Improving Sustainable Living Education through the Use of Formative Experiments

Abstract

Experts agree that overconsumption is a major problem in Western culture today, particularly in the United States. Thus, it is important to promote sustainable behaviour among the general public. However, existing educational programming geared towards promoting such behaviour remains appealing largely to environmentally motivated audiences, as opposed to individuals with alternative motivations. In response to this discrepancy, I conducted a formative experiment aimed at (a) fostering participation among non-environmentally motivated individuals in sustainable living educational programming and (b) obtaining behaviour change commitments from those participants. While formative and design-based experiments are relatively familiar to education researchers, they have not typically been applied to research aimed at improving sustainable living education. Hence, the research process and results outlined here represent an effort to extend an existing research approach into a novel area of inquiry. The findings presented hold implications for both researchers and practitioners in the field of sustainable living education.

Keywords

Sustainable living formative experiments environmental behaviour sustainable consumption adoption of innovation

Introduction

Formative and design-based experiments have become increasingly familiar to education researchers over the past two decades. Ann Brown’s (1992) description of her own transition from conducting strictly laboratory experiments to conducting design experiments was one of the seminal works depicting that approach to research (see also Collins, 1992). Since then, they have become increasingly accepted and employed within the learning sciences. In fact, in 2004, The Journal of Learning Sciences devoted an entire special issue to the study of design-based research (Volume 13, Issue 1). This approach has been used to improve learning in subjects such as science (Bulgren, Ellis, & Marquis, 2014; diSessa & Cobb, 2004), mathematics (Cobb, Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001; Ke, 2014), reading (Bannan-Ritland, 2003; Duffy, 2001), history (Gersten, Baker, Smith-Johnson, Dimino, & Peterson, 2006), technology (Amory, 2014; Ogawa, Crain, Loomis, & Ball, 2008) and gifted education (Jen, Moon, & Samarapungavan, 2015) among others. In spite of growing acceptance within the field of education research, the formative approach remains less well known in other fields.

One such area of inquiry relates to sustainable living education, that encourages people to adopt sustainable lifestyles, which have been defined as ‘deeply satisfying, fulfilling, and appealing because [they are] socially, environmentally, and economically responsible’ (Adamski, Elliott, & Simon-Brown, 2008, p. 2). Research into the effectiveness of such educational efforts represents a potentially fruitful application of formative and design experiments. A number of characteristics of formative experiments (Reinking & Bradley, 2008), and of this research problem itself, suggest that this approach might yield beneficial outcomes in the areas of both theory and practice. Here, I highlight those features most relevant to this study.

The goals of a formative experiment are substantive and often pedagogical. Thus, formative researchers use their work to effect a change among participants in a study, in contrast with typical social science research goals (i.e., to understand, explain or predict behaviour). For the present study, I conducted a formative experiment aimed at two specific pedagogical goals: (a) to foster participation in sustainable living education among non-environmentally motivated (i.e., socially and economically motivated) individuals and (b) to obtain behaviour change commitments from those participants in the direction of more sustainable lifestyles. Individuals who are neither active in, nor sympathetic to, the environmental movement comprise roughly 30 per cent of the US population (Brulle & Jenkins, 2008); simply understanding and explaining the dynamics at play within this target population are insufficient end goals of research in this area of inquiry.

Over the past few decades, America has transitioned from a focus on consumption of basic needs to a focus on consumerism, or the ratcheting up of consumption, extending into addictive, obsessive and conspicuous consumption (Etzioni, 1998). In fact, US consumption is the highest among all nations (Simon-Brown, 2004). Add to that the numerous negative impacts that result from the increasingly unsustainable levels of consumption that define contemporary society (Fien, Neil, & Bentley, 2008). At the environmental level, we face stresses and strains on natural sinks (Mebratu, 1998; Reisch, 2001); pressure on forest, soil and water resources (Simon-Brown, 2004); and various climate change impacts (McKenzie-Mohr & Oskamp, 1995). At the individual and household level, impacts include widespread dissatisfaction (Reisch, 2001; Tsang, Carpenter, Roberts, Frisch, & Carlisle, 2013); increasing consumer debt and bankruptcy; and health problems, such as nutritional inadequacy, chronic disease and obesity (Cohen, 2005). In order to combat these negative impacts, it is necessary to effect a change in individual behaviour. Research has shown that individual behaviour is an important component in achieving a transition to sustainable consumption (e.g., Brown & Kasser, 2005; Etzioni, 1998; Markowitz, Goldberg, Ashton, & Lee, 2012; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000a, 2000b), which Fien et al. (2008) have referred to as one of today’s central challenges (see also Ortega Egea & de Frutos, 2013). Promoting sustainable lifestyles is crucial not only among those who are eager to make those changes (i.e., environmentally motivated individuals), but also among those exhibiting alternative behavioural motivations.

To facilitate goal achievement, formative experiments are both ‘adaptive and iterative’ (Reinking & Bradley, 2008, p. 20); researchers seek to ‘determine what is and is not working and why’ (p. 20) in order to adapt the intervention accordingly, thus overcoming the gap that frequently exists ‘between research findings and the demands of authentic practice’ (p. 20). The current project consisted of four iterations of the chosen intervention, each followed by adaptations designed to improve goal achievement in subsequent iterations. Formative experiments are not only adaptive and iterative, but they are ‘methodologically inclusive and flexible’ (ibid., p. 21) as well. The flexibility of the approach is reflected in a researcher’s ability to adapt data collection and analysis methods during the investigation.

Finally, formative experiments are theoretically oriented, with researchers often seeking ‘humble and local’ rather than ‘overarching’ theories (ibid., p. 18). That is, the extent to which findings may be generalized is highly dependent on the contextual factors at play in the population and the location to which one wishes to generalize. One aim in a formative experiment is to theoretically understand the enhancing and/or inhibiting conditions related to an intervention’s effectiveness. In this case, I explored the potential application of several adoption of innovation theories to the goal of promoting sustainable behaviour among alternatively motivated individuals.

Each of the unique features described here make the formative approach an ideal fit for the present study and, I would argue, for sustainable living educational research in general. In this article, my aim is to demonstrate the applicability of the formative approach to this novel context. Specifically, I highlight several theories that contributed to the design of the intervention enacted, detail the methods used, outline some of the key analyses and findings, and suggest implications for both practice and future research in this area of inquiry.

Theoretical Starting Points

Existing theories have attempted to describe, explain and even predict behaviours falling within the general realm of ‘sustainable behaviours.’ One notable example is value-belief-norm (VBN) theory. Proponents of this theory suggest that proenvironmental behaviour is the result of a causal chain of values, attitudes, beliefs and norms (Stern, 2000; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999; Stern, Kalof, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995). VBN theory, however, suffers from a reliance on the presence of pro-environmental or pro-social attitudes and beliefs, awareness of adverse consequences, and ascription of responsibility for those consequences in promoting environmentally beneficial behaviour. Oreg and Katz-Gerro (2006, p. 464) summarized the VBN causal chain as follows: ‘pro-environmental behaviors stem from acceptance of particular personal values, from beliefs that things important to those values are under threat, and from beliefs that actions initiated by the individual can help alleviate the threat and restore the values.’ Kurz (2002, p. 274) went as far as to assert that ‘[p]ro-environmental attitudes should be thought of as necessary but not sufficient in bringing about changes in people’s [environmentally-significant behaviors]’ (see also Ortega Egea & de Frutos, 2013). Thus, biospheric and altruistic values and attitudes are generally viewed as a stepping stone towards the adoption of environmentally significant behaviour. As such, this theory (as do others) fails to provide guidance on how to promote sustainable living among audiences comprised of individuals who do not demonstrate the characteristics and views that might readily incline them to change their behaviour in the direction of greater sustainability.

One exception to this pattern is community-based social marketing (CBSM), a process that has been shown to effectively promote behaviour change, even among variously motivated individuals. However, its proponents typically extend recommendations only to situations wherein one behaviour at a time is targeted for change (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000a, 2000b; McKenzie-Mohr & Oskamp, 1995; McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). In practice, though (in individual and community contexts), it is not always realistic to emphasize just one behaviour. As De Young (1993) suggested, ‘never before have so many behaviors needed to change in so short a time’ (p. 485). And in circumstances calling for a more general behaviour change, CBSM does not offer definitive guidance.

In contrast to the theories described previously, several theories related to the adoption and diffusion of innovation contribute valuable insights towards the achievement of this study’s goals (see Table 1). Straub (2009) has provided a thorough summary of the following theories: Rogers’s (1995) innovation diffusion theory (IDT), Hall’s (1979) concerns-based adoption model (CBAM), Davis’s (1989) technology adoption model (TAM) and Venkatesh’s (2000) United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model (UTAUT). In spite of similarities and differences among models, each offers recommendations for promoting adoption and diffusion of innovations among various audiences and target populations. Thus, for each of the four iterations comprising this study, I included design elements informed by their tenets.

Table 1

Theoretical Starting Points

Theory	Relevant Literature	Primary Tenets
VBN	• Stern, 2000 • Stern & Dietz, 1994 • Stern et al., 1999 • Stern et al., 1995 • Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006 • Kurz, 2002 • Ortega Egea & de Frutos, 2013	Pro-environmental behaviour is the result of a causal chain of values, attitudes, beliefs and norms.
CBSM	• McKenzie-Mohr, 2000a, 2000b • McKenzie-Mohr & Oskamp, 1995 • McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999	A pragmatic approach to behaviour change involving five steps (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000a): • Carefully selecting an activity to be promoted • Identifying barriers to the activity • Designing a strategy to overcome these barriers, when possible • Piloting the strategy with a small segment of the community • Evaluating the impact of the programme once implemented across a community
IDT	• Rogers, 1995 • Straub, 2009	Adoption of innovation involves five stages (Straub, 2009, p. 630): • Awareness • Persuasion • Decision • Implementation • Confirmation Innovations display five important attributes that influence adoption (ibid., p. 630): • Relative advantage • Compatibility • Complexity • Trialability • Observability
CBAM	• Hall, 1979 • Straub, 2009	Asserts six explicit assumptions (ibid., p. 633): • Change is a process, not an event • Change is accomplished by individuals • Change is a highly personal experience • Change involves developmental growth • Change is best understood in operational terms • The focus of facilitation should be on individuals, innovations and context
TAM	• Davis, 1989 • Straub, 2009	Usage outcomes are based on (ibid., p. 639): • Perceived ease of use • Perceived usefulness
UTAUT	• Straub, 2009 • Venkatesh, 2000	Acceptance is determined by (ibid., p. 641): • Performance expectancy • Effort expectancy • Social influence • Facilitating conditions Acceptance is moderated by four characteristics: • Gender • Age • Experience • Voluntariness of use
TTM	• Marshall & Biddle, 2001	Adoption is based on • Decisional balance

Source: Author’s own.

Promotion of Awareness

The first stage of adoption in IDT is awareness. The second stage is persuasion, during which an individual gains sufficient knowledge about ‘the innovation’s salient characteristics … to make a personal judgment, the outcome of which is a favourable or unfavourable view of the innovation’ (Straub, 2009, p. 630). Both of these stages involve a level of knowledge that non-environmentally motivated individuals may be less likely to have than their environmentally motivated counterparts.

Demonstration of Compatibility

Compatibility refers to a perceived congruence of the innovation with ‘existing understandings of similar and past ideas’ (ibid., p. 631), and represents one of the characteristics of an innovation that contributes to its adoption and diffusion, according to IDT. Prevailing theories of environmental behaviour use terminology such as environmentally beneficial behaviour, environmentally responsible behaviour, pro-environmental behaviour (e.g., Evans, Maio, Corner, Hodgetts, Ahmed, & Hahn, 2012; Markowitz et al., 2012; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006; Stern et al., 1995; Thø´gerson & Ölander, 2006) and environmentally motivated consumption reduction behaviour (i.e., Ortega, Egea & de Frutos, 2013). Environmental motivations are explicit in the definitions for each. In contrast, Adamski et al. (2008) have argued that ‘it really doesn’t matter why we choose to adopt a sustainable behavior because the end result—a more sustainable life, community, and planet—is the same’ (p. 1). Thus, individuals can choose to change their behaviour to save money, protect the environment and/or better manage their time. This view is much more likely to resonate with non-environmentally motivated individuals than the one focused on environmentally motivated behaviour change.

Research focused strictly on behaviours of interest has supported this view. For example, Black, Stern and Elworth (1985) discovered among residential electric consumers that ‘both economic self-interest and internalized personal norms affect behavioral responses to the energy situation’ (p. 17). In fact, more ecologically impactful changes (i.e., major capital investments) were more highly influenced by economic self-interest, whereas personal and perceived norms were associated with less impactful changes. Moreover, it has been argued that positive behaviour change can lead to both further changes in behaviour and subsequent changes in attitude (Cohen, 2005; De Young, 2000; Trumbo and O’Keefe, 2005). For instance, Cohen (2005) suggested that some of the outcomes of sustainable consumption (i.e., adequate nourishment, physical fitness and financial stability) might cause people to ‘develop greater empathy towards large-scale environmental problems and become more supportive of determined efforts to address them’ (p. 134). These findings suggest the need for an emphasis on compatibility among non-environmentally motivated individuals.

Persuasion of Benefit

Innovation diffusion theory discusses the idea of relative advantage, defined by Straub as ‘the perception of an individual that the innovation will be better or worse than similar ideas’ (2009, p. 630). The TAM includes a construct labelled perceived usefulness, which in the case of technology refers to improvements in job performance that might be obtained through adoption of an innovation (Straub, 2009). In the case of UTAUT, one consideration in the adoption of technological innovation is the ‘degree to which an individual believes that a technology will assist them in performing job duties’ (p. 640). These tenets are also consistent with the transtheoretical model (TTM) of behaviour change espoused by Marshall and Biddle (2001), which includes a construct called decisional balance, whereby ‘behavior change is assumed to involve a systematic evaluation of the potential gains (pros) and losses (cons) associated with the new behavior’ (p. 230). The authors further asserted that decisional balance has been shown to influence health behaviour change.

Sustainable lifestyles offer many benefits, including a positive correlation between ecologically responsible behaviour and subjective well-being. Brown and Kasser (2005) reviewed a number of studies highlighting the intrinsic satisfaction that accompanies both environmental and pro-social behaviour, as well as the importance of non-material sources in the achievement of happiness and life satisfaction. Etzioni (1998) found, similarly, that well-being was most significantly influenced by satisfaction in the realms of family life, friendships, work and leisure—not income. Zavestoski (2002) also asserted that a commitment to the non-material aspects of life contributes more to personal satisfaction, fulfilment and happiness than does increased material consumption. Walther, Sandlin and Wuensch (2016) found more recently that voluntary simplifiers (both spiritually and secularly motivated) ‘expressed feeling happier and feeling more contentment than consumers’ (p. 38). Boujbel and D’Astous’s (2012) findings also support the hypothesis that voluntary simplicity is associated with greater life satisfaction. Overall, the extant research supports the suggestion by Oakley, Chen and Nisi (2008) that sustainable practices contribute to improved quality of life. Thus, sustainable lifestyles have the potential to elicit positive social, economic and environmental benefits at scales from individual to global; and to combat negative consequences.

Abatement of Perceived Complexity

IDT identifies characteristics of an innovation that influence its adoption and diffusion. Among those is perceived complexity (the perception of how difficult to comprehend an innovation is; Straub, 2009, p. 630). The TAM involves a construct labelled perceived ease of use, or the ‘degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort’ (ibid., p. 638; citing Davis, 1989). In the case of UTAUT, this is referred to as effort expectancy, or the ‘degree to which an individual perceives a particular technology to be easy to use’ (ibid., p. 640).

Allowance for Individual Variation

Among the explicit assumptions of the CBAM (Straub, 2009, p. 633) is that change is a process rather than a one-time event, that it is accomplished by individuals and is a highly personal experience, and that it involves developmental growth. Straub thus asserted that ‘the focus of facilitation should be on individuals, innovations, and context’. Also inherent in the CBAM is the realization that ‘understanding concerns of a population can facilitate innovation adoption’ (ibid., p. 634). Allowance for individual variation is consistent with the definition of sustainable living provided previously and with research suggesting that an element of autonomy is important in promoting sustainable behaviours (e.g., Gellar, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

For the most part, the aforementioned elements relate to adoption more so than diffusion. The reasoning for that is that, as suggested by the IDT, time is one of the four main components of the diffusion process. Time constraints inherent in this project limited the ability to measure long-term impacts of the interventions conducted. Thus, diffusion has been treated predominantly as a direction for future research. In the remainder of this report, I briefly summarize the formative experiment I conducted. I then describe the design elements devised to address the adoption of innovation components outlined previously; the data sources and measures that allowed me to assess, adapt and improve those elements; and the outcomes obtained over the course of the project. Finally, I discuss the conclusions and implications of the study’s findings.

Methods

Between January 2010 and October 2012, I conducted an iterative series of four interventions among four existing organizations within the study community, a mid-sized metropolitan area in Texas. The site selection process within the formative research approach involves the selection of a site where the intervention is neither guaranteed to succeed, nor doomed to fail (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). The study community was determined to fit this criterion on the basis of two observations: (a) the presence of existing efforts towards improved sustainability at state, community and corporate scales; and (b) a clear need for improvement in efforts towards increased sustainability, especially at the individual level.

The organization selection process for this project followed the same adaptive and iterative process as did the rest of the study. That is, the four organizations were not all chosen at the start of the project. Rather, the outcomes of early iterations informed modifications to the organization selection process for subsequent iterations. One constant throughout the process, however, was an ongoing effort to ensure that the chosen organizations exhibited some combination of social and economic, rather than environmental, orientations (as demonstrated by stated purposes, mission statements, sponsored activities, etc.). The focus on these types of alternatively oriented organizations served to target the types of alternatively motivated individuals that the study was designed to reach.

The first organization with which I worked was a group of local young professionals, the activities and offerings of which indicated a commitment to promoting members’ social, networking and professional development opportunities. I conducted the second iteration in collaboration with a women’s organization on the local university campus that espoused not only a commitment to the development of social relationships among the group’s members, but also to service—both on campus and in the surrounding community. For the third iteration, I worked with a local, evangelical and (according to staff and key informants) decidedly ‘externally focused’ church. Interviews with church staff and key informants during that iteration indicated that the 400–600 college students within the congregation may have needs, desires and motivations different enough from those of the rest of the congregation to warrant treating them as a separate organization. Thus, they comprised the final iteration of the project.

The intervention itself consisted of two phases: key informant interviews and sustainable living workshops. I collected data throughout each iteration, in order to identify successes and failures, as well as enhancing and inhibiting factors, which I then used to adapt design elements for subsequent iterations.

Phase I: Key Informant Interviews

Interviews with key informants from within chosen organizations were conducted primarily to assess baseline measures for constructs of interest among organization members, identify differences and similarities across organizations, and inform content tailoring for educational programming events. For all iterations, organization leaders were asked to identify active and representative members to serve as key informants. In each case, leaders predominantly recommended members who had served, or were currently serving, in leadership roles within their organization. As such, those informants were considered qualified to represent other organization members. Interviews with key informants (referred to using pseudonyms throughout this article) were semi-structured, digitally recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed using constant comparative methods (Merriam, 1998).

Constructs and measures. Interview questions first elicited information related to organization members’ awareness of sustainable living, perceived (in)compatibility of sustainable living with existing ideas, valued benefits associated with sustainable living and perceived complexity of sustainable behaviours. In order to assess baseline awareness levels, I asked (a) What comes to mind when I say the word sustainability? and (b) How would you define sustainable living? Regarding perceived (in)compatibility, I sought to identify the existing views of organization members, with which I would need to demonstrate the curriculum’s compatibility. I did that by asking informants to identify values and priorities that organization members would view as important, using two measures: one open-ended and one ranking format. These measures also helped me to identify valued benefits that would be sought by organization members participating in sustainable living workshops. Regarding perceived complexity, I asked informants to identify barriers or obstacles to living sustainably, for themselves and/or other members. For the first three iterations, the question first asked informants to consider their own definition of sustainable living, and then asked them to consider all three dimensions of sustainable living (economic, social and environmental). For the fourth iteration, informants were asked to consider all three dimensions from the start.

In addition to establishing baseline measures for the constructs of interest, I asked two overarching questions designed to assess the potential effectiveness of incorporating design elements fashioned after the adoption of innovation principles. First, I asked whether, based on a three-dimensional definition of sustainable living, informants anticipated an interest among their organization’s members in learning more about how to live more sustainably; they were also asked to elaborate on their answers. Second, I asked for recommendations as to how organization members might be most effectively encouraged to participate in sustainable living workshops (Iterations 1–3) or to make more sustainable choices (Iteration 4).

Although presented as conceptually separate, informants’ responses to these questions turned up consistent and overlapping themes. Those themes were used to establish a set of design elements aimed, again, at fostering participation in sustainable living educational programming among members of collaborating organizations (and non-environmentally motivated individuals more generally), and at obtaining behaviour change commitments from participants in the direction of more sustainable lifestyles.

Phase II: Educational Programming Events

The second phase of the intervention consisted of educational programming events (workshops) designed to promote sustainable behaviour among participants. Outcomes of those events, as well as enhancing and inhibiting factors that informed design adaptations, were assessed using several data sources, representing a mixed-methods approach: pre-and post-workshop questionnaires (for Iterations 2 and 3); an abbreviated post-workshop questionnaire (for Iteration 4); and small-group discussion questions (for Iteration 4).

Constructs and measures. Workshop participants were asked several open-ended questions allowing them to identify enhancing and inhibiting factors associated with the programming events. Specifically, they were asked to share: (a) one new thing they had learned as a result of participation in the workshop; (b) what they liked best about the workshop and (c) any changes that they would suggest for improvement of the workshop/curriculum. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the themes that emerged from those questions with regard to constructs associated with adoption of innovation theories.

The first desired outcome of this intervention was to foster participation in sustainable living educational programming events among non-environmentally motivated individuals. In this case, participation was viewed as a count variable (number of workshop attendees). Of course, participation can be viewed as having greater variability (i.e., levels of participation), but such an analysis is beyond the scope of the present study.

The second desired outcome of the intervention was to obtain behaviour change commitments from participants in the direction of greater sustainability. The measure for this construct was an open-ended question asking workshop participants to identify two behaviours of their choice that they would commit to changing in order to make their lifestyle more sustainable. That item was labelled as optional, in order to avoid any sense or appearance of coercion; responses were counted and qualitatively analysed for emerging themes.

Analysis and Findings

Phase I: Analysis and Design Elements

Ultimately, 33 key informants participated in interviews over the course of this project. However, participation was not uniform across the four iterations. Only three members of the first organization agreed to participate in key informant interviews. Through a combination of efforts (including leadership endorsement, personal influence and word of mouth support), I was able to recruit 10 key informants for each of the subsequent iterations. Informants provided a greater understanding of the importance of incorporating the constructs related to adoption of innovation into efforts to promote sustainable behaviour among non-environmentally motivated individuals, and offered valuable insights into how that might be effectively accomplished.

Promotion of awareness. The most prominent finding with regard to awareness was the variable nature of informants’ understanding of sustainability-related terminology. Namely, key informant responses across iterations suggested the potential for limited understanding of the terms sustainability and sustainable living. For instance, environmental connotations were perceived for the terms across all iterations. When asked about their impressions of the terms, informants frequently offered responses such as: ‘green’, ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘environmentally conscious’. Even where social and economic dimensions were acknowledged, they were typically shared as secondary to the environmental dimension. Importantly, all key informants agreed that, if organization members understood the broader definition, it would be something of interest and benefit to them. For instance, Quincy (Iteration 3), upon hearing the three-dimensional definition of sustainable living, exclaimed,

I like that! I think everyone ought to hear that definition of sustainable living, because it’s kind of eye-opening. I’ve never heard it that way…. I think folks—if they understood how broad the definition is—I think they would find it interesting and it would be applicable to them…. I think that everybody would love to have more balance; to live more simply.

Many other informants echoed that enthusiasm. Thus, I emphasized the three-dimensional definition of the terms beginning with the first iteration; I then tried continuously to better clarify the three-dimensional definitions of the terms, with the aim of improving the perceived appeal of, and participation in, programming events.

Demonstration of compatibility. Key informants across iterations identified a number of different values and priorities vying for members’ time and attention. For the organizations studied in this project, those included social relationships, faith and family, among others. The environment, however, was consistently ranked low in importance (compared to other values and priorities) across iterations. That finding lent support to the theoretically based assertion that it would be important to demonstrate the compatibility of sustainable living principles with existing views, values and priorities, which I planned to do through the content of my workshop presentations.

The curriculum I used for my interventions was designed with varying values and priorities in mind. For instance, the curriculum presentation (including audience participation activities) encourages participants to evaluate their values and priorities, how their current behaviour does or does not reflect those values and priorities, and in turn, how they might be able to change their behaviour to better reflect their values and priorities. The curriculum, as written, also appeals to specific values identified during the key informant interviews. For instance, to appeal to those for whom community is an important value, the curriculum encompasses a broad definition of social responsibility and sustainability (including traditional components such as social equity, social justice, poverty reduction and community involvement, as well as less commonly recognized components, such as social relationships and time with family). These, and other emphases, were included in order to demonstrate compatibility.

Persuasion of benefit. Key informant responses indicated the importance of highlighting the benefits of living more sustainably at various scales. For the first iteration, I did this by pointing out the benefits of living sustainably in the event invitation that was shared with organization members via social media. Specifically, it addressed the value that the organization’s members place on: (a) money (You may benefit from this seminar…if you find that it’s often difficult to make ends meet at the end of the month, financially speaking; or if you simply feel that your life is cluttered with too much ‘stuff’); and (b) time (You may benefit from this seminar if you often find yourself too busy to do the things you want to do), among other priorities. In the curriculum presentation, I planned to highlight a number of other benefits (e.g., leisure, time with friends and family, etc.), and to counter the perception that all sustainable behaviours involve sacrifice and self-denial by pointing out that many of them could make participants ‘happier, healthier and even wealthier’.

Abatement of perceived complexity. Key informants identified a number of infrastructural, societal and psychological barriers to living sustainably in the local area. I attempted to minimize the influence of perceived barriers to the extent possible, primarily through the provision of information. Namely, I compiled a collection of fact and resource sheets regarding different opportunities available to members, both in general, and specific to the local area. For instance, Bridgette (Iteration 1) commented that although recycling is available, ‘you just have to find it; it’s not readily available or made public to you’. So I provided local information for the city and various suburbs on what, when and how residents could recycle. I also compiled a resource list that included local sources for different products (e.g., meat and produce), since there was a perceived lack of availability among informants of sustainable purchasing options (i.e., for local, organic, sustainable foods; sustainably created and packaged goods; etc.). These and other resources were available for workshop participants to take, so that they would not have to do their own leg work to find local opportunities for sustainable living. In addition, I planned to include tips and suggestions during the curriculum presentation itself, in order to highlight other opportunities.

Allowance for individual variation. Adamski et al. (2008) have argued that ‘the decision to live sustainably is intensely personal’ (p. 1). This supports the value of individual variation present within adoption of innovation theories. I attempted to account for individual variation primarily through the commitment component of the workshops. In keeping with recommendations of previous research (De Young, 1993; Geller, 1992; McKenzie-Mohr & Oskamp, 1995), the workshop curriculum invited participants to identify two behaviours of their choice that they would be willing to change to make their lifestyles more sustainable. In addition, the accompanying workbook offered several opportunities for group discussion, wherein participants could exchange views with one another.

These design elements were incorporated into the scheduled programming events for each iteration, and were adapted on the basis of outcomes obtained for each of those iterations. In the following section, I describe the adaptations as well as the learning outcomes that prompted them.

Phase II: Outcomes and Design Adaptations

Participation in sustainable living educational programming among non-environmentally motivated individuals. Participation (i.e., attendance) increased consistently over the course of the project: from zero participants for the first iteration, to 8 for the second, to 25 for the third and finally to 38 for the fourth. Analysis detailed elsewhere (Wynveen, 2013) suggests that workshop participants displayed mixed motivations, but with social and economic motivations outweighing environmental. Over the course of the project, a total of 71 non-environmentally motivated individuals participated, indicating achievement of the intervention’s first goal.

Behaviour change commitments towards more sustainable lifestyles. As the number of workshop participants increased, so did the number of commitments made. Beyond increasing in number, however, those commitments displayed other important characteristics. First, they were largely ongoing in nature. That is, rather than choosing one-time behaviours, participants committed to reduce consumption, begin or increase recycling, make more sustainable purchasing decisions and so forth. Even in cases where behaviours themselves were not ongoing, the impact typically was (e.g., fuel consumption would be continually reduced through the one-time purchase of fuel-efficient vehicle). In addition, many of the commitments would result in positive environmental (as well as social and/or economic) impacts (e.g., using second-hand products; sharing with friends, family and neighbours). Also of note, behaviour change commitments became more specific (as opposed to general) with each iteration. For instance, Iteration 4 commitments included taking showers in less than three minutes, washing full loads of dishes and laundry, and making coffee at home instead of buying it at a coffee shop. This transition is important because research shows that more specific commitments are easier to keep than more general commitments (Geller, 1992). Overall, then, the second goal was achieved to greater degrees in later iterations of the project.

The improvements in goal achievement illustrated here can be attributed in part to adaptations made throughout the iterative process. The analysis that follows highlights adaptations relating to the constructs of interest, on the basis of outcomes obtained, as well as participant responses to the post-workshop survey questions listed previously. The following findings do not represent an exhaustive account of all influencing factors accounting for changes in outcomes obtained, but rather are meant to illustrate the iterative process through which this study was undertaken, in order to demonstrate the value of formative research in the field of sustainable living education.

Promotion of awareness. From the start of the project, I attempted to promote awareness by highlighting the three-dimensional (social, economic and environmental) definition of sustainable living. That strategy was well received, specifically throughout the last three iterations of the project. Iteration 3 participants noted that this was ‘a new way to think about things’; others zeroed in on the importance of ‘getting life in balance’. In sharing something new they had learned, several Iteration 4 participants noted learning about the three-dimensional definition of sustainable living (e.g., ‘sustainable living is about more than just the environment’, ‘we are called to live sustainably in every aspect of our life’ and ‘being a good steward has three parts’). In learning what it means to live sustainably, a number of Iteration 3 participants became aware of the degree of sustainability displayed in their current lifestyles, primarily voicing a sense of conviction about their shortcomings in living sustainably.

One strategy that I used increasingly over the course of the project was to replace the terms sustainability and sustainable living with less intimidating words, including balance, simplicity and stewardship. That adaptation was informed by key informant interviews, but was also supported by the fact that—in spite of efforts to increase awareness even in promotional efforts—workshop participants consistently demonstrated the same limited understandings of sustainability-related terminology as did the key informants. Although understanding seemed to improve with each iteration, this challenge remained. For example, Iteration 4 participants—at the start of each workshop—tended to view sustainability in primarily environmental terms, while viewing stewardship in more economic and social terms.

Another adaptation involved emphasizing improved understanding not just of the three-dimensional nature of a sustainable lifestyle, but also of the integrated nature of those dimensions. Specifically, some participants seemed to view the three dimensions as distinct from, or unrelated to, one another. For instance, some Iteration 3 participants committed to ‘exercise more’ or ‘drink more water’, demonstrating that they may not have fully grasped the need to address all three dimensions of sustainable living in behaviour choices. Thus, for the fourth iteration, I addressed that need through the following discussion questions: What are some behaviours that might be more sustainable along all three dimensions? Can you think of some examples where options conflict and require trade-offs and compromises among the three dimensions of sustainable living? and How do you make decisions about your actions in those cases? The intent in adding these questions was to encourage participants to make behaviour change commitments that would be most impactful along all three dimensions of a sustainable lifestyle, rather than focusing on just one or two. This adaptation appealed to participants, as demonstrated by one participant’s response suggesting that they enjoyed discussing the different areas of living sustainably and another’s comment that, ‘it made me think about aspects of my life I’ve never put thought into’.

Demonstration of compatibility. For the first iteration, I planned to demonstrate the compatibility of sustainable living with existing views primarily through the curriculum presentation; however none of the organization’s members attended the scheduled workshop. As such, for subsequent iterations, I appealed to those more clearly within the promotional materials themselves. For instance, for the fourth iteration, the invitation e-mail highlighted the three workshops’ focus on biblical stewardship, and on the benefits that individuals might obtain, in terms of managing finances, time and social relationships. During the workshops, much of the discussion focused on existing motivations, and how those motivations could be served by living with a greater sense of stewardship and sustainability. Also, beginning with the second iteration, I included more print resources focusing on the social and economic dimensions of sustainable living, in keeping with the holistic nature of the definition embraced within the curriculum. Thus, participants were not made to feel that living sustainably must necessarily be an environmentally motivated endeavour. In response, Iteration 4 participants noted an increased awareness of the links between stewardship and sustainability, and between stewardship and their own values, as lessons learned.

Persuasion of benefit. Although event invitations for the first iteration highlighted a number of benefits to be obtained from living sustainably (at several different scales), organization members may have perceived a greater focus on the broader level benefits, leaving them sceptical of the individual benefits to be obtained. Thus, for subsequent iterations, I spelled out both individual and family level benefits more clearly, highlighting those most closely associated with the values key informants had identified as strong among organization members.

Abatement of perceived complexity. Practical tips and examples were included for all programming events in order to overcome perceived complexity, as informed by adoption of innovation principles. Participants frequently listed those as a favourite feature of the workshops, especially those reflecting ‘small, everyday’ behaviour changes. And yet, a common recommendation (made by 13 people in Iteration 3 alone) for improvement was the inclusion of more tips and examples. For instance, one participant wanted to know how to live more sustainably when living ‘in apartments’ and ‘on limited resources’, whereas another suggested that I ‘tell more stories/examples of people who have made small yet significant changes’. Thus, with each iteration, I included increasing numbers of practical ways in which participants could live more sustainably.

Finally, for the last two workshops of the fourth iteration, participants no longer suggested that improvement, indicating that they were satisfied with the number of examples provided. For those workshops, I had asked participants to share sustainable behaviours they were already performing, asked them to brainstorm behaviours that they could adopt as college students, and shared 16 specific examples of sustainable behaviours that colleagues and I had come up with (as opposed to the 8 examples included previously). In order to make time for this adaptation, I modified the format of the programming events; rather than incorporating dialogue at various points during a traditional classroom-style lecture presentation, I formatted the workshop as a small-group discussion session (facilitated using a discussion guide in order to steer the conversation in a productive direction), engaging the audience at length in each topic of discussion. That allowed them to share their own experiences, learn from one another and brainstorm ways to live more sustainably.

The inclusion of many tips and examples produced the added benefit of promoting specific, rather than general, behaviour changes. As noted previously, the first workshop participants (Iteration 2) committed to very general behaviour changes for the most part. Thus with each subsequent iteration, I shared more specific examples, taken from my own or others’ experiences or from local opportunities. That adaptation led to more specific behaviour change commitments (e.g., turning off the faucet while brushing teeth rather than simply using less water), as evidenced by how closely commitments tracked with the examples presented in the workshops. Specifically, 31 of the 38 behaviours that Iteration 3 participants listed (82 per cent) were behaviours that had been specifically referenced in the workshop presentation (e.g., recycling glass, joining a CSA (community-supported agriculture) and shopping at second-hand stores).

Allowance for individual variation. Initially, I sought to allow for individual variation by including opportunities for discussion and dialogue throughout workshops and offering participants the opportunity to voluntarily select behaviours of their choice that they would commit to changing in order to live more sustainably. Discussion and dialogue were key components in appealing to workshop participants, and were ultimately most successfully facilitated by the aforementioned change from a more traditional classroom-based lecture format to a small-group discussion-based format. It is likely that the greater number of practical examples allowed participants to identify one or more that resonated with them personally, or individually.

The outcomes and adaptations reported in this section demonstrate the value of applying a formative approach to the field of sustainable living education. In addition to the goal achievement attained within this project specifically, the study suggests the potential for broader impact. In the discussion section, I first outline the practical implications of these findings for sustainable living professionals and then offer several research implications that also follow from this study.

Discussion and Conclusions

The formative experiment described here offers several practical implications for sustainable living professionals targeting non-environmentally motivated individuals. First, it is clear that educators must highlight the three-dimensional definition of sustainable living. In fact, it may be useful to replace traditional sustainability-related terminology with the kinds of less intimidating words that I found to be effective (e.g., balance, simplicity and stewardship). In addition, educators should work to identify the salient values, priorities and motivations among their target audiences (through key informant interviews, for example), and then work to demonstrate compatibility of those views with a sustainable lifestyle. Efforts to identify and appeal to valued benefits among target audience members are also important. Regarding perceived complexity, findings indicate that the more specific and personal examples educators can provide over the course of a workshop, the more effectively they may be able to promote those behaviours among participants. Finally, the study demonstrated the importance of allowing for individual variation, through opportunities for discussion, dialogue, interaction and personal commitment. These findings demonstrate that various theories of adoption of innovation may be successfully consolidated and used to inform efforts to promote sustainable living among non-environmentally motivated individuals.

Beyond immediate impact, this project also points to several avenues for future research. First, it will be necessary to identify the scope of theoretical application and practical implications described previously. Specifically, my findings relate to members of four organizations within one study community, many of whom displayed demographic and attitudinal similarities. Important differences may exist with regard to perceptions of sustainability and sustainable living, for example, among members of various populations, economic sectors, political backgrounds and so on. Those differences will need to be assessed in order to determine the extent to which this project’s findings can be generalized across those populations.

Another important direction for future research is to evaluate actual behaviour, rather than just expected behaviour change. Although workshop participants are committed to adopting a number of sustainable behaviours, intentions do not always translate into action. Follow-up research is necessary in order to assess the short- and long-term impact of the intervention.

Finally, this study focused on adoption of innovation. But just as important, if not more so, is the diffusion of those innovations. Future research should also explore the diffusion process as it relates to sustainable behaviour change, in particular the factors that either enhance or inhibit the diffusion of sustainable living principles among variously motivated individuals.

In conclusion, I undertook this project with the aims of (a) fostering participation in sustainable living education among non-environmentally motivated individuals and (b) obtaining behaviour change commitments among those participants, in the direction of more sustainable lifestyles. Those goals were increasingly achieved with each successive iteration, demonstrating that sustainable living education offers a fruitful field of inquiry for applying formative research.

References

Adamski

Elliott

& Simon-Brown

(2008). Living sustainably: It’s your choice (Ed. Welch

). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension Service.

Amory

(2014). Tool-mediated authentic learning in an educational technology course: A design-based innovation. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 497–513.

Bannan-Ritland

(2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.

Black

J. S.

Stern

P. C.

& Elworth

J. T.

(1985). Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 3–21.

Boujbel

& D’Astous

(2012). Voluntary simplicity and life satisfaction: Exploring the mediating role of consumption desires. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11, 487–494.

Brown

A. L.

(1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

Brown

K. W.

& Kasser

(2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368.

Brulle

& Jenkins

C. J.

(2008). Fixing the bungled U.S. environmental movement. Contexts, 7(2), 14–18.

Bulgren

J. A.

Ellis

J. D.

& Marquis

J. G.

(2014). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 82–97.

10.

Cobb

Stephan

McClain

& Gravemeijer

(2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 10(1, 2), 113–163.

11.

Cohen

M. J.

(2005, February 10–12). Sustainable consumption American style: Nutrition education, active living, and financial literacy. In Hertwich

Briceno

Hofstetter

& Inaba

(Eds), Proceedings of sustainable consumption: The contribution of research workshop (pp. 133–138). Oslo: Gabels Hus.

12.

Collins

(1992). Toward a design science of education. In Scanlon

& O’shea

(Eds), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

13.

De Young

(1993). Changing behavior and making it stick: The conceptualization and management of conservation behavior. Environment and Behavior, 25(4), 485–505.

14.

De Young

(2000). Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509–526.

15.

diSessa

& Cobb

(2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.

16.

Duffy

A. M.

(2001). Balanced, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching in a summer school literacy program for elementary school struggling readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 40(2), 67–100.

17.

Etzioni

(1998). Voluntary simplicity: Characterization, select psychological implications, and societal consequences. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 619–643.

18.

Evans

Maio

G. R.

Corner

Hodgetts

C. J.

Ahmed

& Hahn

(2012). Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 3(2), 122–125.

19.

Fien

Neil

& Bentley

(2008). Youth can lead the way to sustainable consumption. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2(1), 51–60.

20.

Geller

E. S.

(1992). Solving environmental problems: A behavior change perspective. In Staub

& Green

(Eds), Psychology and social responsibility: Facing global challenges. New York, NY: New York University Press.

21.

Gersten

Baker

S. K.

Smith-Johnson

Dimino

& Peterson

(2006). Eyes of the prize: Teaching complex historical content to middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 264–280.

22.

Jen

Moon

& Samarapungavan

(2015). Using design-based research in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(3), 190–200.

23.

(2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers and Education, 73(1), 26–39.

24.

Kurz

(2002). The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: Fitting together pieces of the puzzle. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 257–278.

25.

Markowitz

E. M.

Goldberg

L. R.

Ashton

M. C.

& Lee

(2012). Profiling the ‘pro-environmental individual’: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 81–111.

26.

Marshall

S. J.

& Biddle

S. J. H.

(2001). The transtheoretical model of behavior change: A meta-analysis of applications to physical activity and exercise. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 23(4), 229–246.

27.

McKenzie-Mohr

(2000a). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531–537.

28.

McKenzie-Mohr

(2000b). Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 543–554.

29.

McKenzie-Mohr

& Oskamp

(1995). Psychology and sustainability: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 1–14.

30.

McKenzie-Mohr

& Smith

(1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

31.

Mebratu

(1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(6), 493–520.

32.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Oakley

Chen

& Nisi

(2008, 21–24 September). Motivating sustainable behavior. UbiComp Workshop Proceedings, Seoul, South Korea.

34.

Ogawa

R. T.

Crain

Loomis

& Ball

(2008). CHAT-IT: Toward conceptualizing learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 83–95.

35.

Oreg

& Katz-Gerro

(2006). Predicting proenvironmnetal behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462–483.

36.

Ortega Egea

J. M.

& de Frutos

N. G.

(2013). Toward consumption reduction: An environmentally motivated perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 30(8), 660–675.

37.

Reinking

& Bradley

(2008). On formative and design experiments. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

38.

Reisch

L. A.

(2001). Time and wealth: The role of time and temporalities for sustainable patterns of consumption. Time and Society, 10(2–3), 367–385.

39.

Ryan

R. M.

& Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

40.

Simon-Brown

(2004). Intelligent consumption: Addressing consumer responsibilities for natural resources—and beyond. Journal of Extension, 42(5), 1–9.

41.

Stern

P. C.

(2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

42.

Stern

P. C.

& Dietz

(1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65–84.

43.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Abel

Guagnano

G. A.

& Kalof

(1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.

44.

Stern

P. C.

Kalof

Dietz

& Guagnano

G. A.

(1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(18), 1611–1636.

45.

Straub

E. T.

(2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.

46.

Thǿgerson

& Ölander

(2006). To what degree are environmentally beneficial choices reflective of a general conservation stance? Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 550–569.

47.

Trumbo

C. W.

& O’Keefe

G. J.

(2005). Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, reasoned action, and information effects across time. Society and Natural Resources, 18(1), 573–585.

48.

Tsang

Carpenter

T. P.

Roberts

J. A.

Frisch

M. B.

& Carlisle

R. D.

(2013). Why are materialists less happy? The role of gratitude and need satisfaction in the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 64(1), 62–66.

49.

Walther

C. S.

Sandlin

J. A.

& Wuensch

(2016). Voluntary simplifiers, spirituality, and happiness. Humanity and Society, 40(1), 22–42.

50.

Wynveen

B. J.

(2013). Attaining sustainable behavior among non-environmentally-motivated individuals: A formative experiment (Doctoral dissertation). All Dissertations (Paper No. 1113). Retrieved from http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1113

51.

Zavestoski

(2002). The social-psychological bases of anticonsumption attitudes. Psychology and Marketing, 19(2), 149–165.