Several EU 1.5° Lifestyles team members participated at the SCORAI-ERSCP-WUR Conference in Wageningen, NL, taking place under the title "Transforming Consumption-Production Systems Toward Just and Sustainable Futures".
Among other topics, project team members presented key structures that enable or hinder sustainable consumption. Our Advisory Board members and representatives of our partners took part in a panel discussion on individual and structural perspectives on the necessary change and we presented the findings of our Citizen Thinking Labs. In addition, we highlighted the role of individual motivations for change and showed a Latvian citizens perspective on needed changes.
You can find our abstracts and papers here and we have uploaded the following presentations for which you can find the abstracts and download links below:
- Barriers and Enablers of 1.5° Lifestyles: Shallow and Deep Structural Factors Shaping Lifestyles and Climate Governance
- How structures enable or hinder changes to provisioning systems and 1.5° lifestyles in Europe
- Preferences, enablers and barriers for 1.5°C lifestyle options – Findings from citizen thinking labs in five EU countries
- Structural, social, and contextual challenges and resources toward a 1.5 sustainable lifestyle in five European countries
- Keeping pace with Europe toward a sustainable future: Structural drivers and barriers for low-carbon lifestyles in Spain
- Current and projected household carbon footprints of the European Union and selected G20 countries in 2030 and 2050
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. Barriers and Enablers of 1.5° Lifestyles: Shallow and deep structural factors shaping the potential for sustainable consumption.
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@unimuenster.
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.
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.
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.
Keeping pace with Europe toward a sustainable future: Structural drivers and barriers for low-carbon lifestyles in Spain
Nadin Ozcelik, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, nadin.ozcelik@udc.es
Marta Rey-García, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, marta.reyg@udc.es
Vanessa Mato-Santiso, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, vanessa.mato@udc.es
Presenter: Nadin Ozcelik, nadin.ozcelik@udc.es (in person)
The Paris Agreement states global warming must be limited below 2°C, optimally to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels to tackle the negative impacts of climate crisis (UNFCCC, 2016). Similarly, the recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that the impacts of climate crisis have become more severe and obvious, hence calls for urgent action to mitigate the emissions through changing individual lifestyles (IPCC, 2022). Accordingly, political, economic, social and technological factors either can facilitate or hinder lifestyle changes (Fuchs et al., 2021; Schanes et al., 2016). To mainstream the sustainable lifestyles at individual level, first, it is crucial to identify the key structural drivers and barriers to adopt 1.5° lifestyles, and secondly to take adequate actions to promote these drivers and overcome the barriers. The objective of this study is to identify the most relevant structural drivers and barriers to adopt the low carbon lifestyle options within the main consumption areas in Spain: nutrition, mobility, housing and leisure. To that end, we first conducted a literature review on structural drivers and barriers to embrace low carbon lifestyle options. Then, we validated and extended our results through conducting 5 semi-structured interviews and a stakeholder thinking lab participating 22 academics and practitioners with extensive knowledge and expertise on the field of sustainable production and consumption. Our results show that the most relevant structural drivers for Spaniards in these areas of consumption consist of: 1) economic measures incentivizing circular economy business models, 2) concrete and consistent public policies, 3) education on sustainable development, including the life-long learning, and 4) dissemination of good practices on sustainable lifestyles. As regard to the most relevant structural barriers, they consist of: 1) lack of consistent climate and sustainability policies, 2) green growth-oriented narratives, 3) financial constraints, and 4) lack of knowledge and awareness about sustainability practices. These findings provide valuable insights to decision-makers to develop adequate economic, political and social ground for sustainable lifestyles, specifically, in these four areas of consumption.
Current and projected household carbon footprints of the European Union and selected G20 countries in 2030 and 2050
Stephanie Cap, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, s.cap@cml.leidenuniv.nl
Arjan de Koning, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, koning@cml.leidenuniv.nl
Laura Scherer, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, l.a.scherer@cml.leidenuniv.nl
Presenter: Stephanie Cap
Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5°C rely on a combination of mitigation options to meet emissions reduction targets. The most ambitious emissions reduction pathways include widespread technological change, such as the adoption of renewable energy, deployment of carbon capture and storage and overall efficiency improvements across economic sectors. The share of climate change mitigation necessary from technological or behavioural change has generally been studied from a static perspective and thus does not account for how the need for mitigation from behavioural change evolves following possible economic and technological developments.
This study adapts a global supply and use table framework from EXIOBASE 3 in line with existing climate change scenarios to create scenario models of how consumption-based footprints will evolve by 2030 and 2050. The exogenous changes applied for each scenario are the basic elements from Shared Socio-Economic Pathway 1 (SSP1) and technical changes consistent with lower levels of anthropogenic forcing as modelled by the integrated assessment model IMAGE. Direct and second-order adjustments from balancing are implemented consecutively for changes to population, gross domestic product, economic structure, total factor productivity, electricity generation mix, electrification and biofuel uptake in the transportation sector, fuel shifts for space heating and manufacturing sectors, and adoption of carbon capture and storage by industry. Changes conceivably linked to behaviour change, such as household adoption of electric vehicles, are excluded to isolate the effects of technological shifts. After converting the adapted supply and use tables to a multi-regional input-output model, shifts in household final demand expenditure from increasing wealth are modelled by adjusting final demand spending following spending portfolios derived from household budget surveys. The resulting scenario models are used to assess the extent that technological change alone can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in a selection of 30 countries, comprised of the EU27 and three G20 countries (Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa).
In this study, we calculate the remaining mitigation necessary from lifestyle changes (or negative emissions technologies) even with extensive technological transformation. Our results indicate that no countries are projected to meet a median 1.5°C-compatible target distributed equally across the global population. The only countries possibly remaining on a 1.5°C trajectory in 2030 are Croatia and Indonesia. The largest drivers of emissions changes include changes in total factor productivity, gross domestic product, the electricity generation mix and carbon capture and storage uptake. Our results contribute to the growing literature demonstrating the importance of individual behaviour change in climate change mitigation. Further research can quantify the amount of behaviour change options needed to stay within the aspirational 1.5°C target proposed in the Paris Agreement.
Source of picture: EU 1.5° Lifestyles Consortium