As part of the joint 5th SCORAI and 21st ERSCP conference, taking place July 5-8, 2023 in Wageningen, Netherlands, the EU 1.5° Lifestyles project presents recent and upcoming research.
Thursday, July 6, A01:
Barriers and Enablers of 1.5° Lifestyles: Shallow and Deep Structural Factors Shaping Lifestyles and Climate Governance
Halliki Kreinin, University of Münster, Münster, Germany, halliki.kreinin@uni-muenster.de
Steffen Hirth, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, sth@posteo.de
Presenters: Halliki Kreinin, halliki.kreinin@uni-muenster.de
Pia Mamut, pia.mamut@uni-muenster.de (in person)
Transforming consumption and lifestyles toward sustainability cannot be achieved by individual behaviour change alone but requires changes in the structures in which this behaviour is embedded. However, “structure” is a blurry concept and scholars use it in a multitude of ways. Recognising the need to mainstream lifestyles compatible with the targets of the Paris Agreement, we have conducted a literature review and a Delphi survey asking which structures can – directly or indirectly – be identified as impactful barriers or enablers of 1.5° lifestyles. We seek to bring more clarity into the blurry picture of structural factors impacting the sustainability of consumption and lifestyles by systematizing political, economic, technological, and societal structures the literature identifies as impactful. Conceptually, we do so on the basis of the material or ideational, as well as shallow or deep nature of structures. Thereby, the article throws light on the deep and opaque material and ideational structures lying underneath and shaping the sustainability impact of the more visible, shallow structures typically considered in public debates about sustainability governance. Shallow structures, according to our definition, are more specific and visible, have a narrower focus, and it is easier to identify specific responsible actors able to change them within the current power relations. By contrast, deep structures are broader, less discernible, and more difficult to change, and they potentially cannot be dismantled without changes in existing power relations. Our results show that shallow structures tend to support the pursuit of (green) growth, focus on technological efficiency and innovation to avoid unpopular practice changes, and they appeal to individual action and responsibility rather than broader political intervention in pursuit of structural change. Transforming deep structures would challenge taken for granted pillars of the current political and economic system, societal institutions and technological and innovation infrastructures, putting the spotlight on inequities and exploitative relations within societies and particular between the Global North and South. It would also involve a focus on provisioning for needs satisfaction for all within planetary and societal boundaries. We conclude that without changes in material and ideational, shallow and deep structures, households cannot necessarily be expected to make (or even have) sustainable choices and contribute to sustainability on the macro level. Our research, thus, highlights the need to consider and address these deep structures for any effective pursuit of transformation.
Session C12: EU 1.5° Lifestyles: Individual and structural level perspectives on possible and necessary change
Session Chair: Doris Fuchs, EU 1.5° Lifestyles
In its analyses of drivers and mitigation pathways for climate change, the IPCC has concluded that limiting the global temperature increase needs demand-side actions and lifestyle changes. However, which lifestyle changes will be needed, and what do we know about their public acceptance and (individual, societal, and ecologic) side effects? How do structural barriers and enablers impact the potential shift towards sustainable lifestyles, specifically lifestyles that fit within the Paris climate target of 1.5°?
The proposed panel will explore these questions. It will focus on a range of lifestyle options and their likely sustainability impacts and adoption rates. The spotlight will also be on deep economic, political, societal and technological structures and their effects on the adoption and sustainability of lifestyle options. These questions will be linked to insights on the information needs of policy makers as well as research needs. Thereby, the panel aims to provide a multi-faceted discussion on 1.5° Lifestyles and their potential contribution to the sustainability transformation.
The session brings together expertise from an international group of social scientists and practitioners involved in sustainable lifestyles research and action. The session will adopt a dialogue format with short input statements by all panelists, addressing predefined questions, and a subsequent moderated debate between the panel and with the audience.
Line-up of speakers:
Eva Ahlner, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, eva.ahlner@swedishepa.se
Lena Domröse, adelphi, domroese@adelphi.de
Luisa Losada-Puente, University of A Coruña, luisa.losada@udc.es Iren Marta, Business Council for Sustainable Development Hungary, iren.marta@bcsdh.hu
Oksana Mont, Lund University, oksana.mont@iiiee.lu.se
Edina Vadovics, GreenDependent Institute, edina@greendependent.org
Session G13: 1.5 Degree Lifestyles
Session Chair: Doris Fuchs, EU 1.5° Lifestyles
How structures enable or hinder changes to provisioning systems and 1.5° lifestyles in Europe
Halliki Kreinin, University of Münster, Münster, Germany, halliki.kreinin@uni-muenster.de
Steffen Hirth, University of Münster, Germany, Steffen.Hirth@uni-muenster.de
Doris Fuchs, University of Münster, Münster, Germany, Doris.Fuchs@uni-muenster.de
Inga Belousa, Green Liberty, Latvia, inga@zalabriviba.lv
Oksana Mont, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, oksana.mont@iiiee.lu.se
Jessika Richter, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, jessika.richter@iiiee.lu.se
Edina Vadovics, GreenDependent Institute, Gödöllő, Hungary, edina@greendependent.org
Presenter: Halliki Kreinin, halliki.kreinin@uni-muenster.de; Pia Mamut, pia.mamut@uni-muenster.de (in person)
While individuals have some agency to change their lifestyles, significant steps towards sustainable lifestyles require deeper structural changes to production, processing, distribution, and consumption – in other words, to provisioning systems. This study collates and ranks structures that are key to changes in provisioning systems needed for the implementation of lifestyles compatible with the targets of the Paris Agreement. After first discussing the connections between the lifestyles, agents, structures, and systems using different sociological accounts of consumption, we examine the structural factors that prevent or enable the adoption of sustainable practices within wider provisioning systems. To categorise structures, we distinguish between (1) ideational structures relating to norms, values, or discourse and material structures relating to factors such as money, market control, and control of technology or natural resources, and (2) shallow and deep structures reflecting that changing some structures is possible within established power relations while others require fundamental challenges to existing power relations. To gain a profound understanding of how different types of structures interact and which actors and agents they involve, we draw on a literature review of 122 studies to identify relevant structures. Thereafter we undertake a Delphi-ranking method to narrow the number of structures down to 22 key structural barriers and enablers, and use this list as the spring-board for 36 interviewed experts asked to rank structures according to their impact. Against this background, we discuss how provisioning systems affect lifestyles in the consumption areas of housing, mobility, nutrition and leisure. We conclude that a concerted effort towards structural change, at the scale of, or likely beyond, the Marshall plan, may not only be a last chance to avoid climate disaster but also improve wellbeing and safety compared to current systems.
Structural, social, and contextual challenges and resources toward a 1.5 sustainable lifestyle in five European countries
Adina Dumitru, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, adina.dumitru@udc.es
Pilar Vieiro, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, pilar.vieiro@udc.es
Manuel Peralbo, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, manuel.peralbo@udc.es
Montserrat Durán, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, montserrat.duran.bouza@udc.es
Luisa Losada-Puente, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, luisa.losada@udc.es
Presenter: Luisa Losada-Puente, luisa.losada@udc.es (in person)
The urgency to achieve carbon neutrality between 2030-2050 in compliance with the agreements adopted by the European Union and its member states has required the adoption of strategies that favour change in daily consumption habits, lifestyles, and investment decisions. To achieve this purpose it is necessary, first, to know what internal and external facilitators and barriers people face when adopting a low-emission lifestyle. One of the purposes of the H2020 project ""Policies and tools for the integration of 1.5° lifestyles"" is to improve the understanding of the options and challenges that citizen face in moving to 1.5º lifestyles from household perspective, reflecting on societal, political, and economic structures that they experience as enablers or barriers. This paper focuses on the main structural, social, cultural and/or contextual challenges and facilitators experienced by people who have changed their lifestyles. A qualitative study was carried out using in-depth interviews in five European countries (Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Spain, and Sweden). Informants were people who have made substantial changes (at least two years ago) towards the adoption of 1.5° life choices in at least two areas (household, mobility, consumption, leisure). The main findings have shown the presence of structural (mainly economic, infrastructural, infrastructural, knowledge, legal, political, and technological) or socio-cultural obstacles (lack of collective action and responsibility, lack of support, lack of education and even a certain cultural and social inertia, among others). In contrast to these barriers to lifestyle change, structural resources have also been found (mainly economic and infrastructural, but also political), as well as contextual (related to the possibilities of land use, mobility facilities and resources in the immediate environment) and social resources (acceptance and greater social awareness, mutual respect, media influence, spirituality, etc.). Precisely, a key aspect has been to note the relevance of social support, identified both in the close circle (family, friends) and in environments of like-minded people (such as sustainability initiatives, social and political movements dealing with environmental issues). The latter facilitate the availability of governance, material and, above all, knowledge, and social resources. In sum, this analysis allows for a deeper understanding of the facilitators and barriers present in the immediate and distant environment in the process of citizens' transition to a low-carbon lifestyle.
Preferences, enablers and barriers for 1.5°C lifestyle options – Findings from citizen thinking labs in five EU countries
Edina Vadovics, GreenDependent Institute, Gödöllő, Hungary, edina@greendependent.org
Lena Domröse, adelphi, Berlin, Germany, domroese@adelphi.de
Jessika Richter, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, jessika.richter@iiiee.lu.se
Maren Tornow, adelphi, Berlin, Germany, tornow@adelphi.de
Stephanie Cap, University of Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands, s.cap@cml.leidenuniv.nl
Michael Lettenmeier, D-mat, Helsinki, Finland, michael@d-mat.fi
Laura Scherer, University of Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands, l.a.scherer@cml.leidenuniv.nl
Janis Brizga, Green Liberty, Latvia, janis@zalabriviba.lv
Adina Claudia Dumitru, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, adina.dumitru@udc.es
Oksana Mont, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, oksana.mont@iiiee.lu.se
Luisa Losada Puente, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, luisa.losada@udc.es
Inga Belousa, Green Liberty, Latvia, inga@zalabriviba.lv
Luca Coscieme, Hot or Cool Institute, Berlin, Germany, L.Coscieme@hotorcool.org
Eszter Csiki, GreenDependent Institute, Gödöllő, Hungary, eszter@greendependent.org
Antti Karjalainen, D-mat, Helsinki, Finland, antti@d-mat.fi
Jari Kolehmainen, D-mat, Helsinki, Finland, jari@d-mat.fi
Elli Latva-Hakuni, Hot or Cool Institute, Berlin, Germany, e.latva-hakuni@hotorcool.org
Matthias Lehner,Lund University, Lund, Sweden, matthias.lehner@iiiee.lu.se
Anri Liikamaa, D-mat, Helsinki, Finland, anri.liikamaa@phnet.fi
Nadin Ozcelik, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, nadin.ozcelik@udc.es
Kristóf Vadovics, GreenDependent Institute, Gödöllő, Hungary, kristof@greendependent.org
Presenters: Edina Vadovics, edina@greendependent.org
Jessika Richter, jessika.richter@iiiee.lu.se
Lena Domröse, domroese@adelphi.de (in person)
The Paris Agreement sets the goal of limiting global warming preferably to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels. Achieving this goal requires changing lifestyles in addition to technological innovation. The EU 1.5° Lifestyles project identifies and explores lifestyle options compatible with the 1.5°C goal in four consumption domains - nutrition, housing, mobility, and leisure - in 5 EU case countries: Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Spain and Sweden.
Lifestyle options were studied through a mixed-method approach comprising a literature review, expert interviews, and Citizen Thinking Labs (CTLs). The literature review was conducted to identify a list of relevant low-carbon lifestyle options. This list was then validated through interviews with 30 experts across the case countries and at the European level. The lifestyle options became the basis of the CTLs for which 20-25 citizens with diverse socio-demographic characteristics were selected in each case country. Preparing for the CTL, the participants provided information on their current lifestyles in an online survey, based on which their lifestyle carbon footprints were calculated using multi-regional input-output analysis. The country-specific CO2e reduction potential of each lifestyle option was also calculated. A “Climate Puzzle” board game was adapted to the project context.
During the CTLs, citizens used the puzzle to choose relevant lifestyle options to achieve the recognised goal of 2.5 tonnes CO2e/cap/yr by 2030 from their original lifestyle carbon footprint. Individual preferences for different options were documented and later analysed. Then, group discussions were held to discuss some of the most important barriers to the uptake of lifestyle options identified. The discussion focused not only on the individual’s level but also on structural barriers and what could help overcome them from the citizens’ point of view. This contribution summarises the outcomes of the CTLs and offers comparative insights. For example, some lifestyle options, such as switching entirely to a vegan diet or sharing options for housing (e.g. sharing equipment or living space) or cars, were some of the least preferred options, whereas switching to efficient lighting and reducing food waste were popular amongst all countries. The discussions on personal and structural barriers, and structural changes required to overcome them, revealed that options to reduce living space are often hindered by a lack of smaller affordable flats in cities. Eating vegan or vegetarian dishes was often impeded by a) a lack of knowledge about the preparation of vegan/vegetarian alternatives and b) health concerns. One of the main structural barriers to limiting private car use was the lack of public transport services, especially in rural areas.
Overall, the findings from this research contribute to designing possible pathways that citizens may find acceptable for transitioning to 1.5°C lifestyles. The study also discusses structural changes that could increase the acceptability and uptake of options that citizens currently do not favour. These outcomes will be discussed during Stakeholder Thinking Labs involving decision-makers, in future Citizens Thinking Labs, and later in policy workshops.
1.5-degree lifestyles: Latvian citizens' perspective
Jānis Brizga, Green Liberty, Latvia, janis@zalabriviba.lv
Presenter: Jānis Brizga, janis@zalabriviba.lv (in person)
Lifestyles have an important impact on the climate. Personal consumption behaviour in terms of mobility patterns, housing, food, and leisure choices are responsible for most of the carbon footprint created. A variety of studies are looking into different pro-environmental behaviours (actions) trying to quantify their contribution to footprint reduction. In this study, we analyzed those actions trying to identify the ones people are open to introducing in their everyday lives and those people refuse to apply, and also the drivers and enablers behind these choices.
To do so a citizen's thinking lab that included 22 randomly selected individuals from Latvia covering different geographical locations, age, genders, and income groups was organized. The average footprint of the participants (5.9 t CO2e/cap; lowest /highest footprint was: 3.8/8.9 t CO2e/cap) was very close to the national average (national average 5.8 t CO2e/cap).
The results demonstrate that the most accepted options were those that do not require significant lifestyle changes or investments but also increase convenience. From a personal point of view, some of the most popular responses for acceptancy were economic reasoning – you can save by investing in energy-efficient devices, saving water, and avoiding food waste. However, many of the participants also highlighted environmental and climate concerns as important motivations.
At the same time the least accepted options were those that require significant changes to both lifestyles and infrastructures. From a structural point of view, the barriers are related to settings and regulations in the current local food system and housing. The protein-high products in Latvia mostly include meat and dairy products, while popular vegan and vegetarian products are not popular. In regards to housing, the majority of the population is already living in overcrowded spaces while for others the homeowner market makes moving to smaller spaces feel burdensome. From a personal point of view, barriers related to attitudes and norms as a vegetarian culture has come to Latvia only recently, but shared housing is associated with the recent past in overcrowded Soviet communal flats.
The results demonstrate that options that do not conflict with comfort (e.g. technological) were selected first, but then it also depends if people have the available resources to invest in these technologies (e.g. purchasing an electric car, installing solar panels). Options like decreasing food waste and drinking tap water citizens consider manageable but they mostly did not associate these with climate impacts.