1、7HJ,suggestedengaemergthecasehow different communities reframe problems on the individual level to reduce carbon emissions. Onthe basis of an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various community solutions, implicationsare drawn for further research and for the design and support of low-carb
2、on communities.e energyed toor lowtoven etth,nen,withsion some other forms of community: sector-based communities,Contents lists available at ScienceDirectjournal homepage: www.elsevier.Energy PolicyEnergy Policy 38 (2010) 75867595encourage behaviour change (see Middlemiss, 2008). By analysinggreend
3、ependent.org (E. Vadovics), mika.saastamoinenncrc.fi (M. Saastamoinen).interest communities and virtual communities. We thus definelow-carbon communities as forms of co-operation and collabora-tion that aim to reduce the carbon intensity of their memberslifestyles by providing amenable contexts and
4、mechanisms that0301-4215/$-see front matter fax: +358977267715.E-mail addresses: eva.heiskanenncrc.fi (E. Heiskanen), mikael.Johnsonncrc.fi(M. Johnson), (S. Robinson), infoalmost exclusively, and in the case of energy consumption, withlittle success.a place-based identity, shared history, shared in
5、frastructure, andpolitical and administrative power. We introduce into the discus-and awareness raising; community management of environmen-tal resources; and reference to moral, religious or ethicalprinciples. In European societies, the first two types are usedgeographically local communities (e.g.
6、 Shackleyet al., 2002; Smi2007; De Witt, 2008; Peters and Fudge, 2008; Saastamoi2009). This is indeed one of the primary forms of communityLow-carbon communities provide a new context for energyend-user behaviour change (Middlemiss, 2008). Thus, theypresent potential solutions to key problems in ear
7、ly energydemand-side management programmes (see Wilhite et al.,2000). According to Gardner and Stern (1996), there are basicallyfour types of instruments to change behaviour in relation toenvironmental problems: regulations and incentives; educationbeyond individual control (Shove, 2003; Guy, 2006).
8、 Finally, theseproblems, together with the invisibility of the consequences of ouraction, lead to a sense of disempowerment that is a major obstacleto low-carbon lifestyles (Thgersen, 2005). Low-carbon commu-nities present at least a partial solution to these problems ofindividual behaviour change.M
9、ost of the discussion on low-carbon communities centres on1. IntroductionFor decades, attempts to changwere targeted at individuals as consumersmany European localities have startinto sustainable energy communitiesHere, individuals take the role of citizensand gain the capacity to work togetherinfra
10、structure on the local level (RaWilhite et al., 2000; Jackson, 2004). Research has shown that thisis not the case. Individual decisions to save energy in order toconserve common natural resources are framed by socialdilemmas (Kollock, 1998): individual efforts are useless unlessothers participate. M
11、oreover, energy-related behaviour is shapedby conventions and socio-technical infrastructures that are largelyLow-carbon communities as a context forEva Heiskanena,C3, Mikael Johnsona, Simon RobinsonaNational Consumer Research Centre, P.O. Box 5, 00531 Helsinki, FinlandbManchester Knowledge Capital,
12、 Churchgate House, 56 Oxford Street, Manchester, M60cGreen Dependent Sustainable Solutions Association,C19Eva u. 4, 2100 Godoll+o, Hungaryarticle infoArticle history:Received 30 November 2008Accepted 3 July 2009Available online 7 August 2009Keywords:Low-carbon communitiesEnergy conservationBehaviour
13、 changeabstractPrevious attempts to changeenergy. Recent literature hasthat energy users should beanalyses different types ofchange. The focus is on howchange individual behaviourtechnical infrastructures andincluding geographical commucommunities. Through fourindividual behavioural changeb, Edina V
14、adovicsc, Mika SaastamoinenaUKenergy-related behaviour were targeted at individuals as consumers ofthat more focus should be placed on the community level andged in the role of citizens, and not only that of consumers. This articleing low-carbon communities as a context for individual behaviouralthe
15、se communities offer solutions to problems in previous attempts to. These problems include social dilemmas, social conventions, socio-helplessness of individuals. Different community types are examined,nities as well as sector-based, interest-based and smart mobstudies representing each of these com
16、munity types, we examinecom/locate/enpoland bathing, showing how commonly shared conventions ofE. Heiskanen et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 75867595 7587Public goods are goods for which property rights are not defined,and which can be freely used by anyone (e.g. shared naturalresources like the atm
17、osphere). Thus, there is no mechanism tolimit overuse and depletion of the resource. Even when individualusers perceive the problem of overuse, their unilateral actions tolimit use are ineffective if others continue the unlimited use of theresource. While economists originally suggested the allocati
18、on ofproperty rights as a solution to this problem, this is not oftenfeasible or desirable (Ostrom, 1990).When we try to solve collective problems like climate changeby focusing solely on changing individual behaviour, socialdilemmas arise (Kollock, 1998). Unless people can assure them-selves that o
19、thers are contributing, their efforts to reduce thecarbon footprint of their personal behaviour may appear pointless.This dilemma is reflected, for example, in a recent survey in which57% of the respondents stated that they do what they can for theenvironment, but it does not make a difference becau
20、se othervarious low-carbon communities, we examine which problems ofindividual behaviour change they solve best, and in which way.Our research is exploratory in nature, and aims to identifypotential solutions than can be confirmed in later research.This article is structured as follows. We first pre
21、sent low-carbon communities as a potential solution for four persistentproblems in energy demand-side management: social dilemmas,social conventions, shared infrastructures and the helplessness ofindividuals when faced with the enormity of climate change. Wethen examine how these issues are addresse
22、d in present-day low-carbon communities, drawing on a dataset from an ongoingproject called CHANGING BEHAVIOUR, funded by the EuropeanCommissions 7th Framework Programme. We analyse thestrengths and weaknesses of various community types, andconclude by suggesting avenues for further research and dev
23、el-opment.2. Changing behaviour: the fallacy of targeting individualsMost of the behavioural change programmes to reduce energyconsumption, and more recently to reduce the carbon intensity ofour lifestyles, have focused on individual behaviour. They havetried to influence behaviour via economic inst
24、ruments like grantsand rebates, or via education and persuasion, e.g. informationcampaigns (Geller et al., 2006). While some programmes havebeen quite successful (Geller et al., 2006), many have faltered,leading to scepticism about the possibilities to change currenthigh-energy, high-carbon behaviou
25、r patterns. Considering theremaining cost-effective potential to reduce CO2emissions (e.g.Urge-Vorsatz and Novikova, 2008), especially through energyefficiency and energy conservation (ESD, 2006; IEA, 1998), thecurrent results of behavioural change programmes appear modest.Many of the behavioural ch
26、ange programmes suffer from aconceptual problem: methodological individualism. By drawingon purely economic or psychological representations of behaviour,they fail to recognize the socially grounded nature of humanbehaviour (Wilhite et al., 2000; Biggart and Lutzenhiser, 2007). Inthe following, we e
27、laborate on four issues in adopting low-carbonbehaviours that are disregarded when focusing merely onindividual behaviour. To conclude, we suggest some features ofcommunities that can influence their capability to address theseproblems.2.1. Social dilemmasThe notion of social dilemmas in natural res
28、ource use isgrounded in the problem of public goods (e.g. Hardin, 1968).citizens or large polluters do not do so (Eurobarometer, 2005).cleanliness and freshness have increased the frequency of bothactivities over the past decades. Similarly, the demand forconvenience products has grown as the tempor
29、al organisationof family life has disintegrated: families rarely go to workat the same time, eat at the same time, and spend their leisuretime in the same place. Such conventions relate to the mutualordering of everyday life across individuals. Theyare not primarilyindividual choices: consumption pa
30、tterns are shaped byshared conventions that evolve historically, creating commonunderstandings of decency and appropriate behaviour (Cowan,1983).Conventions are learned and maintained through socialinteraction. They are reinforced by a vast commercial system oftechnologies, marketing and media that
31、contribute to a conver-gence of conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience(Shove, 2003). It is thus difficult for individuals to step outsideconventional systems of consumption. It is even difficult toperceive the conventional nature of self-evident and normalcustoms. Even if they are calle
32、d into question, the renouncementof conventional consumption (such as frequent showering orlaundering) is easily perceived of by others as anti-social. Asconventions are by definition socially shared, one solution is tosupport new social groups that collectively develop alternativeconventions (Ornet
33、zeder et al., 2008). Moreover, if we want toquestion existing conventions, a deliberative and inclusive processRecent guidelines for behavioural change campaigns have ac-knowledged this problem and stressed the importance of makingsure that everyone is participating and that people see that othersar
34、e also doing their bit (Olli et al., 2001; Lucas et al., 2008). Morefundamentally, community management (i.e. management ofresources by the entire community rather than by individuals)could be a solution for the dilemmas of the sustainable consump-tion (Gardner and Stern, 1996; Jackson, 2005).While
35、community management presents a promising ap-proach to social dilemmas, mere close interaction with otherswithin a community is not sufficient (e.g. Brint, 2001). Ostrom(1990) has identified features of traditional communities thathave successfully managed shared resources sustainably, includ-ing cl
36、early defined governance boundaries, rules concerning theutilisation of resources, collective choice agreements, monitoring,graduated sanctions, conflict-resolution mechanisms, and the abilityto self-organise. Such features are notably lacking in todays worldof energy use and carbon emissions. Yet,
37、at various levels, groupsof individuals can create new institutions and schemes forresolving social dilemmas. For example, Kollock (1998) has arguedthat transformation is a promising avenue to resolve socialdilemmas: collective action can be reframed by providingassurance that others will co-operate
38、, signalled through pledgesand common symbols.2.2. Social conventionsSocial dilemmas are not the only obstacle to converting to alow-carbon lifestyle. Individually oriented behaviour changeprogrammes have been shown to disregard the social nature ofbehaviour (Wilhite et al., 2000). It is implicitly
39、assumed that eachconsumer makes decisions about consumption in isolation, and isfree to choose products and services on the basis of personalpreferences.Research on the evolution of consumption patterns has shownthat individual choice has a limited role in many types ofenvironmentally relevant behav
40、iours (Wilhite et al., 2000). Forexample, Shove (2003) has examined the development of washingof problematising current lifestyles is needed (Tukker et al., 2008).Even though conventions and socio-technical systems are twomore able to take charge of their lives (De Young, 2000; Kaplan,2000).Helpless
41、ness and disempowerment can be countered byproviding individuals with feedback on the collective impact theyE. Heiskanen et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 758675957588sides of the same coin (Shove, 2003), it is worth addressinginfrastructures separately as their materiality requires specificresources
42、 for change.The above is only one example of the socio-technical systemsthat shape the carbon intensity of our lifestyles. Such systems onlybecome visible when the problems created by them are acknowl-edged in society. Even then, the unavailability of alternativesystems creates barriers to change. A
43、nd even when technologieslike low-energy housing constructions become available, they aredifficult to adopt because of the lack of supporting competencies,services, and social structures. High-carbon technologies arelinked to broader systems of supporting knowledge structures,supply chains, commerci
44、al interests and conventions (Guy andShove, 2000)what many scholars of technological change callregimes (Verbong and Geels, 2007). Such regimes are embodiedin urban infrastructures of electricity, water, waste and otherutilities (van Vliet et al., 2005) as well as in the available routines,knowledge
45、 and skills of how to conduct ones daily life.Thus, shifting to low-carbon lifestyles often requires a ques-tioning and search for alternatives, not only for existing conven-tions, but also for existing infrastructures of consumption andwork. It is obvious that changes in entire infrastructures areb
46、eyond the purvey of most individuals; they are collectiveendeavours. While socio-technical systems and infrastructuresare national or even global, they are also partly amenable to localmodification and experimentation. Sustainable housing areas andalternative utility systems are some examples of cur
47、rent experi-ments in creating new infrastructures of consumption (van Vlietet al., 2005; Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2006).Because infrastructures are central in defining the carbonintensity of modern lifestyles, they are also central in supportingand maintaining change. Even though individuals can be
48、 inducedby information or incentives to go against the grain and learn tocurtail energy consumption, such changes are often short termand rarely survive once the change interventions are discontinued(Kurz, 2002; Abrahamse et al., 2005) Forlasting change, individuallearning needs to be supported by n
49、ew routines, infrastructures,institutions and networks (Bijker et al., 1986; Rohracher, 2001).2.4. HelplessnessThe previous paragraphs show that individuals are locked-in toexisting consumption patterns through many social and socio-technical ties (Sanne, 2002). Thus, exhortations to individuals totake responsibility may be frustrating and create a feeling ofhelplessness (Cleveland et al., 2005). The small things that areeasy for individuals to do may be relatively useless in the face ofthe enormity of climate cha
