Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Atsushi Watabe
 -- 2557 2024-01-11 10:25:28 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
 + 1 word(s) 2558 2024-01-12 01:46:26 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Watabe, A.; Yamabe-Ledoux, A.M. Low-Carbon Lifestyles beyond Decarbonisation. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53736 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
Watabe A, Yamabe-Ledoux AM. Low-Carbon Lifestyles beyond Decarbonisation. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53736. Accessed May 18, 2024.
Watabe, Atsushi, Alice Marie Yamabe-Ledoux. "Low-Carbon Lifestyles beyond Decarbonisation" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53736 (accessed May 18, 2024).
Watabe, A., & Yamabe-Ledoux, A.M. (2024, January 11). Low-Carbon Lifestyles beyond Decarbonisation. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53736
Watabe, Atsushi and Alice Marie Yamabe-Ledoux. "Low-Carbon Lifestyles beyond Decarbonisation." Encyclopedia. Web. 11 January, 2024.
Low-Carbon Lifestyles beyond Decarbonisation
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15054681

There is a growing recognition of the urgent need to change citizens’ lifestyles to realise decarbonised societies. Consumption-based accounting (carbon footprinting) is a helpful indicator for measuring the impacts of peoples’ consumption on climate change by capturing both direct and embedded carbon emissions. Carbon footprinting can propose impactful behaviour changes to reduce carbon footprints immediately, it may deflect people’s attention from the much needed but time-consuming efforts to reshape the “systems of provisions” to enable decarbonised living.

carbon footprinting systemic changes citizens’ engagement

1. Introduction

Consumption-based accounting (carbon footprinting) is a helpful indicator in measuring the impacts of demand-side activities on climate change. As it enables us to visualise the amount of energy use and carbon emissions transferred or “leaked” by international trade [1][2][3], it is good at highlighting the sharp difference between developed and developing countries [4][5][6][7] and urban and rural areas in the same country [8][9][10]. Additionally, CFP can also be measured at the scales of organisations or households [11][12][13]. Therefore, CFP can indicate which regions, sectors or people’s behaviours should be targeted to mitigate GHGs most effectively. However, several challenges remain for the practical application of CFPs in supporting demand-side mitigation, particularly in promoting changes in people’s behaviour and lifestyles. CFP can be calculated in many scopes, from countries, cities, and organisations, to households, and can cover many sectors and various time frames. The practical use of CFPs requires us to clarify the objectives and steps for action. Moreover, it is necessary to consider the means and purposes of using quantitative data effectively to promote changes in citizens and communities. Methods to encourage consumers to change their behaviour by visualising their environmental impacts have been developed in areas such as energy conservation. Nevertheless, it is also known that simply presenting information does not have long-lasting effects on behaviour change [14][15][16][17].

2. Consumption-Based Accounting

National climate targets have traditionally focused on CO2 emissions produced on a country’s territory, following a production-based accounting method. While production-based accounting covers direct emissions from domestic production activities within geographical boundaries and offshore activities, it fails to capture the emissions embodied in international trade [1][18][19]. The consumption-based analysis captures direct and embodied emissions along the entire value chain, including imported products. This is critical in addressing the carbon leakage issue associated with production-based accounting [1][2][3]. For this reason, CPF helps us understand the effects of globalisation and economic growth in each country on GHG emissions over time. Developed countries, including the EU [5] and Japan [6], and especially the G7 countries [7], have larger CFPs than direct emissions in the region. The transfer of industrial production with high carbon intensity from developed countries to emerging and developing countries accounts for this imbalance. However, consumption-based emissions have also increased in developed countries and emerging economies while their economic growth and the rise of the middle class have led to increased imports [20][21][22][23]. A similar structure can be observed domestically. Recent studies identified disparities in consumption-based emissions between urban and rural areas [8][9][10] and issues of domestic relocation of carbon emissions [16]. While consumption-based accounting reveals the flows and imbalances of GHG emissions along with the domestic and international value chains, some forecast that it may lead to changes in urban design, economic growth, and governance regimes, such as attracting investment in urban design and business activities that can meet demand in a less CFP-intensive way [24]. Several cities have set mitigation targets covering the emissions embodied in urban consumption [25]. In April 2022, the Swedish parliament proposed the world’s first reduction target as a nation which covers the emissions reduction targets associated with imported products [26].
Another attribute of CFP is its ability to show the impacts of household and organisational unit consumption on climate change. This measurement tool is vital in tackling the carbon-intensive lifestyles of wealthier people in cities and developed countries relying on importing tremendous volumes of products from developing countries. CFP allows consumers to visualise sources of GHG emissions along the value chain, shows which segments of the population and which behaviours have the largest impacts on climate change, and identifies the most effective alternatives [27][28]. For instance, applying the CFP to different socioeconomic segments of the population confirms the considerable influence of the world’s wealthiest on climate change [29]. It also opens up the possibility of examining the composition of households and the reasons for increases and decreases. For example, the relationship between social attitudes held by families and individuals and GHG emissions [30], the background behind increases or decreases in household CFPs when comparing specific countries [31], and the relationship between daily household habits, demographic characteristics and CFPs [32] were studied. The ability to cover the entire value chain and to associate carbon emissions with the final consumption can help stakeholders, such as city governments, urban/community residents and the business sector, to link climate mitigation issues with individuals’ day-to-day behaviours. CFP also highlights the influence of a broad range of behaviours beyond the direct consumption of fossil fuels or electricity [1][11][13][28][33][34]. Analysis has been developed for specific sector behaviours, for example, food [35][36][37][38][39][40] and mobility and travel [41]. Furthermore, the impact of reduction actions can be visualised and reflected in the projected effects of actions. For example, there are studies on possible actions in the EU [42], Japan, Finland, India, etc. [12][13]. Grabs and colleagues have studied the effects of adopting a vegetarian diet [43] and actions increasing well-being [34]. According to Mulrow et al., as of 2017, more than 30 online CFP calculators were available in the United States alone, presenting analyses that businesses and others can use [44].
CFP has already been used in practice in policymaking, businesses and civic actions addressing climate change, with different purposes and scopes of “changes” to be pursued. Some notable differences among the policies, businesses and civic activities utilising CFP include the following:
-
Geographical scale: Existing works address different targets, i.e., behaviours, practices, or lifestyles of other groups. Many studies, including the ones mentioned above, analyse the average CFP in specific countries or cities. However, some pay attention to people, such as income groups [23][29] or engagement with grassroot environmental movements [45].
-
Time frame: CFP evaluates the immediate past status of value chains and consumption patterns. Conducting a CFP analysis of specific behaviours or products provides appropriate data to recommend immediate behaviour changes, such as reducing the use of private vehicles [12]. However, some research tries to expect future changes in CFP [29].

3. Impact Messaging and Its Limitations

To further consider the potential drawbacks of applying CFP in promoting changes in individuals’ high-impact behaviours, the section reflects on the ways of utilising numerical data in engaging with citizens on climate change action. We can learn from existing research on providing electricity consumption data to encourage households to save energy behaviour about the potential ineffectiveness of presenting such data or to divert attention from needed changes. Feedback services for energy conservation are probably the most popular method. Household energy conservation encouragement using smart meters and in-home displays has been deployed in many countries [46][47][48][49][50][51]. In the UK, plans are being made to roll out to all households and small businesses [47]. These impact messages [52] began with simply showing information, but in recent years have also incorporated techniques, such as gamification [53][54]. While much research has accumulated on the methods and effectiveness of impact messages, it has been reported that the behavioural change effects are often small or short-lived [14][15][16][17][53]. Some have suggested linking the information to pricing to cause more practical effects [55]. However, the assumption behind the approach, namely, the deficit model [56][57], which assumes that giving individuals knowledge will change their behaviour, is the reason for the ineffectiveness. Research revealed that giving normative information or environmental education has little effect on behaviour change [58]. Over the past two decades, research has shown that behaviours are not the direct consequences of people’s values and intentions, as are often believed [59]. People’s practices are entangled with various elements, such as social norms and values, institutional arrangements, personal and shared competencies, and material conditions, such as the natural environment, built infrastructures and available products [60][61][62][63][64]. Several cases illustrating such entanglements can be considered. 
Similarly, encouraging behaviours, such as energy conservation and car replacement, that can be immediately effective for individuals can easily divert attention from the issues of power and unequal distribution of resources involved in the transformation [65]. For example, the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs entails potential inequalities regarding freedom of movement among rural and urban citizens. Subsidies applied for purchasing EVs are sources from the tax that poorer citizens who cannot afford private vehicles also pay [66][67]. The energy transition also entails injustice, notably in the unemployment of those involved in the oil industry and power generation, land access and landscape in areas where new renewable energy generation is developed, and changes in electricity prices [68][69][70][71]. Practitioners and researchers involved in community transformation have noted that many people are interested in these potential impacts. Although they should be able to play a role in creating a more general view of future societies [72], simple behaviour change recommendations do not always facilitate discussions of injustice, risk, and the potential for more inclusive change [73].
Most impact messages on energy conservation and other issues provide information to individuals and households [74], with limited application to community projects [75][76][77]. However, some report the positive impacts of using messages at community-level actions. For example, according to Vita, participants in grassroots activities tend to have smaller CFPs [45]. Burchell observed that feedback services linked to community actions resulted in more proactive engagement from participants among women [76]. Information provision targeted to communities, such as neighbourhoods, workplaces, or other specific groups, combined with collective learning and actions, may have room for further pursuit.

4. Toward More Creative Use of Data for a Deeper Engagement with Citizens

To further consider the effectiveness of promoting collaboration and mutual learning through the provision of information to groups, the researchers would like to focus on the discussion of what communication is for, in what areas, and what roles scientists, citizens, and other actors play in the provision and use of information.
The purposes and approaches of utilising data differ according to the various forms of citizens’ engagement. Fischer et al., 2021, reviewed 67 peer-reviewed academic papers and identified the four typical patterns of communication; namely, communication as an approach to (1) behaviour change, (2) self-empowerment, (3) systems change, and (4) reflection on current discourses and practices around sustainable consumption [78]. This categorisation helps us understand the broad directions of communication, but it can further consider the specific purposes of communication with data. Concerning (1) behaviour change, it is helpful to show data on the current consumption behaviours with associated climate impacts to identify whose consumption behaviours should be addressed and what are the most impactful behaviours [28]. Concerning this approach and (2) self-empowerment, it is helpful to show the future benefits of the new practices or policies when governments ask for citizens’ cooperation to take up new behaviours, participate in grassroots collaborations, or accept new policies that influence their ways of living [79]. On (4) reflection on current discourses and practices, practitioners, policymakers, and citizens can use data to understand the status of society or nature, such as the total carbon emissions, atmospheric carbon concentrations, or the increase in extreme weather events associated with climate change, to share their understanding of climate change, and share the visions and stories of the desired societal transformation [42][45].
For such varying approaches to communication, actors adopt different roles in creating and sharing data. Scientific data are presented for descriptive communication of facts or the current status and for normative communication to describe the benefits and costs associated with specific behavioural patterns and alternative patterns of desired behaviours [58]. Data are not always created by scientists and communicated to “lay people” in an easy-to-digest manner [80]. Participants in collective actions in cities and communities, such as food waste reduction activities, often play a central role in measuring progress and achievements [81][82]. Citizen science has gained momentum globally where experts and local people jointly create shared understandings of their environment, benefits and costs of their socioeconomic practices, such as conventional production methods and alternative practices [83][84][85][86]. Finally, data can be created and edited into different scales and scopes. To communicate about climate change, the general status of the global climate change or the country is often used [87][88]. However, such general data are often insufficient in shortening people’s “psychological distance” from climate change [88][89]. Thus, more localised or personalised information is developed and provided [80][90].
Such differences in purposes (approaches), actors’ roles in creating and sharing, and scopes and data scales reflect a wide array of citizens’ engagement in climate change actions. Research has identified various areas where citizens’ roles are vital in addressing climate change. In public spaces, citizens can drive political movements, take position on key political matters by voting in elections, and participate in citizens’ assemblies or public consultation meetings [56][91][92][93]. Citizens can lead collaborative actions for sustainable production and consumption, formulate collective visions, goals and activities, and co-create knowledge on climate change and desired actions [56][94][95][96][97]. Citizens can also adopt climate mitigation actions in their private life by changing their consumption behaviours and learning and sharing knowledge with others [56][98]. As mentioned above, the usages of numerical data cover all these domains of citizens’ engagement, namely private, collective, and public [56]. Table 1 below summarises illustrative cases of applying numerical data in citizens’ engagement in the private, collective and public domains.
Table 1. Illustrative types of data provision for engaging citizens with climate mitigation in the private, collective, and public domains.
Private Collective Public
  Ex 1: Energy Feedback Service [49][51] Ex 2: Collective action for food waste reduction [82] Ex 3: Policy plans/visions or governments’ appeals for energy saving
Approach Descriptive and normative data encourage energy users’ behaviour change.
Descriptive data: current energy use patterns, gaps with national or city average energy consumption levels
Normative data: personalised behavioural advice for potential energy savings, benefits of energy savings.		 Descriptive and normative data encourage citizens’ proactive participation in collective actions.
Descriptive data: current amount of food wasted in schools or communities.
Result of collective actions
Normative data: behavioural advice for food waste reduction, benefits of reduction achieved through collective actions.		 Descriptive and normative data encourage energy users’ behaviour change.
Descriptive data: current energy use patterns, gaps with national or city’s average energy consumption levels, or limits to energy supply.
Normative data: general behavioural advice for potential reduction, benefits of reduction
Actors’ roles Experts from the utility company, sometimes supported by advisors certified by the authorities, create and send data to users. Experts and participants jointly measure the current and reduced amount and calculate the additional benefits, such as reduced GHG emissions and financial savings. Experts from the authorities create and communicate data through mass media or social media.
Scales and scopes Personalised data are compared with the local or national average. Personalised and community-scale data can also be combined with national or global data. Local or national average data are given in comparison with the desired status.
(Source: author).
In summary, numerical data can help various types of citizens’ engagement in climate actions by promoting individual behaviour changes, encouraging collective actions, and inviting people into decision-making. However, the interventions based on the “deficit model”, which assumes information will lead to changes in cognition and behaviours, are ineffective in facilitating change, as they deflect our attention from the opportunities for systemic transformation requiring deeper engagement and from the inequalities and injustice associated with sociotechnical transitions. Thus, such approaches are not likely to cause the transformation of systems of provision [99]. Three points should be considered to utilize scientific data, such as CFPs, for deeper transformational engagement.

References

  1. Girod, B.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Hertwich, E.G. Climate Policy through Changing Consumption Choices: Options and Obstacles for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 25, 5–15.
  2. He, X.; Adebayo, T.S.; Kirikkaleli, D.; Umar, M. Consumption-Based Carbon Emissions in Mexico: An Analysis Using the Dual Adjustment Approach. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 947–957.
  3. Pan, A.; Xiao, T.; Dai, L.; Shi, X. Global Transfer of Embodied Energy: From Source to Sink through Global Value Chains. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 31, 39–51.
  4. Sun, L.X.; Xia, Y.S.; Feng, C. Income Gap and Global Carbon Productivity Inequality: A Meta-Frontier Data Envelopment Analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 548–557.
  5. Sommer, M.; Kratena, K. The Carbon Footprint of European Households and Income Distribution. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 136, 62–72.
  6. Jiang, Y.; Long, Y.; Liu, Q.; Dowaki, K.; Ihara, T. Carbon Emission Quantification and Decarbonization Policy Exploration for the Household Sector—Evidence from 51 Japanese Cities. Energy Policy 2020, 140, 111438.
  7. Ding, Q.; Khattak, S.I.; Ahmad, M. Towards Sustainable Production and Consumption: Assessing the Impact of Energy Productivity and Eco-Innovation on Consumption-Based Carbon Dioxide Emissions (CCO2) in G-7 Nations. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 254–268.
  8. Chen, C.; Liu, G.; Meng, F.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Casazza, M. Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprint Accounting of Urban and Rural Residents in Beijing through Consumer Lifestyle Approach. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 575–586.
  9. Sri, P.; Banerjee, R. Characteristics, Temporal Trends, and Driving Factors of Household Carbon Inequality in India. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 35, 668–683.
  10. Li, W.; Long, R.; Zhang, L.; Cheng, X.; He, Z.; Chen, F. How the Uptake of Electric Vehicles in China Leads to Emissions Transfer: An Analysis from the Perspective of Inter-Provincial Electricity Trading. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 1006–1017.
  11. Salonen, A.O.; Siirilä, J.; Valtonen, M. Sustainable Living in Finland: Combating Climate Change in Everyday Life. Sustainability 2018, 10, 104.
  12. Akenji, L.; Lettenmeier, M.; Koide, R.; Toivio, V.; Amellina, A. 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Targets and Options for Reducing Lifestyle Carbon Footprints; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Hayama, Japan, 2019.
  13. Koide, R.; Lettenmeier, M.; Akenji, L.; Toivio, V.; Amellina, A.; Khodke, A.; Watabe, A.; Kojima, S. Lifestyle Carbon Footprints and Changes in Lifestyles to Limit Global Warming to 1.5 °C, and Ways Forward for Related Research. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 16, 2087–2099.
  14. Sohre, A. Advances in Understanding Energy Consumption Behavior and the Governance of Its Change—Outline of an Integrated Framework. In Proceedings of the 1st ever Energy-Feedback Symposium—Teddinet 1st Energy-Feedback Symposium “Feedback in Energy Demand Reduction: Examining Evidence and Exploring Opportunities”, Edinburgh, UK, 4–5 July 2016.
  15. Bird, S.; Legault, L. Feedback and Behavioral Intervention in Residential Energy and Resource Use: A Review. Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep. 2018, 5, 116–126.
  16. Cheng, X.; Long, R.; Zhang, L.; Li, W. Unpacking the Experienced Utility of Sustainable Lifestyle Guiding Policies: A New Structure and Model. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 486–495.
  17. Wemyss, D.; Cellina, F.; Lobsiger-Kägi, E.; de Luca, V.; Castri, R. Does It Last? Long-Term Impacts of an App-Based Behavior Change Intervention on Household Electricity Savings in Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci 2019, 47, 16–27.
  18. Boitier, B. CO2 Emissions Production-Based Accounting vs Consumption: Insights from the WIOD Databases. 2012. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/CO-2-emissions-production-based-accounting-vs-%3A-the-Boitier/2f423add0becfd5faea34b58cf27a15ba4d89d41 (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  19. Moore, J.L. Getting Serious about Sustainability: Exploring the Potential for One-Planet Living in Vancouver; University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013.
  20. Qin, L.; Malik, M.Y.; Latif, K.; Khan, Z.; Siddiqui, A.W.; Ali, S. The Salience of Carbon Leakage for Climate Action Planning: Evidence from the next Eleven Countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1064–1076.
  21. Nuwan Gunarathne, A.D.; Hitigala Kaluarachchilage, P.K.; Rajasooriya, S.M. Low-Carbon Consumer Behaviour in Climate-Vulnerable Developing Countries: A Case Study of Sri Lanka. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104592.
  22. Schanes, K.; Giljum, S.; Hertwich, E. Low Carbon Lifestyles: A Framework to Structure Consumption Strategies and Options to Reduce Carbon Footprints. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 139, 1033–1043.
  23. Perobelli, F.S.; Faria, W.R.; de Almeida Vale, V. The Increase in Brazilian Household Income and Its Impact on CO2 Emissions: Evidence for 2003 and 2009 from Input-Output Tables. Energy Econ. 2015, 52, 228–239.
  24. While, A. Aidan White The Carbon Calculus and Transitions in Urban Politics and Political Theory. In Cities and Low Carbon Transitions; Bulkeley, H., Castan Broto, V., Hodson, M., Marvin, S., Eds.; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2011; pp. 42–53.
  25. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, C.K.H. How to Cut Your City’s Consumption-Based Emissions. Available online: https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/How-to-cut-your-city-s-consumption-based-emissions?language=en_US (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  26. Morgan, S. Sweden Set to Be World’s First Country to Target Consumption-Based Emission Cuts. Available online: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/04/08/sweden-set-to-be-worlds-first-country-to-target-consumption-based-emission-cuts/ (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  27. Chatterton, T.J.; Coulter, A.; Musselwhite, C.; Lyons, G.; Clegg, S. Understanding How Transport Choices Are Affected by the Environment and Health: Views Expressed in a Study on the Use of Carbon Calculators. Public Health 2009, 123, 45–49.
  28. Salo, M.; Nissinen, A.; Lilja, R.; Olkanen, E.; O’Neill, M.; Uotinen, M. Tailored Advice and Services to Enhance Sustainable Household Consumption in Finland. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 121, 200–207.
  29. Gore, T. Carbon Inequality in 2030: Per Capita Consumption Emissions and the 1.5 °C Goal; Institute for European Environmental Policy: Bruxelles, Belgium; Oxfam: Oxford, UK, 2021.
  30. Li, J.; Zhang, D.; Su, B. The Impact of Social Awareness and Lifestyles on Household Carbon Emissions in China. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 160, 145–155.
  31. Yu, F.; Dong, H.; Geng, Y.; Fang, A.S.; Li, H. Uncovering the Differences of Household Carbon Footprints and Driving Forces between China and Japan. Energy Policy 2022, 165, 112990.
  32. Zen, I.S.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; Alam, M.M.; Doberstein, B. Magnitudes of Households’ Carbon Footprint in Iskandar Malaysia: Policy Implications for Sustainable Development. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 315, 128042.
  33. Dubois, G.; Sovacool, B.; Aall, C.; Nilsson, M.; Barbier, C.; Herrmann, A.; Bruyère, S.; Andersson, C.; Skold, B.; Nadaud, F.; et al. It Starts at Home? Climate Policies Targeting Household Consumption and Behavioral Decisions Are Key to Low-Carbon Futures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 52, 144–158.
  34. Grabs, J.; Langen, N.; Maschkowski, G.; Schäpke, N. Understanding Role Models for Change: A Multilevel Analysis of Success Factors of Grassroots Initiatives for Sustainable Consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 98–111.
  35. Kim, B.; Neff, R. Measurement and Communication of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Food Consumption via Carbon Calculators. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 69, 186–196.
  36. Yue, W.; Tan, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zeng, J.; Xu, M.; Rong, Q.; Xu, C.; Su, M. Optimization of Residents’ Dietary Structure with Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Nutritional Requirements. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 32, 424–435.
  37. Lin, B.; Guan, C. Assessing Consumption-Based Carbon Footprint of China’s Food Industry in Global Supply Chain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 35, 365–375.
  38. Görkem Üçtuğ, F.; Günaydin, D.; Hünkar, B.; Öngelen, C. Carbon Footprints of Omnivorous, Vegetarian, and Vegan Diets Based on Traditional Turkish Cuisine. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 597–609.
  39. Arrieta, E.M.; González, A.D. Energy and Carbon Footprints of Food: Investigating the Effect of Cooking. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 19, 44–52.
  40. Arrieta, E.M.; González, A.D. Impact of Current, National Dietary Guidelines and Alternative Diets on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Argentina. Food Policy 2018, 79, 58–66.
  41. Brazil, W.; Caulfield, B.; Rieser-Schüssler, N. Understanding Carbon: Making Emissions Information Relevant. Transp. Res. Part D 2013, 19, 28–33.
  42. Vita, G.; Lundström, J.R.; Hertwich, E.G.; Quist, J.; Ivanova, D.; Stadler, K.; Wood, R. The Environmental Impact of Green Consumption and Sufficiency Lifestyles Scenarios in Europe: Connecting Local Sustainability Visions to Global Consequences. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 164, 106322.
  43. Grabs, J. The Rebound Effects of Switching to Vegetarianism. A Microeconomic Analysis of Swedish Consumption Behavior. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 270–279.
  44. Mulrow, J.; Machaj, K.; Deanes, J.; Derrible, S. The State of Carbon Footprint Calculators: An Evaluation of Calculator Design and User Interaction Features. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 18, 33–40.
  45. Vita, G.; Ivanova, D.; Dumitru, A.; García-Mira, R.; Carrus, G.; Stadler, K.; Krause, K.; Wood, R.; Hertwich, E.G. Happier with Less? Members of European Environmental Grassroots Initiatives Reconcile Lower Carbon Footprints with Higher Life Satisfaction and Income Increases. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 60, 101329.
  46. Fraternali, P.; Cellina, F.; Herrera Gonzales, S.L.; Melenhorst, M.; Novak, J.; Pasini, C.; Rottondi, C.; Rizzoli, A.E. Visualizing and Gamifying Consumption Data for Resource Saving: Challenges, Lessons Learnt and a Research Agenda for the Future. Energy Informatics 2019, 2, 22.
  47. Herrmann, M.R.; Brumby, D.P.; Oreszczyn, T. Investigating Smart Metering in the Home: How Users Comprehend Graphic Representations of Residential Electricity Feedback Systems. In Proceedings of the 1st ever Energy-Feedback Symposium—Teddinet 1st Energy-Feedback Symposium “Feedback in Energy Demand Reduction: Examining Evidence and Exploring Opportunities”, Edinburgh, UK, 4–5 July 2016.
  48. van Dam, S.S.; Bakker, C.A.; van Hal, J.D.M. Home Energy Monitors: Impact over the Medium-Term. Build. Res. Inf. 2010, 38, 458–469.
  49. Darby, S. Energy Feedback in Buildings: Improving the Infrastructure for Demand Reduction. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 499–508.
  50. Allcott, H.; Rogers, T. The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 3003–3037.
  51. Hargreaves, T.; Nye, M.; Burgess, J. Keeping Energy Visible? Exploring How Householders Interact with Feedback from Smart Energy Monitors in the Longer Term. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 126–134.
  52. Sheng, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, X. Show Me the Impact: Communicating “Behavioral Impact Message” to Promote pro-Environmental Consumer Behavior. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 35, 709–723.
  53. Wemyss, D.; Castri, R.; Cellina, F.; de Luca, V.; Lobsiger-Kägi, E.; Carabias, V. Examining Community-Level Collaborative vs. Competitive Approaches to Enhance Household Electricity-Saving Behavior. Energy Effic. 2018, 11, 2057–2075.
  54. Wemyss, D.; Castri, R.; de Luca, V.; Cellina, F.; Frick, V.; Lobsiger-Kägi, E.; Bianchi, P.G.; Hertach, C.; Kuehn, T.; Carabias, V. Keeping up with the joneses: Examining community-level collaborative and competitive game mechanics to enhance household electricity-saving behaviour. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Behaviour and Energy Efficiency, Coimbra, Portugal, 8–9 August 2016.
  55. Thøgersen, J. Consumer Behavior and Climate Change: Consumers Need Considerable Assistance. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2021, 42, 9–14.
  56. Hoppner, C.; Whitmarsh, L. Public Engagement in Climate Action: Policy and Public Expectations. In Engaging the Public with Climate Change Behaviour Change and Communication; Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., Lorenzoni, I., Eds.; Earthscan: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 47–65.
  57. Buchanan, K.; Russo, R.; Anderson, B. The Question of Energy Reduction: The Problem(s) with Feedback. Energy Policy 2015, 77, 89–96.
  58. Mi, L.; Zhu, H.; Yang, J.; Gan, X.; Xu, T.; Qiao, L.; Liu, Q. A New Perspective to Promote Low-Carbon Consumption: The Influence of Reference Groups. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 161, 100–108.
  59. Shove, E. Beyond ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change. Environ. Plan. A 2010, 42, 1273–1285.
  60. Hargreaves, T. Practice-Ing Behaviour Change: Applying Social Practice Theory to pro-Environmental Behaviour Change. J. Consum. Cult. 2011, 11, 79–99.
  61. Barr, S.; Shaw, G.; Coles, T. Sustainable Lifestyles: Sites, Practices, and Policy. Environ. Plan A 2011, 43, 3011–3029.
  62. Welch, D. Behaviour Change and Theories of Practice: Contributions, Limitations and Developments. Soc. Bus. 2017, 7, 241–261.
  63. Nyborg, K.; Anderies, J.M.; Dannenberg, A.; Lindahl, T.; Schill, C.; Schlüter, M.; Adger, W.N.; Arrow, K.J.; Barrett, S.; Carpenter, S.; et al. Social Norms as Solutions. Science 2016, 354, 42–43.
  64. Backhaus, J.; Wieser, H.; Kemp, R. Disentangling Practices, Carriers, and Production–Consumption Systems: A Mixed-Method Study of (Sustainable) Food Consumption. In Putting Sustainability into Practice: Applications and Advances in Research on Sustainable Consumption; Kennedy, E.H., Cohen, M.J., Cohen, M.J., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 109–133. ISBN 9781784710590.
  65. Fuchs, D.; di Giulio, A.; Glaab, K.; Lorek, S.; Maniates, M.; Princen, T.; Røpke, I. Power: The Missing Element in Sustainable Consumption and Absolute Reductions Research and Action. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 132, 298–307.
  66. Bergman, N.; Schwanen, T.; Sovacool, B.K. Imagined People, Behaviour and Future Mobility: Insights from Visions of Electric Vehicles and Car Clubs in the United Kingdom. Transp. Policy 2017, 59, 165–173.
  67. Sovacool, B.K.; Kester, J.; Noel, L.; de Rubens, G.Z. Energy Injustice and Nordic Electric Mobility: Inequality, Elitism, and Externalities in the Electrification of Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Transport. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 157, 205–217.
  68. Dotson, T.C.; Wilcox, J.E. Generating Community, Generating Justice? The Production and Circulation of Value in Community Energy Initiatives. Teknokultura 2016, 13, 511–540.
  69. Cowell, R.; Bristow, G.; Munday, M. Wind Energy and Justice for Disadvantaged Communities; Joseph Rowntree Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1–44.
  70. Sovacool, B.K.; Lipson, M.M.; Chard, R. Temporality, Vulnerability, and Energy Justice in Household Low Carbon Innovations. Energy Policy 2019, 128, 495–504.
  71. Bickerstaff, K.; Walker, G.; Bulkeley, H. Energy Justice in a Changing Climate: Social Equity and Low-Carbon Energy; Bickerstaff, K., Walker, G., Bulkeley, H., Eds.; ZedBooks: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
  72. Howell, R.A. It’s Not (Just) “the Environment, Stupid!” Values, Motivations, and Routes to Engagement of People Adopting Lower-Carbon Lifestyles. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 281–290.
  73. Barr, S. Stewart Barr Beyond Behaviour Change: Social Practice Theory and the Search for Sustainable Mobility. In Putting Sustainability into Practice Applications and Advance in Researches on Sustainable Consumption; Kennedy, E.H., Cohen, M.J., Krogman, N.T., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 91–108.
  74. Hertwich, E.G.; Peters, G.P. Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6414–6420.
  75. Horta, A.; Wilhite, H.; Schmidt, L.; Bartiaux, F. Socio-Technical and Cultural Approaches to Energy Consumption: An Introduction. Nat. Cult. 2014, 9, 115–121.
  76. Burchell, K.; Rettie, R.; Roberts, T.C. Householder Engagement with Energy Consumption Feedback: The Role of Community Action and Communications. Energy Policy 2016, 88, 168–177.
  77. Bartiaux, F. Does Environmental Information Overcome Practice Compartmentalisation and Change Consumers’ Behaviours? J. Clean Prod. 2008, 16, 1170–1180.
  78. Fischer, D.; Reinermann, J.L.; Guillen Mandujano, G.; DesRoches, C.T.; Diddi, S.; Vergragt, P.J. Sustainable Consumption Communication: A Review of an Emerging Field of Research. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 300. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621010994 (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  79. Ockwell, D.; Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S. Reorienting Climate Change Communication for Effective Mitigation: Forcing People to Be Green or Fostering Grass-Roots Engagement? Sci. Commun. 2009, 30, 305–327.
  80. Büchs, M.; Bahaj, A.B.S.; Blunden, L.; Bourikas, L.; Falkingham, J.; James, P.; Kamanda, M.; Wu, Y. Promoting Low Carbon Behaviours through Personalised Information? Long-Term Evaluation of a Carbon Calculator Interview. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 284–293.
  81. Watabe, A.; Gilby, S. To See a World in a Grain of Sand-the Transformative Potential of Small Community Actions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7404.
  82. Watabe, A.; Gilby, S.; Koide, R.; Mao, C.; Kato, M.; VILCHIS-TELLA, P.; Chan, S. Co-Creating Sustainable Ways of Living 24 Stories of On-the-Ground Innovations; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Hayama, Japan, 2021; ISBN 978-4-88788-255-3.
  83. Ebitu, L.; Avery, H.; Mourad, K.A.; Enyetu, J. Citizen Science for Sustainable Agriculture—A Systematic Literature Review. Land use policy 2021, 103, 105326.
  84. Micheletti, M.; Stolle, D. Sustainable Citizenship and the New Politics of Consumption. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2012, 644, 88–120.
  85. Gorroño-Albizu, L.; Sperling, K.; Djørup, S. The Past, Present and Uncertain Future of Community Energy in Denmark: Critically Reviewing and Conceptualising Citizen Ownership. Energy Res. Soc. Sci 2019, 57, 101231.
  86. Koirala, B.P.; Araghi, Y.; Kroesen, M.; Ghorbani, A.; Hakvoort, R.A.; Herder, P.M. Trust, Awareness, and Independence: Insights from a Socio-Psychological Factor Analysis of Citizen Knowledge and Participation in Community Energy Systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 38, 33–40.
  87. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environ. Behav. 2013, 45, 60–85.
  88. Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The Psychological Distance of Climate Change. Risk Analysis 2012, 32, 957–972.
  89. Devine-Wright, P. Think Global, Act Local? The Relevance of Place Attachments and Place Identities in a Climate Changed World. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23, 61–69.
  90. Blake, J. Overcoming the “value-Action Gap” in Environmental Policy: Tensions between National Policy and Local Experience. Local Environ. 1999, 4, 257–278.
  91. Hadler, M.; Haller, M. Global Activism and Nationally Driven Recycling: The Influence of World Society and National Contexts on Public and Private Environmental Behavior. Int. Sociol. 2011, 26, 315–345.
  92. Martiskainen, M.; Axon, S.; Sovacool, B.K.; Sareen, S.; Furszyfer Del Rio, D.; Axon, K. Contextualizing Climate Justice Activism: Knowledge, Emotions, Motivations, and Actions among Climate Strikers in Six Cities. Glob. Environ. Change 2020, 65.
  93. Ordner, J.P. Community Action and Climate Change. Nat. Clim Chang. 2017, 7, 161–163.
  94. Thompson, C.J.; Press, M. How Community-Supported Agriculture Facilitates Reembedding and Reterritorializing Practices of Sustainable Consumption. In Sustainable Lifestyles and the Quest for Plentitude Case Studies of the New Economy; Schor, J.B., Thompson, C.J., Eds.; Yale University Press: London, UK, 2014; pp. 126–147.
  95. Pickerill, J. Building Liveable Cities Urban Low Impact Developments as Low Carbon Solutions? In Cities and Low Carbon Transitions; Bulkeley, H., Castan Broto, V., Hodson, M., Marvin, S., Eds.; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2011; pp. 178–197.
  96. Axon, S. “Keeping the Ball Rolling”: Addressing the Enablers of, and Barriers to, Sustainable Lifestyles. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 11–25.
  97. Axon, S. “The Good Life”: Engaging the Public with Community-Based Carbon Reduction Strategies. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 66, 82–92.
  98. Kennedy, E.H. Rethinking Ecological Citizenship: The Role of Neighbourhood Networks in Cultural Change. Environ. Polit. 2011, 20, 843–860.
  99. Warde, A. Society and Consumption. Consum. Soc. 2022, 1, 11–30.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Environmental Studies
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Atsushi Watabe
,
Alice Marie Yamabe-Ledoux
View Times: 72
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 12 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback