Does knowledge really drive pro-environmental behaviors?

Phuong-Tri Nguyen
Securities Research and Training Center, State Security Commission

March 23, 2025

“– In the same field, how can the two sides be so different?
[…]
– Sir, it’s because our circumstances are different. Our bunch is light and free, while those guys spend all day long worried and guarding their ripe grains. What a terrible waste of time! Beautiful sunny days are for singing, dancing, and chattering away…”

—In “Light and Free;” Wild Wise Weird (2024)

[SCICOMM]

Environmental education is widely regarded as essential for promoting sustainable behavior under the assumption that informed individuals naturally make choices beneficial to the environment. However, research by Geiger, Geiger, and Wilhelm [1] reveals a more complex relationship between environmental knowledge, general knowledge, and pro-environmental actions.



A significant insight from their study is that environmental knowledge does not exist independently but is strongly integrated with general knowledge. Using statistical modeling, the authors demonstrated an almost perfect correlation between general knowledge—covering areas such as history, economics, and science—and environmental knowledge [1]. This suggests that individuals who are well-informed in broader subjects also tend to have a good understanding of environmental issues. Consequently, this finding challenges the conventional approach of teaching environmental education as an isolated subject, advocating instead for broader, interdisciplinary educational methods.

Despite this strong link between general and environmental knowledge, the researchers found that knowledge explained only 7% of the variance in actual pro-environmental behavior. This indicates that simply knowing about climate change, conservation, or pollution does not necessarily translate into sustainable actions. This aligns with earlier critiques of the information deficit model, which assumes that increased knowledge automatically motivates behavioral change [2,3]. Factors such as emotions, habits, social norms, and external barriers can also be influential in shaping pro-environmental behaviors [1].

Another notable finding was the positive impact of age. Older individuals generally exhibited higher levels of knowledge and more frequent pro-environmental behaviors [1]. This relationship may reflect accumulated life experience, generational shifts in sustainability attitudes, or a heightened sense of environmental responsibility due to increased conscientiousness or legacy motives in older generations [4,5].

These findings hold significant implications for educational strategies and policy-making. Given that knowledge alone is insufficient for behavior change, education should extend beyond delivering environmental facts and instead foster broader competencies, such as perspective-taking, active participation, and the ability to manage complex information [6,7].

Policy approaches must also address structural and cultural barriers that inhibit sustainable behaviors. Effective strategies could include removing obstacles, providing meaningful incentives, and fostering supportive social norms. Cultural and artistic engagement, for example, through satirical fables, may offer unique ways to foster emotional and reflective connections to sustainability issues [8].

Thus, while knowledge remains an important foundation, Geiger et al. (2019) emphasize that it alone cannot drive sustained pro-environmental behavior. Recognizing environmental knowledge as part of broader education underscores the value of interdisciplinary approaches. Furthermore, acknowledging the role of age highlights the importance of lifelong education and supportive policy measures. Ultimately, fostering sustainable behaviors requires holistic strategies integrating education, psychological insights, cultural engagement, and structural reforms.

References

[1] Geiger SM, Geiger M, Wilhelm O. (2019). Environment-specific vs. general knowledge and their role in pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00718

[2] Schultz W. (2002). Knowledge, information and household recycling: examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T Dietz and PC Stern (Eds). New Tools for Environmental Protection. Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures (pp. 67–82). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

[3] Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401

[4] Roberts BW, et al.. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1

[5] Fox M, et al. (2010). The legacy motive: a catalyst for sustainable decision-making in organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 153-185. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201020214

[6] Haan GD, et al. (2008). Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment. Springer.

[7] Michelsen G, Fischer D. (2017). Sustainability and education, in sustainable development policy. In MV Hauff, and C Kuhnke (Eds). Integrating the SDGs in Academia and Policy. Routledge.

[8] Nguyen MH. (2024). How can satirical fables offer us a vision for sustainability? Visions for Sustainability. https://ojs.unito.it/index.php/visions/article/view/11267

[9] Vuong QH, Nguyen MH. (2025). On Nature Quotient. https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/390547/3/wp25003.pdf