Practice and MORCA Theories On Environmental Pollution”
Traditional Economic, Practice and MORCA Theories On Environmental Pollution
Name
Institution
Traditional Economic, Practice and MORCA Theories On Environmental Pollution
Introduction
Human behavior impacts the decisions they make through rational consideration of the available alternatives to increase benefits and costs (Klaniecki et al., 2018). The behaviors are influenced by attitudes towards the practice, social norms, and perceptions of behavioral control. The behavioral influence has impacted the environment, due to people’s actions of either improving or performing activities as a routine, since others are practicing the same. Social practices economics influence the organizational, physical, and psychological relationships of individuals. Using the traditional economic theories of rational choice and bounded rationality, compared with the MORCA and practice theory, the impact of human behavior on the environment is determined. Environmental pollution due to fossil fuel burning is one of the significant environmental issues that occur due to social practices. Human behavior is affected by the theories, which lead to the actions that cause environmental pollution and climate change issues. The theories affect human behavior, which leads to actions that negatively influence the environment, which affects social well-being.
Features of theories
The rational choice theory explains social situations as outcomes of individual actions suitable for realizing goals, given the limitations imposed by the situation (Sato, 2013). People do what they believe will have the best outcome. This act occurs after considering various factors and selecting one that is most convenient on occasion. The theory has four components, including beliefs, preferences, evidence, and action. In the second traditional economic theory, the bounded rationality suggests an economic man who knows the environment, has choices and skills to make decisions, given various alternatives. (Dequech, 2001) In both theories, the persons are informed of the situation and can choose the action to take. The persons have preferences and make decisions with informed consent. However, with the information and skills they have, there are chances of making wrong decisions due to misbehaved preferences, limited knowledge, and abilities. The theories have a similarity due to the features of preferences, beliefs, evidence, and acting based on public information.
On the other hand, Bourdieu’s social theory of practice suggests that activities are conducted on a routine basis, situated in time and place, and shared by groups of people as part of their daily lives. The theory explores activities of everyday life, including leisure, by applying actions and social relations subjective dispositions (Lee et al., 2014). In this theory, the focus is not on individual attitudes, behaviors, and choices, but instead on the formation, reproduction, maintenance, and stabilization of practices. Similarly, the MORCA theory builds on Bourdieu’s theory. It addresses determination in routine behavior and states that they are a means by which humans act as it defines every activity. It integrates psychological and sociological theories of practice, to help understand and interpret human actions (Strengers & Maller, 2016). In these theories, preferences and knowledge are not considered but rather the effect of the action taken. Also, the responses are habitual, and it is expected that people undertake them every day without informed consent or whether they are right or wrong. However, the theory does not provide information on the reasons for following the actions, as the activities are normative and exercised by a large group of the population.
Environmental Pollution Case Study
Environmental pollution is an ecological issue highly caused by human actions. As depicted by the rational choice theory in the macro-micro-micro model, how individuals generate specific activities using the desires, opportunities, and beliefs of social conditions affect individuals in a particular environment (Liebe & Preisendörfer, 2010). Pollution of the atmosphere occurs because of the informed actions of individuals in society. Activities such as the use of hazardous fuel, littering in both land and water, and various individuals conduct noise pollutions in different ways. However, the multiple actions of knowledgeable individuals cause environmental risks that harm all individuals collectively. These risks are such as; the presence of acid rains, the emergence of diseases caused by chemicals in the gases, and pollutants. The collective outcomes are not based on joint decisions, but rather individual’s resolutions that are based on informed choices (Lubell et al., 2006). People are aware of the effect but choose to continue with the action, leading to a collective outcome, which affects each one of them.
A campaign against Fossil-fuel burning
Fossil fuel burning is a prime cause of environmental pollution caused by simple activities such as car driving. Based on the effects of the environment because of the use of fuel, Organizations and individuals have created campaigns to help reduce the use of fuel and embrace green technology such as the use of bikes and safe sources of energy. The campaign was created to educate and change people’s behavior to the use of machinery that requires the burning of fuel to produce energy. However, changing people’s response to embracing the rise of non-fossil burning equipment has almost been impossible due to their simplicity and effectiveness, such as driving a car. As compared to a bike, a vehicle is more convenient as much effort is not required hence becoming challenging to change the people’s behaviors. These behaviors are affected by the preferences and beliefs that people have. On the other hand, it has become a routine practice that is conducted daily, and its effect is not felt immediately, but after a long while.
Differences of the Theories On the Case Study
Rationality Choice and Bounded Rationality Theories
In rationality choice theory, erroneous decisions may result when the choice between various alternatives is influenced by other factors other than the maximization of utility. Human actions lead to air pollution, especially from the burning of fossils and fuel. During this technological period, people tend to use vehicles a lot while moving from place to place. Even though there is an understanding of the effect it might cause, individuals tend to prefer them due to reliability. The use of vehicles is chosen over other means of transport such as bikes, which may be more friendly to the environment. The environmental problems that threaten ecological sustainability are rooted in human behavior (Abusafieh & Razem, 2017). Erroneous decisions in bounded rationality occur due to group thinking, which may be wrong. Still, since the number of people involved is high, individuals partake the activities hence increasing the effect on the environment. Most of the population in Australia own vehicles and machinery, and since most of them think that it is a reliable means of working and transport, their application increases.
Similarly, in bounded rationality, people do not decide an instrumentally rational way. The decision is made based on the choices at the moment and does not consider the long-run effect. Even though the campaign against the burning of fossil fuel is ongoing, people are still using the machinery in their movements. The impact it causes is not considered, but rather, the satisfaction it brings at the moment; that includes getting to work on time, going to the malls, and performing errands on time. In bounded rationality conditions, humans are faced with limited cognitive abilities, which prevent their problem-solving capacity (Sent, 2018). The ability to learn from experience, solve problems, plan and comprehend complex ideas is limited within humans, making them make rash decisions, which affect their well-being. Therefore, the decisions made are rational, only considering solving the immediate challenge such as going to work. These objectives increase the air contamination caused by fuel burning.
Also, bounded rationality illustrates the behavior of people making choices that do not consider the long-term interest of society. Burning of fuel in vehicles is an activity that is done due to the urge to fulfilling the immediate problems and fulfillments required at a time. Even though the individuals are informed of the harm it might cause in the future, decisions made only consider the factors at hand. Long term interests in environmental conservation may include having safe air that does not affect the organs in the body. This solution also prevents the emergence of diseases caused by polluted air hence increasing the lifespan of people. Therefore, there is no consideration of the long-term interest, and self-interest is given a priority over the interests of others. Rationality suggests that when fast decisions are needed, previous choices must be considered. However, when there is more time, there is an attachment of expected utilities to preferences (Cristofaro, 2017). Hence, the decisions made in bounded rationality are within a short period; thus, the more uncomplicated actions are taken.
Therefore, in the campaign to encourage the use of green energy, more alternatives ways of finding energy sources should be created to convince people to choose from them. The energy sources should also be reliable and relatively fast, like fuel using vehicles. Behavioral economics emphasizes on having alternatives for the alteration of their chosen environment without restricting their rational freedom to choose. Therefore, the provision of various options, excluding the harmful one, provides a range of choices for the individuals to choose from, which then leads to the implementation of green technology. This change entails the use of hydrogen, electricity, biodiesel, ethanol, natural gas, and propane. Behavioral economics makes people act rationally but is constrained by internal limitations, such as the capacity to internalize information and predictability (Kuehnhanss, 2018). Behavioral economists offer compelling evidence that changes influence choices of rational agents in the contexts in which the situations occur (Muramatsu & Fonseca, 2012). With extensive options to select, individuals can make proper decisions about shifting to green energy sources.
Practice and MORCA Theories
The practices theory and MORCA theories are characterized by routine activities done every day and are sometimes unnoticeable by individuals. Practices involve performances with socially learned skills and having a cultural meaning that is shared and mutually understood by various groups of people in a society (Welch, 2017). Driving is one of the social practices conducted by individuals in their daily activities. The effect of the burning of fuel from vehicles may be unnoticeable but creates a long-term impact on the environment. Driving is a routine activity done by people going about their daily activities and does not consider preferences. It requires practitioners with intelligence, knowledge, skill, and motivation. However, the characteristics are intertwined, which fails to explain the reason for people following the routine. People have the mentality that every morning, they need to drive to various workstations with public or private means of transport, of which a large percentage of them are vehicles using fuel.
Social practices are a function of psychological, physical, and organizational relationships (Cropanzano et al., 2017). Psychological links are the needs formed through people’s emotions that make them take part in activities. Perceptions of people also influence their use of vehicles as they believe having a car builds a status quo. Also, it is a learned routine and understanding from other people living in the area, that the new individuals embrace, only because it had been done by people previously. As they keep performing the actions, it becomes habitual hence conducted regularly. Social practice can be created by the organizational norm, as the firms require employees to drive to ease operations in the organization. The consideration of the pollution it may cause does not base the decision made; hence the employees keep driving to facilitate their work. Therefore, behavioral change in social practices should begin from the organization and cultural setups that people belong to get to individual levels. The organizations can be used as agents for change.
The recurrence of activities characterizes the model of recursive cultural adaptation. Therefore, the effect caused by the environment is extensive since the actions are done daily. Many of the working generation’s vehicles used for movements daily, and the impact caused on the environment is not considered. When a behavior becomes a habit, it is obtained by its goals. Individuals become used to driving as they partake in their daily activities and only focus on what they are going to achieve after getting to their destinations. Habits are contextual in that it relates to the circumstances that form the setting of the event or idea. The use of fuel in vehicles has become a habit since it is an available source of energy and affordable by individuals, compared to the safe environmental methods that cannot be easily acquired by people.
Strong habits become tied to a context and predicted by the behavioral goals of the actions (Neal et al., 2012). The MORCA theory focuses on the objective that leads to the actualization of the named behavior. This fact is because it is a routine to move from one place to another in pursuit of needs, to work, for social purposes, and personal accomplishments. The habits are influenced by goals derived from the correlational study of everyday human behavior. These behaviors include future predictions and discontinuity of patterns. The routine practices need to be discontinued through the provision of methods that lead to the same goals that were previously targeted to stop environmental pollution. Also, in theory, there is usually a possibility of doubt but is generally assumed by the people practicing the actions. Society may know the effects of fuel-burning but are often overruled because of the urge to fulfill urgent needs.
Similarities of the Theories on the Case Study
Looking at the similarities between the traditional economic theories and the theory of practice, both address people’s behaviors. Traditional economics addresses choices that are informed as individuals have prior knowledge. In contrast, the approach of practice addresses actions that are not based on informed consent but lead to a common effect. The theories can both apply in finding solutions to the burning fuel environmental impact that is caused by the use of vehicles. In social theories, rational economic action is fixed in social contexts. It suggests the binding power of social institutions and self-interested motivations cannot make cooperation between individuals possible (Martinelli, 2004). Therefore, the use of vehicles and rules are majorly encouraged by social institutions such as work areas where transportation of employees and products occur every day, for continuity of business activities. The theories are interconnected since the economics theory considers the behaviors of individuals based on knowhow, while the theory of practice addresses the impact that these activities create on people.
In people’s social lives, they do not seek to consume energy for their ends but instead rely on the power to facilitate activities such as commuting to work (Hampton & Adams, 2018). The accomplishment of the events is irrespective of the source of energy used. Therefore, in the application of the theories, the behavior of individuals based on the activities they conduct to achieve everyday accomplishments. According to the bounded rationality theory, and individual makes decisions that attend or exceed a set of minimal acceptability method (Barros, 2010). People choose what will satisfy their needs, not necessarily unique, but even if it is not the best, the individuals are satisfied. Similarly, the MORCA theory emphasizes on the end outcome, which is the factor that the individuals will achieve after deciding to apply the criterion. On the use of fuel in vehicles, individuals tend to focus on the immediate alternative that they can use to satisfy their needs. Since fuel is readily available, people make it one of their solutions to move from one place to another.
Recommendations
Promoting environmentally friendly behaviors is a difficult aim to achieve behavior change targets (Verplanken & Roy, 2016). However, using the rational choice theory, the campaign to stop fuel burning can be improved by focusing on the components of the approach. These include the beliefs and preferences of the individuals targeted in the society. The campaigners should concentrate on methods that incorporate the opinions of the individuals. This act will enable people to be convinced to adopt new techniques that preserve the environment. It includes the adoption of environmentally friendly energy sources for their vehicles, such as hydrogen, or change of transport means from the use of fuel vehicles to bikes. Also, since people consider their preferences to make decisions, the campaigners should consider having other alternatives but decreasing the availability of fuel. When fuel is not readily available, people can easily change to other sources of energy, which will be the new environmentally friendly sources. Changing people’s behaviors require the understanding of their beliefs and attitude to provide alternatives that are within their means and are preferred over other sources.
Campaigners may use the habit discontinuity hypothesis to change people’s behavior on the use of fuel to produce energy. Behavior change involvement is more effective when it is delivered in the context of significant habit disruptions, such as those related to life course changes (Bamberg, 2006). As portrayed in the theory of practice and MORCA, activities are conducted on a routine basis forming a habit. Therefore, the remedy to changing the habit should address the goals expected through the daily activities undertaken. In this theory, individuals focus on the goals to be achieved; hence, changing the behavior should also consider the end outcome. The campaigners should then provide alternatives that give the same result as for the use of fuel. Fuel-burning produces energy that runs the vehicle engines efficiently. Therefore, environmentally friendly energy sources should also be reliable, and they should convince the individuals on the efficiency of the new methods when used. This criterion would slowly change people’s habits, hence achieving the objectives of the campaign.
Conclusion
Human behavior affects the choices they make. In the rational choice theory and the bounded rationality theory, decision making is based on beliefs and preferences that are available at a particular time. On the other hand, the MORCA and practice theories bases on the outcomes that the individuals expect to receive after the choice are made. People’s decisions impact the environment negatively, which consequently affects the lives of individuals. Changing the behavior may be a challenge if the objectives of the individuals to deciding are not considered. Environmental pollution has increased over time, especially with the emergence of technological machinery, such as vehicles. Vehicles use fuel to generate energy that is used in running it. However, the burning of fuel produces gases that are harmful to the environment. In the rational choice and bounded rationality theories, the decision to use fuel is based on the institutional requirements as well as the preferences they have. This need includes ensuring the operations of an organization run smoothly. In the practice and MORCA theories, vehicles are used as a routine to commute to work each day, and some individuals drive just because others are doing it. Therefore, to change behavior, the preferences and beliefs of individuals should be considered. Also, alternatives given should be able to provide the same satisfaction as the fuel in vehicles.
References
Abusafieh, S., & Razem, M. (2017). Human Behavior and Environmental Sustainability: promoting a pro-environmental behavior by harnessing the social, psychological and physical influences of the built environment. E3S Web Of Conferences, 23, 02003. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20172302003Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories: Big or small: Why do we care?. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.16.1.18bam
Barros, G. (2010). Herbert A. Simon and the concept of rationality: boundaries and procedures. Brazilian Journal Of Political Economy, 30(3), 455-472. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0101-31572010000300006Cristofaro, M. (2017). Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality. Journal Of Management History, 23(2), 170-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-11-2016-0060Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E., Daniels, S., & Hall, A. (2017). Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies. Academy Of Management Annals, 11(1), 479-516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099
Dequech, D. (2001). Bounded Rationality, Institutions, and Uncertainty. Journal Of Economic Issues, 35(4), 911-929. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2001.11506420Hampton, S., & Adams, R. (2018). Behavioural economics vs social practice theory: Perspectives from inside the United Kingdom government. Energy Research & Social Science, 46, 214-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.023
Kuehnhanss, C. (2018). The challenges of behavioural insights for effective policy design. Policy And Society, 38(1), 14-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1511188
Klaniecki, K., Wuropulos, K., & Hager, C. (2018). Behaviour Change for Sustainable Development. Encyclopedia Of Sustainability In Higher Education, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_161-1Lee, K., Dunlap, R., & Edwards, M. (2014). The Implication of Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice for Leisure Studies. Leisure Sciences, 36(3), 314-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2013.857622
Liebe, U., & Preisendörfer, P. (2010). Rational Choice Theory and the Environment: Variants, Applications, and New Trends. Environmental Sociology, 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8730-0_9
Lubell, M., Vedlitz, A., Zahran, S., & Alston, L. (2006). Collective Action, Environmental Activism, and Air Quality Policy. Political Research Quarterly, 59(1), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900113Martinelli, A. (2004). Rational Choice and Sociology. Self, Social Structure, And Beliefsexplorations In Sociology, 82-102. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520241367.003.0007
Muramatsu, R., & Fonseca, P. (2012). Freedom of choice and bounded rationality: a brief appraisal of behavioral economists’ plea for light paternalism. Revista De Economia Política, 32(3), 445-458. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0101-31572012000300006Neal, D., Wood, W., Labrecque, J., & Lally, P. (2012). How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 492-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.011
Sato, Y. (2013). Rational choice theory. Sociopedia. https://doi.org/10.1177/205684601372Sent, E. (2018). Rationality and bounded rationality: you can’t have one without the other. The European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, 25(6), 1370-1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2018.1523206
Strengers, Y., & Maller, C. (2016). Social practices, intervention and sustainability. Routledge.
Verplanken, B., & Roy, D. (2016). Empowering interventions to promote sustainable lifestyles: Testing the habit discontinuity hypothesis in a field experiment. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, 45, 127-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.008
Welch, D. (2017). Behaviour change and theories of practice: Contributions, limitations and developments. Social Business, 7(3), 241-261. https://doi.org/10.1362/204440817×15108539431488
