Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

A more dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene

Nature Sustainability volume 2, pages 1075–1082 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Human behaviour is of profound significance in shaping pathways towards sustainability. Yet, the approach to understanding human behaviour in many fields remains reliant on overly simplistic models. For a better understanding of the interface between human behaviour and sustainability, we take work in behavioural economics and cognitive psychology as a starting point, but argue for an expansion of this work by adopting a more dynamic and systemic understanding of human behaviour, that is, as part of complex adaptive systems. A complex adaptive systems approach allows us to capture behaviour as ‘enculturated’ and ‘enearthed’, co-evolving with socio–cultural and biophysical contexts. Connecting human behaviour and context through a complex adaptive systems lens is critical to inform environmental governance and management for sustainability, and ultimately to better understand the dynamics of the Anthropocene itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: From ‘econs’ to humans as ‘enculturated’ and ‘enearthed’.
Fig. 2: Different conceptualizations of interactions between human behaviour and context.
Fig. 3: From Homo economicus to regarding human behaviour as part of CAS.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Crutzen, P. J. Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reid, W. V. et al. Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 330, 916–917 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior (World Bank, 2015).

  5. North, D. C. Institutions. J. Econ. Perspect. 5, 97–112 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Holland, J. H. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity (Addison-Wesley, 1995).

  7. Levin, S. A. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1, 431–436 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Levin, S. et al. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environ. Dev. Econ. 18, 111–132 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B. & Rockström, J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 21, 41 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schlüter, M. et al. A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Econ. 131, 21–35 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. & Munda, G. Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 32, 43–61 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoff, K. & Stiglitz, J. E. Striving for balance in economics: towards a theory of the social determination of behavior. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 126, 25–57 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Arthur, W. B. in Complexity and the Economy (ed. Arthur, W. B.) Ch. 1 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

  14. Conlisk, J. Why bounded rationality? J. Econ. Lit. 34, 669–700 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gigerenzer, G. Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty (Oxford Univ. Press, 2008).

  16. Mullainathan, S. & Thaler, R. Behavioral Economics Working Paper No. 00-27 (MIT Department of Economics, 2000); https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.245828

  17. Schill, C. Human Behaviour in Social-Ecological Systems: Insights from Economic Experiments and Agent-based Modelling. PhD thesis, Stockholm Univ. (2017); https://go.nature.com/315vZ5g

  18. Fehr-Duda, H. & Fehr, E. Game human nature. Nature 530, 413–415 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Simon, H. A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69, 99–118 (1955).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–292 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ellsberg, D. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75, 643–669 (1961).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127, 267–286 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) (ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A.) (Clarendon Press, 1896).

  24. Thaler, R. H. & Shefrin, H. M. An economic theory of self-control. J. Polit. Econ. 89, 392–406 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1, 7–59 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

  27. Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. & Fehr, E. Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life (MIT Press, 2005).

  28. Lieberman, M. D. Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect (Crown Publishers, 2013).

  29. Ostrom, E. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: presidential address, American political science association, 1997. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92, 1–22 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. Fairness and the assumptions of economics. J. Bus. 59, S285–S300 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kocher, M. G., Cherry, T., Kroll, S., Netzer, R. J. & Sutter, M. Conditional cooperation on three continents. Econ. Lett. 101, 175–178 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peysakhovich, A., Nowak, M. A. & Rand, D. G. Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nat. Commun. 5, 4939 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. DiMaggio, P. & Markus, H. R. Culture and social psychology: converging perspectives. Soc. Psychol. Q. 73, 347–352 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Triandis, H. C. in Handbook of Cultural Psychology (eds Kitayama, S. & Cohen, D.) 59–76 (Guilford Press, 2007).

  35. Shweder, R. A. & LeVine, R. A. Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984).

  36. Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Triandis, H. C. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychol. Rev. 96, 506–520 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I. & Norenzayan, A. Culture and systems of thought: holisitic versus analytic cognition. Psychol. Rev. 108, 291–310 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Inglehart, R. & Baker, W. E. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65, 19–51 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int. J. Psychol. 49, 141–157 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Henrich, J. et al. ‘Economic man’ in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 28, 795–855 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cárdenas, J.-C. et al. Fragility of the provision of local public goods to private and collective risks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 921–925 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Prediger, S., Vollan, B. & Frölich, M. The impact of culture and ecology on cooperation in a common-pool resource experiment. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1599–1608 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Castillo, D., Bousquet, F., Janssen, M. A., Worrapimphong, K. & Cardenas, J. C. Context matters to explain field experiments: results from Colombian and Thai fishing villages. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1609–1620 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Swidler, A. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51, 273–286 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lamont, M., Adler, L., Park, B. Y. & Xiang, X. Bridging cultural sociology and cognitive psychology in three contemporary research programmes. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 886–872 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Davis, T., Hennes, E. P. & Raymond, L. Cultural evolution of normative motivations for sustainable behaviour. Nat. Sustain. 1, 218–224 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Young, H. P. The evolution of social norms. Annu. Rev. Econ. 7, 359–387 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Uskul, A. K., Kitayama, S. & Nisbett, R. E. Ecocultural basis of cognition: farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 8552–8556 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Talhelm, T. Large-scale psychological rice versus wheat agriculture. Science 344, 603–608 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gifford, R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 541–579 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bratman, G. N. et al. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0903 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 94–101 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Brondizio, E. S., Ostrom, E. & Young, O. R. Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 253–278 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vitali, S., Glattfelder, J. B. & Battiston, S. The network of global corporate control. PLoS ONE 6, e25995 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. Cultures and selves: a cycle of mutual constitution. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 420–430 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. Culture and the Evolutionary Process (Univ. Chicago Press, 1985).

  59. Waring, T. M. et al. A multilevel evolutionary framework for sustainability analysis. Ecol. Soc. 20, 34 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Gordon, L. et al. Rewiring food systems to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 100201 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Henrich, J. P. The Secret of our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating our Species, and Making us Smarter (Princeton Univ. Press, 2017).

  62. Beddoe, R. et al. Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 2483–2489 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Schmidt, V. A. Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 303–326 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bouchard, G. Social Myths and Collective Imaginaries (Univ. Toronto Press, 2015).

  65. Harari, Y. N. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (Harvill Secker, 2016).

  66. Brockman, J. This Will Make You Smarter: New Scientific Concepts to Improve Your Thinking (Harper Perennial, 2012).

  67. Thibodeau, P. H., Frantz, C. M. P. & Berretta, M. The earth is our home: systemic metaphors to redefine our relationship with nature. Clim. Change 142, 287–300 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Folke, C. Resilience (republished). Ecol. Soc. 21, 44 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466, 29 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Groeneveld, J. et al. Theoretical foundations of human decision-making in agent-based land use models – a review. Environ. Model. Softw. 87, 39–48 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Shove, E. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plan. A 42, 1273–1285 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Reid, L. & Ellsworth-Krebs, K. Nudge(ography) and practice theories: contemporary sites of behavioural science and post-structuralist approaches in geography? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 43, 295–313 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This Perspective is a product of a series of Behaviour, Economics and Nature (BEN) workshops hosted by the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The work has been funded by the Kjell and Märta Beijer Foundation, and the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation. We would like to thank S. West and D. Ospina for insightful comments and suggestions on previous drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden

    Caroline Schill, Therese Lindahl, Carl Folke & Anne-Sophie Crépin

  2. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Caroline Schill, Therese Lindahl, Carl Folke, Anne-Sophie Crépin, Jon Norberg & Maja Schlüter

  3. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    John M. Anderies & Marco A. Janssen

  4. School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    John M. Anderies

  5. Center for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    John M. Anderies & Marco A. Janssen

  6. Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Stephen Polasky

  7. Facultad de Economía, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

    Juan Camilo Cárdenas

Authors
  1. Caroline Schill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Anderies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Therese Lindahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carl Folke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephen Polasky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Juan Camilo Cárdenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anne-Sophie Crépin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marco A. Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jon Norberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Maja Schlüter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.S., J.M.A., T.L., C.F. and S.P. conceived the idea with input from J.C.C., A.-S.C., M.A.J., J.N. and M.S. C.S., J.M.A. and T.L. led the writing process with input from C.F., S.P., J.C.C., A.-S.C., M.A.J., J.N. and M.S. C.S. and T.L. led the revision with input from J.M.A., C.F., S.P., J.C.C., A.-S.C., M.A.J., J.N. and M.S.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Therese Lindahl.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schill, C., Anderies, J.M., Lindahl, T. et al. A more dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene. Nat Sustain 2, 1075–1082 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0419-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0419-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene