Unpacking the Psychosocial Dimension of Decarbonization between Change and Stability: A Systematic Review in the Social Science Literature
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Aims and Rationale of the Study
- How is the psychosocial dimension of decarbonization operationalized in the available literature?
- What are the key psychosocial dimensions and levels of explanation/analysis adopted in current literature?
- What are the main sustainability areas of transformations investigated and their relation to psychosocial factors (e.g., behavioral, technological, political, biophysical change)?
- What are the most studied subjectivities and contexts?
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Source and Search Strategy
3.2. Search Outcomes
3.3. Data Extraction and Analysis
- (1)
- Location, i.e., the geographical context hosting the study;
- (2)
- Actors, i.e., the individuals or social groups playing a role in the study (e.g., laypeople, civil society, unions, companies, NGOs, policymakers, experts, media, etc.);
- (3)
- Event, i.e., the (deliberate or unexpected) critical point triggering a change (e.g., biophysical processes, external shocks, political decisions, individual changes, societal transformations). (In particular, we adopted the following definitions. Biophysical processes: any event in the biosphere, physical process, or environmental modification that produces a change. External shocks: any external, indirect event that forces an activity to change or to stop rapidly. Political decisions: any new law, political commitment, international or national plan or regulation that causes a change. Individual changes: any event happening at the individual level that transforms life priorities and activates a chain of changes. Societal transformations: any event in society that generates a series of transformations);
- (4)
- Typology of change, i.e., the transition pathway described in the study (e.g., regular, hyper-turbulence, shock, disruptive, avalanche), cf. [57]. (Quoting the authors, we defined the categories as follows ([57], p. 404). Regular: “corresponds to environments that regularly experience a low intensity, gradual change”. Hyper-turbulence: “corresponds to environments that feature a high frequency of high-speed change in one dimension”. Shock: “corresponds to environmental changes that are rapid and high in intensity, come rarely, and are relatively narrow in scope. A specific shock may dissipate and disappear after a while, returning to the baseline, or it may lead to a stepwise structural change”. Disruptive: “corresponds to changes that infrequently occur, develop gradually, but have a high-intensity effect in one dimension”. Avalanche: “occurs very infrequently, but is of high intensity, of high speed, and simultaneously affects multiple dimensions of the environment. Avalanche change leads to permanent changes in the environment”);
- (5)
- Theoretical constructs, i.e., the social-psychological and cultural concepts framing the study.
4. Results
4.1. Locations and Actors
4.2. Events and Typologies of Change
4.3. Psychosocial Dimensions and Decarbonization
4.3.1. The Intrapersonal Level: Cognitive and Affective Experience
4.3.2. The Community Level: Coping, Adaptation, and Transformation
4.3.3. The Societal Level: The Socio-Cultural Dimension of Decarbonization
Analytical Level | Category of Studies | Psychosocial Dimension(s) | n (Percentage) | Prototypical References | Link between Psychosocial Dimension and Research Object |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Individual (micro) |
| 33 (6.23%) | [83,84,85] | Attitudes toward low-carbon behaviors (e.g., farming) Attitude change about energy technologies Attitude and behavioral choice for reducing the carbon footprint | |
| 29 (5.48%) | [90,91,92] | Climate change perceived intractability and public engagement Risk-opportunity nexus moderating risk perception about energy projects | ||
Socio-ecological appraisal |
| 49 (9.26%) | [93,94,95] | Air quality awareness and behavioral outcomes in the public and private sphere Awareness of technology functioning predicting technology acceptance and use | |
| 18 (3.40%) | [97,98,99] | Trust towards actors involved in CSG affects its acceptance Community trust influencing willingness to engage in community energy Assessment and adoption of low-carbon retrofit dependent on information-seeking and trust towards friends, professionals, and authorities | ||
| 9 (1.7%) | [100,101] | Persistent personality traits due to context history of place exploitation for energy generation | ||
Inner states and mediators |
| 10 (1.89%) | [102,103] | Reduction of life quality or psychological stress due to energy projects and territorial transformation | |
| 2 (0.37%) | [105] | Affective states and responses to disruptive changes of place | ||
Total | 150 (28.35%) | ||||
Community (meso) | Collective identification |
| 50 (9.45%) | [108,109] | National identity and perceived in-group discrimination explain support for coal policies and instrumental view of nature Place identity VS activist identity: identity positioning and intergroup dynamics in protest |
Cohesion and conflict |
| 33 (6.24%) | [106,107] | Maintenance of a sense of community and community vision in environmental movements Intracommunity conflict on CSG visions and future aspirations for the community | |
Fairness and equity |
| 40 (7.56%) | [94,111] | Environmental injustices (recognition, procedural, distributive) in land acquisition for solar farms Lack of recognition of local voices and needs in phase-out decisions Community benefits fostering acceptance of renewables | |
Agency |
| 28 (5.29%) | [112,113,114,115,116] | Community coping and resilience in CSG development Empowering effects of community benefits from renewables | |
Sense of place |
| 22 (4.16%) | [117,118,119] | Role of place representations/meanings in technology appraisal Role of spatial imaginaries in interpreting low-carbon energy future | |
Total | 174 (32.89%) | ||||
Societal (macro) | Values |
| 56 (10.58%) | [122,123] | Value orientation explains support or opposition to unconventional gas Alignment of values about rurality conducing to coalition-building |
Beliefs |
| 70 (13.32%) | [126,127] | Beliefs about relocalization as actionable meaning for tackling climate change Second-order beliefs explaining support for coal-to-gas policies | |
Social norms |
| 34 (6.43%) | [128] | Social norms and moral disengagement with climate change | |
Future imagination |
| 28 (5.29%) | [129,130,131,132] | Struggling visions about energy transition by different societal groups Conflicts between socio-technical imaginaries about the waste management | |
Shared interpretative frames |
| 16 (3.02%) | [92,135,136,137] | Social representations about coal seam gas Fit between social representations of place and technology Frames in the geothermal energy debate Frames of low-carbon energy policies to affect opinion and support | |
Social memory |
| 1 (0.19%) | [138] | Coal-based memory as a socio-material linkage and cultural understanding contributing to path dependence | |
Total | 205 (38.75%) |
5. Discussion
5.1. Agents and Geographies of Decarbonization: Western Bias and the Neglected Role of Mesoscale Actors
5.2. Typologies of Change: Going beyond Normative and Instrumentally Oriented Research of Transitions
5.3. Enhancing the Socio-Psychological Gaze to Decarbonization: Emotions, Time, and Historicity of Transitions
6. Limitations
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bagliani, M.; Dansero, E.; Puttilli, M. Territory and energy sustainability: The challenge of renewable energy sources. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2010, 53, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuzemko, C.; Lockwood, M.; Mitchell, C.; Hoggett, R. Governing for sustainable energy system change: Politics, contexts and contingency. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adil, A.M.; Ko, Y. Socio-technical evolution of Decentralized Energy Systems: A critical review and implications for urban planning and policy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 1025–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turnheim, B.; Berkhout, F.; Geels, F.; Hof, A.; McMeekin, A.; Nykvist, B.; van Vuuren, D. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Change 2015, 35, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sarrica, M.; Brondi, S.; Cottone, P.; Mazzara, B.M. One, no one, one hundred thousand energy transitions in Europe: The quest for a cultural approach. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K. Diversity: Energy studies need social science. Nature 2014, 511, 529–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Sovacool, B.K.; Dietz, T. Towards a science of climate and energy choices. Nat. Clim. Change 2016, 6, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. Energy: We need all hands on deck. Nature 2014, 513, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tajfel, H.E.; Fraser, C.E. Introducing Social Psychology: An Analysis of Individual Reaction and Response; Penguin Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Reser, J.P.; Swim, J.K. Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oskamp, S.; Schultz, P.W. Applied Social Psychology, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Clayton, S. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Clayton, S.; Myers, G. Conservation Psychology: Understanding and Promoting Human Care for Nature; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Caillaud, S. Social representations theory: A dialogical approach to the ecological crisis. Pap. Soc. Represent. 2016, 25, 6.1–6.30. [Google Scholar]
- Gifford, R.; Kormos, C.; McIntyre, A. Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2011, 2, 801–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, K.S.; Cologna, V.; Lange, F.; Brick, C.; Stern, P.C. The case for impact-focused environmental psychology. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 74, 101559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clayton, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Stern, P.C.; Whitmarsh, L.; Carrico, A.; Steg, L.; Swim, J.K.; Bonnes, M. Psychological research and global climate change. Nat. Clim. Change. 2015, 5, 640–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, N.; Joffe, H. How the public engages with global warming: A social representations approach. Public Underst. Sci. 2013, 22, 16–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gifford, R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 541–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van der Linden, S. The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Upham, P.; Lis, A.; Riesch, H.; Stankiewicz, P. Addressing social representations in socio-technical transitions with the case of shale gas. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 16, 120–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanss, D. Commentary: We need to change: Integrating psychological perspectives into the multilevel perspective on socio-ecological transformations. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 724768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Panu, P. Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hickman, C. We need to (find a way to) talk about… Eco-anxiety. J. Soc. Work Pract. 2020, 34, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coffey, Y.; Bhullar, N.; Durkin, J.; Islam, M.S.; Usher, K. Understanding eco-anxiety: A systematic scoping review of current literature and identified knowledge gaps. J. Clim. Chang. Health 2021, 3, 100047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrecht, G.; Sartore, G.M.; Connor, L.; Higginbotham, N.; Freeman, S.; Kelly, B.; Stain, H.; Tonna, A.; Pollard, G. Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. Australas. Psychiatry 2007, 15, S95–S98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galway, L.P.; Beery, T.; Jones-Casey, K.; Tasala, K. Mapping the solastalgia literature: A scoping review study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Avelino, F. Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 599–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oishi, S. Socioecological psychology. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 581–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uskul, A.K.; Oishi, S. What is socio-ecological psychology? Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2020, 32, 181–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wullenkord, M.C.; Hamann, K.R. We need to change: Integrating psychological perspectives into the multilevel perspective on socio-ecological transformations. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 655352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulte, M.; Bamberg, S.; Rees, J.; Rollin, P. Social identity as a key concept for connecting transformative societal change with individual environmental activism. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 72, 101525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarrica, M.; Rimano, A.; Rizzoli, V.; Passafaro, P. Are e-bikes changing the social representation of cycling? An exploration of articles on cycling in Italian online publications. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2020, 16, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devine-Wright, P.; Batel, S.; Aas, O.; Sovacool, B.; Labelle, M.C.; Ruud, A. A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 2012, 31, 1257–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, A.; Voß, J.P.; Grin, J. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 435–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro, P. Legal innovation for social change: Exploring change and resistance to different types of sustainability laws. Polit. Psychol. 2012, 33, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batel, S.; Devine-Wright, P. Towards a better understanding of people’s responses to renewable energy technologies: Insights from Social Representations Theory. Public Underst. Sci. 2015, 24, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Batel, S.; Castro, P. A social representations approach to the communication between different spheres: An analysis of the impacts of two discursive formats. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 2009, 39, 415–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarrica, M.; Biddau, F.; Brondi, S.; Cottone, P.; Mazzara, B.M. A multi-scale examination of public discourse on energy sustainability in Italy: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Energy Policy 2018, 114, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; van der Werff, E. Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bögel, P.M.; Upham, P. Role of psychology in sociotechnical transitions studies: Review in relation to consumption and technology acceptance. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 28, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; Sovacool, B.K.; Bonaiuto, M.; Diekmann, A.; Filippini, M.; Hindriks, F.; Bergstad, C.J.; Matthies, E.; Matti, S. A Research agenda to better understand the human dimensions of energy transitions. Front. Psychol. 2021, 2421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unruh, G.C. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 2000, 28, 817–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, G.A. Community resilience: Path dependency, lock-in effects and transitional ruptures. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 57, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbloom, D.; Rinscheid, A. Deliberate decline: An emerging frontier for the study and practice of decarbonization. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2020, 11, e669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köhler, J.; Geels, F.W.; Kern, F.; Markard, J.; Onsongo, E.; Wieczorek, A.; Alkemade, F.; Avelino, F.; Bergek, A.; Boons, F.; et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 31, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rinscheid, A.; Rosenbloom, D.; Markard, J.; Turnheim, B. From terminating to transforming: The role of phase-out in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2021, 41, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tàbara, J.D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Hölscher, K.; Pedde, S.; Kok, K.; Lamperti, F.; Christensen, J.H.; Jäger, J.; Berry, P. Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 31, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tàbara, J.D.; Lieu, J.; Zaman, R.; Ismail, C.; Takama, T. On the discovery and enactment of positive socio-ecological tipping points: Insights from energy systems interventions in Bangladesh and Indonesia. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 17, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolsink, M. Social acceptance revisited: Gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 46, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghaei Chadegani, A.; Salehi, H.; Yunus, M.; Farhadi, H.; Fooladi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Ale Ebrahim, N. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 2013, 9, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Geels, F.W.; Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 2017, 36, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahbubani, K. The West and the rest. National Interest 1992, 28, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
- Gunzburger, Y.; Agnoletti, M.F.; Deshaies, M.; Ferey, S.; Raggi, P. Social perception of unconventional gas extraction on the outskirts of a former coal-mining area in Northeast France. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2017, 4, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inderberg, T.H.J.; Tews, K.; Turner, B. Is there a prosumer pathway? Exploring household solar energy development in Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 42, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arriaga, M.; Nasr, E.; Rutherford, H. Renewable energy microgrids in northern remote communities. IEEE Potentials 2017, 36, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohideen, R.; Batra, P.; Khan, P. Low-Carbon Energy Transition in India: Implications for Gender Equality and Social Inclusion. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 2020, 39, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coffey, J.; Threadgold, S.; Farrugia, D.; Sherval, M.; Hanley, J.; Askew, M.; Askland, H. ‘If you lose your youth, you lose your heart and your future’: Affective figures of youth in community tensions surrounding a proposed coal seam gas project. Sociol. Ruralis 2018, 58, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohse, M.; Day, R.; Llewellyn, D. Towards an emotional energy geography: Attending to emotions and affects in a former coal mining community in South Wales, UK. Geoforum 2020, 110, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, K. Mission-Driven Agency and Local Policy Innovation: Empirical Analysis from Baoding, China. J. Chin. Political Sci. 2017, 22, 549–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotikalapudi, C.K. Corruption, crony capitalism and conflict: Rethinking the political economy of coal in Bangladesh and beyond. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 17, 160–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.E.; Fitzgerald, J.; York, R. Protecting the power to pollute: Identity co-optation, gender, and the public relations strategies of fossil fuel industries in the United States. Environ. Sociol. 2019, 5, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keough, N.; Ghitter, G. Pathways to sustainable low-carbon transitions in an auto-dependent Canadian city. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talukdar, R. Reigniting a debate on coal: Case study on the Indian Government’s crackdown on Greenpeace. Cosmop. Civ. Soc. 2018, 10, 47–62. [Google Scholar]
- Vossen, M. Nuclear energy in the context of climate change: A frame analysis of the Dutch print media. J. Stud. 2020, 21, 1439–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snell, D. ‘Just transition’? Conceptual challenges meet stark reality in a ‘transitioning’coal region in Australia. Globalizations 2018, 15, 550–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J.; Anda, M.; Harper, R.J. Low-carbon development in remote Indigenous communities: Applying a community-directed model to support endogenous assets and aspirations. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 95, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunderson, R.; Stuart, D.; Petersen, B.; Yun, S.J. Social conditions to better realize the environmental gains of alternative energy: Degrowth and collective ownership. Futures 2018, 99, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, S.J.; Kim, J.H.; Yoo, S.H. Public preference for increasing natural gas generation for reducing CO2 emissions in South Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Černoch, F.; Lehotský, L.; Ocelík, P.; Osička, J.; Vencourová, Ž. Anti-fossil frames: Examining narratives of the opposition to brown coal mining in the Czech Republic. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 54, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breadsell, J.K.; Byrne, J.J.; Morrison, G.M. Household energy and water practices change post-occupancy in an australian low-carbon development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, Y.; Xu, J. Low-carbon Reconstruction: A Meta-Synthesis Approach for the Sustainable Development of a Post-Disaster Community. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2018, 33, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luke, H.; Emmanouil, N. ‘All dressed up with nowhere to go’: Navigating the coal seam gas boom in the Western Downs region of Queensland. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2019, 6, 1350–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zehr, S. The sociology of global climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2015, 6, 129–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzoli, V.; Castro, P.; Tuzzi, A.; Contarello, A. Probing the history of social psychology, exploring diversity and views of the social: Publication trends in the Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. from 1971 to 2016. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 49, 671–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doise, W.; Mapstone, E.T. Levels of Explanation in Social Psychology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, J.; Hou, B. Farmers’ adoption of low-carbon agriculture in China: An extended theory of the planned behavior model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shamon, H.; Schumann, D.; Fischer, W.; Vögele, S.; Heinrichs, H.U.; Kuckshinrichs, W. Changing attitudes and conflicting arguments: Reviewing stakeholder communication on electricity technologies in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 55, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beattie, G.; McGuire, L. The modifiability of implicit attitudes to carbon footprint and its implications for carbon choice. Environ. Behav. 2018, 52, 467–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pidgeon, N. Climate change risk perception and communication: Addressing a critical moment? Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 951–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dietz, T.; Stern, P.C.; Guagnano, G.A. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 450–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joffe, H. Risk: From perception to social representation. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 42, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiang, P.; Zhang, H.; Geng, L.; Zhou, K.; Wu, Y. Individualist–collectivist differences in climate change inaction: The role of perceived intractability. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Connor, C.D.; Fredericks, K. Citizen perceptions of fracking: The risks and opportunities of natural gas development in Canada. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 42, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bec, A.; Moyle, B.D.; McLennan, C.-L.J. Drilling into community perceptions of coal seam gas in Roma, Australia. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2016, 3, 716–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.E.; Harish, S.P.; Kennedy, R.; Jin, X.; Urpelainen, J. Environmental degradation and public opinion: The case of air pollution in Vietnam. J. Environ. Dev. 2020, 29, 196–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J.; Martinat, S.; Cowell, R. Community tensions, participation, and local development: Factors affecting the spatial embeddedness of anaerobic digestion in Poland and the Czech Republic. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 55, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsaur, R.C.; Lin, Y.H. Exploring the consumer attitude of building-attached photovoltaic equipment using revised technology acceptance model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huijts, N.M.; Molin, E.J.; Steg, L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owens, K. Coal Seam Gas Regulation in New SouthWales: Drawing the Connections Between Risk, Communication and Trust. Environ. Plan. Law J. 2019, 36, 552–564. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wilde, M. The sustainable housing question: On the role of interpersonal, impersonal and professional trust in low-carbon retrofit decisions by homeowners. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 51, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huijts, N.; de Vries, G.; Molin, E.J. A positive shift in the public acceptability of a low-carbon energy project after implementation: The case of a hydrogen fuel station. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Obschonka, M.; Stuetzer, M.; Rentfrow, P.J.; Shaw-Taylor, L.; Satchell, M.; Silbereisen, R.K.; Potter, J.; Gosling, S.D. In the shadow of coal: How large-scale industries contributed to present-day regional differences in personality and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 115, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Phelan, A.A.; Jacobs, S. Facing the true cost of fracking; social externalities and the role of integrated valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, P.H.; Lyons, K.D.; Kyle, G.T.; Kreuter, U.P. Coping with change in rural landscapes: The psychological stress of rural residents experiencing unconventional gas developments. Land Use Policy 2017, 67, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smale, R.; Kloppenburg, S. Platforms in power: Householder perspectives on the social, environmental and economic challenges of energy platforms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duffy, M.; Whyte, S. The Latrobe Valley: The politics of loss and hope in a region of transition. Australas. J. Reg. Stud. 2017, 23, 421–446. [Google Scholar]
- Aiken, G.T. The politics of community: Togetherness, transition and post-politics. Environ. Plan. 2017, 49, 2383–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grubert, E.; Skinner, W. A town divided: Community values and attitudes towards coal seam gas development in Gloucester, Australia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 30, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cislak, A.; Wojcik, A.D.; Cichocka, A. Cutting the forest down to save your face: Narcissistic national identification predicts support for anti-conservation policies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 59, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luke, H.; Rasch, E.D.; Evensen, D.; Köhne, M. Is ‘activist’ a dirty word? Place identity, activism and unconventional gas development across three continents. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2018, 5, 524–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlosberg, D. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Yenneti, K.; Day, R.; Golubchikov, O. Spatial justice and the land politics of renewables: Dispossessing vulnerable communities through solar energy mega-projects. Geoforum 2016, 76, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCrea, R.; Walton, A.; Leonard, R. Developing a model of community wellbeing and resilience in response to change. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 129, 195–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard, R.; McCrea, R.; Walton, A. Perceptions of community responses to the unconventional gas industry: The importance of community agency. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 48, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revell, P.; Dinnie, E. Community resilience and narratives of community empowerment in Scotland. Community Dev. J. 2020, 55, 218–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westrom, M. Winds of change: Legitimacy, withdrawal, and interdependency from a decentralized wind-to-hydrogen regime in Orkney, Scotland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 60, 101332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wildt, T.E.; Chappin, E.J.L.; van de Kaa, G.; Herder, P.M.; van de Poel, I.R. Conflicted by decarbonisation: Five types of conflict at the nexus of capabilities and decentralised energy systems identified with an agent-based model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 64, 101451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batel, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Wold, L.; Egeland, H.; Jacobsen, G.; Aas, O. The role of (de-) essentialisation within siting conflicts: An interdisciplinary approach. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowell, R. The role of place in energy transitions: Siting gas-fired power stations and the reproduction of high-carbon energy systems. Geoforum 2020, 112, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, G.T. One-way street? Spatiality of communities in low carbon transitions in Scotland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 36, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bridge, G.; Bouzarovski, S.; Bradshaw, M.; Eyre, N. Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 2013, 53, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvert, K. From ‘energy geography’ to ‘energy geographies’ Perspectives on a fertile academic borderland. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2016, 40, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunner, T.; Axsen, J. Oil sands, pipelines and fracking: Citizen acceptance of unconventional fossil fuel development and infrastructure in Canada. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 67, 101511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherval, M.; Askland, H.H.; Askew, M.; Hanley, J.; Farrugia, D.; Threadgold, S.; Coffey, J. Farmers as modern-day stewards and the rise of new rural citizenship in the battle over land use. Local Environ. 2018, 23, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barr, S.; Pollard, J. Geographies of Transition: Narrating environmental activism in an age of climate change and ‘Peak Oil’. Environ. Plan. 2017, 49, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuldt, J.P.; Yuan, Y.C.; Song, Y.; Liu, K. Beliefs about whose beliefs? Second-order beliefs and support for China’s coal-to-gas policy. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 66, 101367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O’Riordan, T. Revisiting the psychology of denial concerning low-carbon behaviors: From moral disengagement to generating social change. Sustainability 2020, 12, 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gormally, A.M.; Whyatt, J.D.; Timmis, R.J.; Pooley, C.G. Renewable energy scenarios: Exploring technology, acceptance and climate–Options at the community-scale. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 74, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fortes, P.; Alvarenga, A.; Seixas, J.; Rodrigues, S. Long-term energy scenarios: Bridging the gap between socio-economic storylines and energy modeling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2015, 91, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longhurst, N.; Chilvers, J. Mapping diverse visions of energy transitions: Co-producing sociotechnical imaginaries. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 973–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Levidow, L.; Raman, S. Sociotechnical imaginaries of low-carbon waste-energy futures: UK techno-market fixes displacing public accountability. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2020, 50, 609–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moscovici, S. La Psychoanalyse: Son Image et Son Public, 2nd ed.; Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Goffman, E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Bailey, E.; Devine-Wright, P.; Batel, S. Understanding responses to a UK high-voltage powerline proposal: The role of place and project-based social representations. Pap. Soc. Represent. 2016, 25, 2.1–2.24. [Google Scholar]
- Stauffacher, M.; Muggli, N.; Scolobig, A.; Moser, C. Framing deep geothermal energy in mass media: The case of Switzerland. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2015, 98, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldman, L.; Hart, P.S. Climate change as a polarizing cue: Framing effects on public support for low-carbon energy policies. Glob. Environ. Change 2018, 51, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexandra, J. Water and coal-transforming and redefining ’natural’ resources in Australia’s Latrobe region. Australas. J. Reg. Stud. 2017, 23, 358–381. [Google Scholar]
- Wolsink, M. Social acceptance, lost objects, and obsession with the ‘public’—The pressing need for enhanced conceptual and methodological rigor. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 48, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmarsh, L.; Nash, N.; Upham, P.; Lloyd, A.; Verdon, J.P.; Kendall, J.M. UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support. Appl. Energy 2015, 160, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chilvers, J.; Longhurst, N. Participation in transition (s): Reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2016, 18, 585–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thalmayer, A.G.; Toscanelli, C.; Arnett, J.J. The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? Am. Psychol. 2021, 76, 116–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roszak, T.E.; Gomes, M.E.; Kanner, A.D. Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind; Sierra Club Books: Oakland, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- van Zomeren, M. Synthesizing individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on environmental and collective action through a relational perspective. Theory Psychol. 2014, 24, 775–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martiskainen, M.; Sovacool, B.K. Mixed feelings: A review and research agenda for emotions in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2021, 40, 609–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brosch, T.; Steg, L. Leveraging emotion for sustainable action. One Earth 2021, 4, 1693–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batel, S. Research on the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies: Past, present and future. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuppen, E.; Ejderyan, O.; Pesch, U.; Spruit, S.; van de Grift, E.; Correljé, A.; Taebi, B. When controversies cascade: Analysing the dynamics of public engagement and conflict in the Netherlands and Switzerland through “controversy spillover”. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coman, A.; Brown, A.D.; Koppel, J.; Hirst, W. Collective memory from a psychological perspective. Int. J. Politics Cult. Soc. 2009, 22, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnstone, P.; Hielscher, S. Phasing out coal, sustaining coal communities? Living with technological decline in sustainability pathways. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2017, 4, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Centola, D.; Becker, J.; Brackbill, D.; Baronchelli, A. Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science 2018, 360, 1116–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Črešnar, R.; Nedelko, Z. Understanding future leaders: How are personal values of generations Y and Z tailored to leadership in industry 4.0? Sustainability 2020, 12, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, J.C.; Mellish, S.; Le Busque, B.R.; Litchfield, C.A. Enhancing the impact of conservation marketing using psychology: A research agenda. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2019, 9, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, N.; Adger, N.; Attwood, S.; Brown, K.; Crissman, C.; Cvitanovic, C.; de Young, C.; Gooch, M.; James, C.; Jessen, S.; et al. Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tàbara, J.D. A new vision of open knowledge systems for sustainability: Opportunities for social scientists. In World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments; OECD Publishing, Paris/Unesco Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Steg, L. Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levitt, S.D.; List, J.A. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J. Econ. Perspect. 2007, 21, 153–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sorrell, S. Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2015, 47, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clayton, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Swim, J.; Bonnes, M.; Steg, L.; Whitmarsh, L.; Carrico, A. Expanding the role for psychology in addressing environmental challenges. Am. Psychol. 2016, 71, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotmans, J.; Kemp, R.; van Asselt, M. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight 2001, 3, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Hess, D.J. Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Soc. Stud. Sci 2017, 47, 703–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stocco, N.; Gardona, F.; Biddau, F.; Cottone, P.F. Learning Processes and Agency in the Decarbonization Context: A Systematic Review through a Cultural Psychology Point of View. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuppen, E.; Pesch, U. How to assess what society wants? The need for a renewed social conflict research agenda. In A Critical Approach to the Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Infrastructures; Batel, S., Rudolph, D., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan, Cham: London, UK, 2021; pp. 161–178. [Google Scholar]
- Sarrica, M.; Carman, P.; Brondi, S.; Mazzara, B.M. Beyond wind turbines, solar panels and beautiful landscapes: Figurative components of sustainable energy in Italy. Rev. Int. Psychol. Soc. 2015, 28, 81–112. [Google Scholar]
- Cuppen, E.; Breukers, S.; Hisschemöller, M.; Bergsma, E. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 579–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaskell, G.; Himmelweit, H.T. (Eds.) Societal Psychology; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Lopes, C.A.; Gaskell, G. Social representations and societal psychology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations, Sammut, G.; Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G., Valsiner, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp. 29–42. [Google Scholar]
- Howarth, C.; Campbell, C.; Cornish, F.; Franks, B.; Garcia-Lorenzo, L.; Gillespie, A.; Tennant, C. Insights from societal psychology: A contextual politics of societal change. J. Soc. Political Psychol. 2013, 1, 364–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wagner, W.; Hayes, N. Everyday Discourse and Common Sense: The Theory of Social Representations; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Biddau, F.; Brondi, S.; Cottone, P.F. Unpacking the Psychosocial Dimension of Decarbonization between Change and Stability: A Systematic Review in the Social Science Literature. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095308
Biddau F, Brondi S, Cottone PF. Unpacking the Psychosocial Dimension of Decarbonization between Change and Stability: A Systematic Review in the Social Science Literature. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095308
Chicago/Turabian StyleBiddau, Fulvio, Sonia Brondi, and Paolo Francesco Cottone. 2022. "Unpacking the Psychosocial Dimension of Decarbonization between Change and Stability: A Systematic Review in the Social Science Literature" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095308