Environmental problems can be reduced if people more consistently engage in proenvironmental actions. In this article, I discuss factors that motivate or inhibit individuals to act proenvironmentally. Many people are intrinsically motivated to engage in proenvironmental actions, because protecting the environment makes them feel good about themselves. People are more likely to be intrinsically motivated to act proenvironmentally over and again when they strongly endorse biospheric values. However, people may be less likely to act on their biospheric values when these values are not supported by the context, or when competing values are activated by factors in a choice context. Next, I discuss strategies to encourage proenvironmental actions by strengthening biospheric values, or by empowering and motivating people to act on their biospheric values. Moreover, I discuss factors influencing the acceptability of environmental policies that aim to encourage proenvironmental behavior.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. 1. Intergov. Panel Climate Change (IPCC) Core Writing Team, RK Pachauri, L Meyer 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switz.: IPCC [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. Int. Soc. Sci Council (ISSC), United Nations Edu., Sci. Cult. Org. (UNESCO); 2013. World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments Paris: OECD, UNESCO [Google Scholar]
  3. Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP. 3.  2009. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. PNAS 106:4418452–56 [Google Scholar]
  4. Pawlik K, Steg L. 4.  2013. Psychological approaches and contributions to global environmental change. World Science Report: Changing Global Environments OECD, UNESCO 500–2 Paris: UNESCO [Google Scholar]
  5. Steg L, Vlek C. 5.  2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29:309–17 [Google Scholar]
  6. Vlek C, Steg L. 6.  2007. Human behavior and environmental sustainability: problems, driving forces and research topics. J. Soc. Issues 63:11–19 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dietz T, Stern PC, Weber EU. 7.  2013. Reducing carbon-based energy consumption through changes is household behaviour. Deadalus 142:178–89 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hackmann H, Moser SC, St. Clair AS. 8.  2014. The social heart of global environmental change. Nat. Climate Change 4:653–55 [Google Scholar]
  9. Sovacool BK. 9.  2014. Diversity: Energy studies need social science.. Nature 511:529–30 [Google Scholar]
  10. Weaver CP, Mooney S, Allen D, Beller-Simms N, Fish T. 10.  et al. 2014. From global change science to action with social sciences. Nat. Climate Change 4:8656–59 [Google Scholar]
  11. Kastner I, Stern PC. 11.  2015. Examining the decision-making process behind household energy investments: a review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10:72–89 [Google Scholar]
  12. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, Van der Werff E. 12.  2015. Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front. Psychol. 6:805 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carrus G, Passafaro P, Bonnes M. 13.  2008. Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: the case of recycling and use of public transportation. J. Environ. Psychol. 28:51–62 [Google Scholar]
  14. Pelletier LG, Tuson KM, Green-Demers I, Noëls K, Beaton AM. 14.  1998. Why are you doing things for the environment? The Motivation Toward the Environment Scale (MTES). J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28:437–68 [Google Scholar]
  15. Taufik D. 15.  2015. Can you feel it? The role of feelings in explaining pro-environmental behavior PhD diss., Dep. Behav. Soc. Sci., Univ. Gron., Gron., Neth. [Google Scholar]
  16. Allcott H. 16.  2011. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95:91082–95 [Google Scholar]
  17. Schultz PW, Estrada M, Schmitt J, Sokoloski R, Silva-Send N. 17.  2015. Using in-home displays to provide smart meter feedback about household electricity consumption: a randomized control trial comparing kilowatts, cost, and social norms. Energy 90:351–58 [Google Scholar]
  18. Schultz PW, Nolan J, Cialdini R, Goldstein N, Griskevicius V. 18.  2007. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18:429–34 [Google Scholar]
  19. Harland P, Staats H, Wilke H. 19.  1999. Explaining proenvironmental behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29:2505–28 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bamberg S, Rees J, Seebauer S. 20.  2015. Collective climate action: determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. J. Environ. Psychol. 43:155–65 [Google Scholar]
  21. Noppers EH, Keizer KE, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 21.  2014. The adoption of sustainable innovations: driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Glob. Environ. Change 25:52–62 [Google Scholar]
  22. Noppers E, Keizer KE, Bockarjova M, Steg L. 22.  2015. The adoption of sustainable innovations: the role of instrumental, environmental, and symbolic attributes for earlier and later adopters. J. Environ. Psychol. 44:74–84 [Google Scholar]
  23. Schuitema G, Anable J, Skippon S, Kinnear N. 23.  2013. The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp. Res. A 48:39–49 [Google Scholar]
  24. Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Van den Bergh B. 24.  2010. Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 98:392–404 [Google Scholar]
  25. Steg L, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer K, Perlaviciute G. 25.  2014. An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 38:104–15 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bockarjova M, Steg L. 26.  2014. Can Protection Motivation Theory predict pro-environmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Glob. Environ. Change 28:276–88 [Google Scholar]
  27. Doci G, Vasileiadou E. 27.  2015. Let's do it ourselves: individual motivations for investing in renewables at community level. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49:41–50 [Google Scholar]
  28. Harland P, Staats H, Wilke HAM. 28.  2007. Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: questions derived from norm activation theory. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 29:323–34 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schwartz SH. 29.  1992. Universals in the content and structures of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Psychology 25 M Zanna 1–65 Orlando, FL: Academic [Google Scholar]
  30. Feather NT. 30.  1995. Values, valences, and choice: the influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68:61135–51 [Google Scholar]
  31. Stern PC, Dietz T. 31.  1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50:365–84 [Google Scholar]
  32. Steg L, De Groot JIM. 32.  2012. Environmental values. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology S Clayton 81–92 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, Van der Werff E, Lurvink J. 33.  2014. The significance of hedonic values for environmentally-relevant attitudes, preferences and actions. Environ. Behav. 46:2163–92 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nordlund AM, Garvill J. 34.  2002. Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 34:740–56 [Google Scholar]
  35. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L, Guagnano GA. 35.  1995. Values, beliefs, and pro-environmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25:1611–36 [Google Scholar]
  36. Thøgersen J, Ölander F. 36.  2002. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J. Econ. Psychol. 23:605–30 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rokeach M. 37.  1973. The Nature of Human Values New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 38.  2015. The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives. Renew. Energy 77:259–67 [Google Scholar]
  39. Verplanken B, Holland RW. 39.  2002. Motivated decision making: effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behaviour. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82:434–47 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jansson J, Marell A, Nordlund A. 40.  2011. Exploring consumer adoption of a high involvement eco-innovation using value-belief-norm theory. J. Consum. Behav. 10:51–60 [Google Scholar]
  41. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W. 41.  2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 25:4415–25 [Google Scholar]
  42. De Groot JIM, Steg L, Poortinga W. 42.  2013. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal. 33:2307–17 [Google Scholar]
  43. Perlaviciute G, Steg L. 43.  2014. Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: integrated review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35:361–81 [Google Scholar]
  44. Boomsma C, Steg L. 44.  2014. The effect of information and values on acceptability of reduced street lighting. J. Environ. Psychol. 39:22–31 [Google Scholar]
  45. De Groot JIM, Steg L. 45.  2010. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 30:368–78 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lindenberg S, Steg L. 46.  2007. Normative, gain and hedonic goal-frames guiding environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 63:1117–37 [Google Scholar]
  47. Bolderdijk JW, Steg L, Geller ES, Lehman PK, Postmes T. 47.  2013. Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat. Climate Change 3:413–16 [Google Scholar]
  48. Taufik D, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 48.  2015. Acting green elicits a literal “warm glow.”. Nat. Climate Change 5:37–40 [Google Scholar]
  49. Venhoeven LA, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 49.  2013. Explaining the paradox: how pro-environmental behaviour can both thwart and foster well-being. Sustainability 5:1372–86 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lindenberg S. 50.  2001. Intrinsic motivation in a new light.. Kyklos 54:2317–42 [Google Scholar]
  51. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer KE. 51.  2013a. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 34:55–63 [Google Scholar]
  52. Jakovcevic A, Steg L. 52.  2013. Sustainable transportation in Argentina: values, beliefs, norms and car use reduction. Transp. Res. F 20:70–79 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nordlund AM, Garvill J. 53.  2003. Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J. Environ. Psychol. 23:339–47 [Google Scholar]
  54. Van der Werff E, Steg L. 54.  2015. One model to predict them all: predicting energy behaviours with the norm activation model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6:8–14 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stern PC.55.  2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56:407–24 [Google Scholar]
  56. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. 56.  1999. A Value-Belief-Norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6:81–95 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer KE. 57.  2013. It is a moral issue: the relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Glob. Environ. Change 23:1258–65 [Google Scholar]
  58. Whitmarsh L, O'Neill S. 58.  2010. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 30:305–14 [Google Scholar]
  59. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer KE. 59.  2014. I am what I am, by looking past the present: the influence of biospheric values and past behaviour on environmental self-identity. Environ. Behav. 46:5626–57 [Google Scholar]
  60. Steg L. 60.  2015. Environmental psychology and sustainable consumption. Handbook of Research in Sustainable Consumption LA Reisch, J Thøgersen 70–83 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
  61. Abrahamse W, Steg L. 61.  2011. Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: the role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 18:130–40 [Google Scholar]
  62. Diekmann A, Preisendörfer P. 62.  2003. Green and greenback. The behavioural effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration. Soc. 15:4441–72 [Google Scholar]
  63. Steg L, De Groot JIM, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W, Siero F. 63.  2011. General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: the role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24:4349–67 [Google Scholar]
  64. Dogan EB, Steg L, Delhomme P.64.  2011. The influence of multiple goals on driving behavior: the case of safety, time saving, and fuel saving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43:1635–43 [Google Scholar]
  65. Maio GR. 65.  2010. Mental representations of social values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 42 MP Zanna 1–43 San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
  66. Lindenberg SM. 66.  2012. How cues in the environment affect normative behavior. See Ref. 125 119–28
  67. Ralston DA, Cunniff MK, Gustafson DJ. 67.  1995. Cultural accommodation: the effect of language on values of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese managers. J. Cross-Cultur. Psychol. 26:714–27 [Google Scholar]
  68. Reno RR, Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA. 68.  1993. The transsituational influence of social norms. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64:1104–12 [Google Scholar]
  69. Keizer K, Lindenberg S, Steg L. 69.  2013. The importance of demonstratively restoring order. PLOS ONE 8:6e65137 [Google Scholar]
  70. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. 70.  1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58:61015–26 [Google Scholar]
  71. Keizer K, Lindenberg S, Steg L. 71.  2011. The reversal effects of prohibition signs. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 14:5681–88 [Google Scholar]
  72. Keizer K, Lindenberg S, Steg L. 72.  2008. The spreading of disorder. Science 322:1681–85 [Google Scholar]
  73. Bardi A, Goodwin R. 73.  2011. The dual route to value change: individual processes and cultural moderators. J. Cross-Cultur. Psychol. 42:2271–87 [Google Scholar]
  74. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. 74.  2005. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:355–72 [Google Scholar]
  75. Maio GR, Olson JM. 75.  1998. Values as truisms: evidence and implications. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:294–311 [Google Scholar]
  76. Hansen N, Postmes T, Tovote KA, Bos A. 76.  2014. How modernization instigates social change: laptop usage as a driver of cultural value change and gender equality in a developing country. J. Cross-Cultur. Psychol. 45:81229–48 [Google Scholar]
  77. Lönnqvist JE, Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Verkasalo M. 77.  2011. Personal values before and after migration: a longitudinal case study on value change in Ingrian–Finnish migrants. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2:584–91 [Google Scholar]
  78. Lindenberg S, Steg L. 78.  2013. What makes organizations in market democracies adopt environmentally-friendly policies?. Green Organizations: Driving Change with IO Psychology AH Huffman, SR Klein 93–114 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  79. Lacey H, Schwartz B. 79.  1996. The formation and transformation of values. The Philosophy of Psychology W O'Donohue, RF Kitchener 319–38 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
  80. Bowles S, Polania-Reyes S. 80.  2012. Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements?. J. Econ. Lit. 50:2368–425 [Google Scholar]
  81. Agrawal A, Chhatre A, Gerber ER. 81.  2015. Motivational crowding in sustainable development interventions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 109:3470–87 [Google Scholar]
  82. Bolderdijk JW, Knockaert J, Steg EM, Verhoef ET. 82.  2011. Effects of Pay-As-You-Drive vehicle insurance on young drivers’ speed choice: results of a Dutch field experiment. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43:1181–86 [Google Scholar]
  83. Fujii S, Gärling T, Kitamura R. 83.  2001. Changes in drivers’ perceptions and use of public transport during a freeway closure: effects of temporary structural change on cooperation in a real-life social dilemma. Environ. Behav. 33:796–808 [Google Scholar]
  84. Evans L, Maio GR, Corner A, Hodgetts CJ, Ahmed S, Hahn U. 84.  2012. Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat. Climate Change 3:122–25 [Google Scholar]
  85. Kopelman S, Weber JM, Messick DM. 85.  2002. Factors influencing cooperation in commons dilemmas: a review of experimental psychological research. The Drama of the Commons E Ostrom, T Dietz, N Dolsak, PC Stern, S Stonich, EU Weber 113–56 Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  86. Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. 86.  1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 125:627–68 [Google Scholar]
  87. Falk A, Szech N. 87.  2013. Morals and markets. Science 340:6133707–11 [Google Scholar]
  88. Frey BS. 88.  1997. Not Just for the Money. A Theory of Personal Motivation Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
  89. Rode J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Krause T. 89.  2015. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol. Econ. 117:270–82 [Google Scholar]
  90. Schwartz D, Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Lave L. 90.  2015. Advertising energy saving programs: the potential environmental cost of emphasizing monetary savings. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 21:158–66 [Google Scholar]
  91. Handgraaf MJJ, Van Lidth de Jeude MA, Appelt KC. 91.  2013. Public praise versus private pay: effects of rewards on energy conservation in the workplace. Ecol. Econ. 86:86–92 [Google Scholar]
  92. Dogan E, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L. 92.  2014. Making small numbers count: environmental and financial feedback in promoting eco-driving behaviours. J. Consum. Policy 37:413–22 [Google Scholar]
  93. Jakovcevic A, Steg L, Mazzeo N, Caballero R, Franco P. 93.  et al. 2014. Charges for plastic bags: motivational and behavioral effects. J. Environ. Psychol. 40:372–80 [Google Scholar]
  94. Midden C, Ham J. 94.  2012. Persuasive technology to promote pro-environmental behaviour. See Ref. 125 243–25
  95. Maan S, Merkus B, Ham J, Midden C. 95.  2011. Making it not too obvious: the effect of ambient light feedback on space heating energy consumption. Energy Efficiency 4:175–83 [Google Scholar]
  96. Leijten FRM, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer K, Gorsira M, Van der Werff E, Steg L. 96.  2014. Factors that influence consumers’ acceptance of future energy systems: the effects of adjustment type, production level, and price. Energy Effic. 7:973–85 [Google Scholar]
  97. Staats HJ, Wit AP, Midden CYH. 97.  1996. Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public: evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 45:189–203 [Google Scholar]
  98. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek CH, Rothengatter T. 98.  2005. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 25:273–91 [Google Scholar]
  99. Whitmarsh L, Nash N, Upham P, Lloyd A, Verdon JP, Kendall J-M. 99.  2015. UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: the role of audience, message and context factors on risk perceptions and policy support. Appl. Energy 160:419–30 [Google Scholar]
  100. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek CH, Rothengatter T. 100.  2007. The effect of tailored information, goal setting and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors and behavioral antecedents. J. Environ. Psychol. 27:265–76 [Google Scholar]
  101. Goodhew J, Pahl S, Auburn T, Goodhew S. 101.  2015. Making heat visible: promoting energy conservation behaviors through thermal imaging. Environ. Behav. 47:101059–88 [Google Scholar]
  102. Bolderdijk JW, Gorsira M, Keizer K, Steg L. 102.  2013. Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLOS ONE 8:12e83911 [Google Scholar]
  103. Karlin B, Zinger JF, Ford R. 103.  2015. The effects of feedback on energy conservation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141:61205–27 [Google Scholar]
  104. Abrahamse W, Steg L. 104.  2013. Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23:1773–85 [Google Scholar]
  105. Lokhorst AM, Werner C, Staats H, Van Dijk E, Gale JL. 105.  2013. Commitment and behaviour change: a meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-making strategies in environmental research. Environ. Behav. 45:3–34 [Google Scholar]
  106. Kantola SJ, Syme GJ, Campbell NA. 106.  1984. Cognitive dissonance and energy conservation. J. Appl. Psychol. 69:416–21 [Google Scholar]
  107. Focella ES, Stone J. 107.  2013. The use of hypocrisy for promoting environmentally sustainable behaviors. Encouraging Sustainable Behaviour HCM van Trijp 203–15 New York: Psychology Press [Google Scholar]
  108. Bem DJ. 108.  1972. Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 6 L Berkowitz 1–62 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  109. Cornelissen G, Pandelaere M, Warlop L, Dewitte S. 109.  2008. Positive cueing: promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental. Int. J. Res. Mark. 25:146–55 [Google Scholar]
  110. Van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer K. 110.  2014. Follow the signal: when past pro-environmental actions signal who you are. J. Environ. Psychol. 40:273–82 [Google Scholar]
  111. Burger JM, Caldwell DF. 111.  2003. The effect of monetary incentives and labeling on the foot-in-the-door effect: evidence from a self-perception process. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25:3235–41 [Google Scholar]
  112. Bolderdijk JW, Steg L, Postmes T. 112.  2013. Fostering support for work floor energy conservation policies: accounting for privacy concerns. J. Organ. Behav. 34:195–210 [Google Scholar]
  113. Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter PL. 113.  2006. Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Soc. Influence 1:13–15 [Google Scholar]
  114. Weenig MWH, Midden CJH. 114.  1991. Communication network influences on information diffusion and persuasion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 61:734–42 [Google Scholar]
  115. Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R. 115.  2007. Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol. 72:2185–214 [Google Scholar]
  116. Shwom R, Bidwell D, Dan A, Dietz T. 116.  2010. Understanding US public support for domestic climate change policies. Glob. Environ. Change 20:472–82 [Google Scholar]
  117. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W. 117.  2006. Why are energy policies acceptable and effective?. Environ. Behav. 38:192–111 [Google Scholar]
  118. Schuitema G, Jakobsson Bergstad CJ. 118.  2012. Acceptability of environmental policies. See Ref. 125 255–66
  119. Schuitema G, Steg L, Forward S. 119.  2010. Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Res. A 44:99–109 [Google Scholar]
  120. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M. 120.  2001. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. J. Risk Res. 4:75–101 [Google Scholar]
  121. Walker G, Devine-Wright P, Hunter S, High H, Evans B. 121.  2010. Trust and community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 38:2655–63 [Google Scholar]
  122. Schuitema G, Steg L, Van Kruining M. 122.  2011. When are transport policies fair and acceptable? The role of six fairness principles. Soc. Justice Res. 24:66–84 [Google Scholar]
  123. Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, Steg L. 123.  2012. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16:525–31 [Google Scholar]
  124. Dietz T, Stern PC. 124.  2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  125. Steg L, Van den Berg AE, De Groot J. 125.  2012. Environmental Psychology: An Introduction Oxford, UK: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error