IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p1047-d139199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Facilitating Low-Carbon Living? A Comparison of Intervention Measures in Different Community-Based Initiatives

Author

Listed:
  • Martina Schäfer

    (Center for Technology and Society, Technische Universität Berlin, Sekr. HBS 1, Hardenbergstraße 16-18, D-10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Sabine Hielscher

    (Center for Technology and Society, Technische Universität Berlin, Sekr. HBS 1, Hardenbergstraße 16-18, D-10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Willi Haas

    (Institute for Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Schottenfeldgasse 29, A-1070 Vienna, Austria)

  • Daniel Hausknost

    (Institute for Social Change and Sustainability (IGN), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 2, A-1020 Vienna, Austria)

  • Michaela Leitner

    (Austrian Institute for Sustainable Development, Lindengasse 2/12, A-1070 Wien, Austria)

  • Iris Kunze

    (Center for Global Change and Sustainability (gW/N), University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Borkowskigasse 4/4, A-1190 Vienna, Austria)

  • Sylvia Mandl

    (Austrian Institute for Sustainable Development, Lindengasse 2/12, A-1070 Wien, Austria)

Abstract

The challenge of facilitating a shift towards sustainable housing, food and mobility has been taken up by diverse community-based initiatives ranging from “top-down” approaches in low-carbon municipalities to “bottom-up” approaches in intentional communities. This paper compares intervention measures in four case study areas belonging to these two types, focusing on their potential of re-configuring daily housing, food, and mobility practices. Taking up critics on dominant intervention framings of diffusing low-carbon technical innovations and changing individual behavior, we draw on social practice theory for the empirical analysis of four case studies. Framing interventions in relation to re-configuring daily practices, the paper reveals differences and weaknesses of current low-carbon measures of community-based initiatives in Germany and Austria. Low-carbon municipalities mainly focus on introducing technologies and offering additional infrastructure and information to promote low-carbon practices. They avoid interfering into residents’ daily lives and do not restrict carbon-intensive practices. In contrast, intentional communities base their interventions on the collective creation of shared visions, decisions, and rules and thus provide social and material structures, which foster everyday low-carbon practices and discourage carbon-intensive ones. The paper discusses the relevance of organizational and governance structures for implementing different types of low-carbon measures and points to opportunities for broadening current policy strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina Schäfer & Sabine Hielscher & Willi Haas & Daniel Hausknost & Michaela Leitner & Iris Kunze & Sylvia Mandl, 2018. "Facilitating Low-Carbon Living? A Comparison of Intervention Measures in Different Community-Based Initiatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1047-:d:139199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1047/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1047/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sippel, Maike & Jenssen, Till, 2009. "What about local climate governance? A review of promise and problems," MPRA Paper 20987, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Annica Kronsell & Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren, 2018. "Experimental governance: the role of municipalities in urban living labs," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(5), pages 988-1007, May.
    3. Helen Jarvis, 2011. "Saving Space, Sharing Time: Integrated Infrastructures of Daily Life in Cohousing," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(3), pages 560-577, March.
    4. Walker, Gordon & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2008. "Community renewable energy: What should it mean," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 497-500, February.
    5. Elisabeth Van de Grift & Joost Vervoort & Eefje Cuppen, 2017. "Transition Initiatives as Light Intentional Communities: Uncovering Liminality and Friction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Damian Pitt & John Randolph, 2009. "Identifying Obstacles to Community Climate Protection Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 27(5), pages 841-857, October.
    7. Watson, Matt, 2012. "How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 488-496.
    8. Andrew Karvonen & Bas Heur, 2014. "Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 379-392, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jessica K. Breadsell & Christine Eon & Gregory M. Morrison, 2019. "Understanding Resource Consumption in the Home, Community and Society through Behaviour and Social Practice Theories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Baležentis & Artiom Volkov & Mangirdas Morkūnas & Agnė Žičkienė & Justas Streimikis, 2021. "Barriers and Drivers of Renewable Energy Penetration in Rural Areas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-28, October.
    3. Jutta Deffner & Jan-Marc Joost & Manuela Weber & Immanuel Stiess, 2021. "Bottom-Up Strategies for Shared Mobility and Practices in Urban Housing to Improve Sustainable Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Kailun Fang & Suzana Ariff Azizan & Yifei Wu, 2023. "Low-Carbon Community Regeneration in China: A Case Study in Dadong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Haberl, Helmut & Schmid, Martin & Haas, Willi & Wiedenhofer, Dominik & Rau, Henrike & Winiwarter, Verena, 2021. "Stocks, flows, services and practices: Nexus approaches to sustainable social metabolism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    6. Ziegler, Rafael & Balzac-Arroyo, Josephine & Hölsgens, Rick & Holzgreve, Sarah & Lyon, Fergus & Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Thapa, Philipp P., 2022. "Social innovation for biodiversity: A literature review and research challenges," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. Roberto De Lotto & Calogero Micciché & Elisabetta M. Venco & Angelo Bonaiti & Riccardo De Napoli, 2022. "Energy Communities: Technical, Legislative, Organizational, and Planning Features," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, February.
    8. Derk Jan Stobbelaar, 2020. "Impact of Student Interventions on Urban Greening Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Filippo Corsini & Rafael Laurenti & Franziska Meinherz & Francesco Paolo Appio & Luca Mora, 2019. "The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Ruhrort, Lisa, 2020. "Reassessing the Role of Shared Mobility Services in a Transport Transition: Can They Contribute the Rise of an Alternative Socio-Technical Regime of Mobility?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(19), pages 1-1.
    4. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Cecilie Sachs Olsen & Merlijn van Hulst, 2024. "Reimagining Urban Living Labs: Enter the Urban Drama Lab," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(6), pages 991-1012, May.
    6. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Coffey, Stephanie, 2016. "Building a sustainable energy future, one community at a time," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 867-880.
    7. Gottschamer, L. & Zhang, Q., 2016. "Interactions of factors impacting implementation and sustainability of renewable energy sourced electricity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 164-174.
    8. Francisco García-Lillo & Eduardo Sánchez-García & Bartolomé Marco-Lajara & Pedro Seva-Larrosa, 2023. "Renewable Energies and Sustainable Development: A Bibliometric Overview," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, January.
    9. Julia Maria Wittmayer & Tessa de Geus & Bonno Pel & F. Avelino & Sabine Hielscher & Thomas Hoppe & Marie Susan Mühlemeier & Agata Stasik & Sem Oxenaar & Karoline K.S. Rogge & Vivian Visser & Esther Ma, 2020. "Beyond instrumentalism: Broadening the understanding of social innovation in socio-technical energy systems," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/312323, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Anthony McLean & Harriet Bulkeley & Mike Crang, 2016. "Negotiating the urban smart grid: Socio-technical experimentation in the city of Austin," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(15), pages 3246-3263, November.
    11. Winfried Osthorst, 2020. "Tensions in Urban Transitions. Conceptualizing Conflicts in Local Climate Policy Arrangements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Kevin Maréchal, 2018. "Recasting the understanding of habits for behaviour-oriented policies in transportation," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/270475, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    13. Cherunya, Pauline C. & Ahlborg, Helene & Truffer, Bernhard, 2020. "Anchoring innovations in oscillating domestic spaces: Why sanitation service offerings fail in informal settlements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    14. Aimee Felstead & Kevin Thwaites & James Simpson, 2019. "A Conceptual Framework for Urban Commoning in Shared Residential Landscapes in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, November.
    15. Zapata, Oscar, 2022. "Renewable Energy and Community Development," OSF Preprints tk59y, Center for Open Science.
    16. Lina Berglund-Snodgrass & Dalia Mukhtar-Landgren, 2020. "Conceptualizing Testbed Planning: Urban Planning in the Intersection between Experimental and Public Sector Logics," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 96-106.
    17. Aksel Ersoy & Ellen van Bueren, 2020. "Challenges of Urban Living Labs towards the Future of Local Innovation," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 89-100.
    18. Evans, Joshua & Collins, Damian & Anderson, Jalene, 2016. "Homelessness, bedspace and the case for Housing First in Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 249-256.
    19. Nicholas Mercer & Amy Hudson & Debbie Martin & Paul Parker, 2020. "“That’s Our Traditional Way as Indigenous Peoples”: Towards a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Community Support of Sustainable Energies in NunatuKavut, Labrador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-32, July.
    20. Rogers, J.C. & Simmons, E.A. & Convery, I. & Weatherall, A., 2008. "Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4217-4226, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1047-:d:139199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.