pollution. The program leveraged gamification elements to incentivize commuters to travel during less congested periods.

In the INSTANT program, commuters earned credits based on their arrival time at their destination. These credits could be exchanged for monetary rewards, creating a system where the more credits a commuter accumulated, the greater their chance of winning a reward and receiving a higher monetary amount. By providing tangible incentives tied to specific desired behaviors, the researchers sought to motivate commuters to adjust their travel schedules and avoid peak congestion times.

Analysis of the program’s data revealed a significant increase in commuters arriving at recommended times to avoid road congestion. The number of commuters arriving during each time slot nearly doubled, indicating the effectiveness of the gamified incentive program in influencing behavior. By incorporating gamification elements and rewarding desired actions, Merugu et al. successfully motivated commuters to alter their travel behavior, resulting in reduced congestion, improved travel comfort, and potential environmental benefits.

This example highlights how gamification can effectively drive behavior change by tapping into individuals’ intrinsic motivation and desire for rewards and recognition. By designing interventions that incorporate gamelike elements and provide incentives, gamification strategies can encourage sustainable behaviors and contribute to addressing pressing environmental challenges.

In summary, gamification is a powerful approach for promoting positive behaviors and enhancing engagement in various contexts, including sustainability. By infusing non-game activities with gaming dynamics and mechanics, individuals can be motivated to achieve goals and overcome challenges. The INSTANT program exemplifies how gamification techniques can be applied to influence commuter behavior and bring about meaningful changes in areas such as congestion reduction and environmental impact. Through gamification, individuals are encouraged to actively participate, learn, and adopt more sustainable practices, ultimately contributing to a more environmentally conscious society.

Gamification has gained popularity in the literature, but its underlying dynamics have long been recognized and utilized under the name “token economy.” The token economy is characterized by delivering symbolic reinforcements or tokens, such as badges or points, following desirable behaviors. These tokens, which typically have no intrinsic value, serve as conditional reinforcers that can be exchanged for backup reinforcers such as special privileges, food, or activities. Ivy et al. (2017) conducted a literature review and identified six key procedural components of the token economy: (a) target behavior(s), (b) tokens as conditional reinforcers, (c) backup reinforcers, (d) token production schedule, (e) exchange production schedule, and (f) token exchange schedule.

While both gamification and the token economy aim to promote desirable behaviors, they differ in terms of their methodological rigor. The token economy employs a more systematic approach, requiring meticulous and complex planning. It involves the interplay of three interconnected reinforcement schedules: token production (governing when tokens will be delivered), exchange production (governing when tokens will be exchanged), and the cost (in tokens) associated with the available goods or services for exchange. In contrast, gamification does not necessarily require that rewards obtained be compulsorily exchanged for a final reinforcement, as in the token economy.

Despite these differences, both approaches offer valuable tools for behavior change interventions. The token economy provides a more structured and regulated framework for promoting behavior change, emphasizing specific components and reinforcement schedules. On the other hand, gamification offers more flexibility and may focus on immediate rewards without requiring a final exchange. Understanding each methodology’s nuances and potential benefits can inform the design and implementation of effective behavior change strategies in various contexts.

7 Delay Discounting

The tendency to prioritize immediate benefits over long-term well-being or environmental benefits is a common phenomenon that has been widely studied. This phenomenon, known as “delay discounting,” refers to the inclination to choose a smaller but immediate reward over a larger but delayed reward, often resulting in behaviors that are not conducive to long-term goals (Odum 2011). A classic example of delay discounting can be observed when individuals choose between maintaining a healthy body weight and indulging in a piece of cake. Despite recognizing the importance of maintaining a healthy weight, many individuals succumb to the immediate pleasure of consuming the cake. This preference for immediate gratification poses a challenge when the effort and time required to achieve and sustain a healthy weight are compared to the immediate availability of the cake.

The issue of delay discounting is not limited to personal well-being but also extends to sustainability concerns. Recent research has highlighted the devaluation of future air quality outcomes as a potential barrier to engaging in long-term sustainable behaviors, such as reducing private car usage to mitigate emissions (Berry et al. 2017). While reducing greenhouse gas emissions offers immediate benefits to only a few individuals, the long-term consequences of unchecked emissions have far-reaching impacts on entire populations for generations to come. This presents a critical question: How can individuals be motivated to prioritize long-term benefits over immediate rewards?

Addressing this challenge is undoubtedly complex. However, as previously discussed, interventions such as feedback and reinforcement have shown promise in narrowing the gap between individuals’ immediate preferences and long-term sustainability goals. By providing individuals with feedback on their energy consumption patterns and reinforcing sustainable behaviors, interventions have successfully encouraged reductions in heating, cooling, and overall energy usage, resulting in tangible energy savings.

Another strategy to tackle the perception of long-term consequences as distant and unattainable is to incorporate initial incentives that motivate individuals to adopt and maintain sustainable behaviors. These incentives can take various forms, such as rewards, recognition, or tangible benefits. By offering these initial incentives, individuals are more likely to initiate their engagement in sustainable practices and develop a sense of momentum and intrinsic motivation over time. With continued reinforcement and support, individuals can gradually internalize the long-term benefits of their sustainable actions, making them more inclined to prioritize these behaviors without immediate rewards.

In summary, addressing the challenge of delay discounting and fostering long-term sustainable behaviors requires a multifaceted approach. Combining interventions that provide feedback, reinforce desired behaviors, and offer initial incentives can help bridge the gap between immediate preferences and long-term goals. By leveraging these strategies, individuals can be encouraged to make choices that prioritize both their long-term well-being and the sustainability of the environment.

8 Conclusion

Behavior analysis offers a practical and insightful approach to understanding the mechanisms of behavior change that can foster sustainable living. While the studies mentioned above provide valuable insights, it is essential to note that they represent only a fraction of the research conducted in this area. There is still a need to explore a broader range of ecologically relevant behaviors and systematically identify those with the most significant potential for promoting sustainable change.

To advance the field, researchers should adopt a more structured methodological approach to behavior change within the context of sustainable living. This entails designing interventions and evaluating their effectiveness in facilitating long-term behavior change maintenance. By implementing systematic and rigorous evaluation methods, researchers can better understand which strategies and techniques are most successful in promoting sustainable behaviors over an extended period.

Furthermore, combining the abovementioned interventions can lead to even greater effectiveness in promoting behavior change. An illustrative study by Bekker et al. (2010) focused on electricity consumption behavior among college students living in housing where electricity was included in the rent without individual consumption charges. The researchers established a baseline condition by monitoring daily electric meter readings. Subsequently, they implemented a multifaceted intervention that utilized feedback, incentives, and education to encourage reduced energy consumption. Large posters were prominently displayed throughout the student housing hall, informing residents that they could earn rewards by saving electricity. The posters emphasized the positive impact of their behavior on the environment and specifically within their hall. Additionally, 89 locations within the hall featured electricity-saving tips to further reinforce sustainable behaviors. As a form of feedback, an “electricity-saving thermometer” was employed to provide residents with daily updates on their electricity usage and progress toward their incentive goals. The results of the study demonstrated the effectiveness of the intervention. In the hall where the intervention was implemented, residents achieved substantial energy savings during daytime (16.2%) and nighttime (10.7%) compared to the baseline period. In contrast, the hall without the intervention exhibited lower savings, with residents achieving average reductions of 3.8% during the daytime and 6.53% at night over the same period compared to their baseline situation.

That study exemplifies the potential impact of combining multiple intervention strategies to enhance the effectiveness of behavior change efforts. By utilizing a combination of feedback, incentives, and education, the researchers were able to motivate residents to make significant energy-saving choices. Such comprehensive approaches can be instrumental in promoting sustainable behaviors across various contexts and serve as a model for future research and interventions.

Behavior analysis provides valuable insights into behavior change mechanisms for promoting sustainable living. To advance the field, researchers should systematically identify impactful behaviors for change and adopt a structured methodological approach to evaluating the long-term effectiveness of behavior change interventions. By combining various intervention strategies, such as feedback, incentives, and education, researchers can maximize the effectiveness of their efforts and contribute to promoting sustainable behaviors in diverse settings.