Search

Behaviour, practices and culture constitute a powerful human factor in the energy system; in particular the interactions between technologies, practices and norms lock individuals in to certain patterns of (often inefficient) energy use. Consequently, behaviour change has gained traction amongst policymakers as a key area of intervention given the impact energy-related behaviours have on climate change. Given the increasing emphasis within policy perspectives in the European Union, it is surprising that a gap in understanding of the success factors of behaviour change initiatives remains. This paper addresses this gap by identifying and characterising behaviour change initiatives across five European countries (the UK, Ireland, France, Italy, and Spain). The paper provides insights into the success factors and commonly encountered barriers to behaviour change initiatives. Initiatives are classified into 6 broad categories (community-based interventions; information and awareness based interventions; eco-districts; show-case events; energy switching; and smart-technology focused interventions). The results suggest that there are significant knowledge gaps between what is known to work to engage individuals in behavioural change and what is currently being applied in practice. An over-reliance on education and awareness-raising projects is evident, illustrating that such projects do not sufficiently aim for sustained behavioural changes. A dearth of projects incorporating fiscal measures, regulations or legislation to drive behaviour change reflects reluctance on behalf of decision-makers to engage widely with diverse approaches to foster lifestyle change. This paper contributes understandings of the different models and delivery tools employed to change energy-related behaviours; insights into the critical success factors that underpin best practice and the barriers to action; and a ‘what works in practice’ overview of the meaningful approaches to change behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cities are mainly responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere and thus for climate change. The European Union (EU) set up a series of strategies and policies to facilitate the elaboration of climate change mitigation and adaptation of urban plans. To do this, it is necessary to measure the city's GHG emission level. The Urban Carbon Footprint (UCF) and its derivation, the Relative Carbon Footprint (RCF), represent the most appropriate tools for obtaining this important information. The present paper applies these indicators to a small city (150 000 inhabitants) located in Southern Italy, a novelty for academic studies, which usually concentrate on megacities. The study focuses only on CO 2 emissions, as these represent 90% of the total GHGs released in urban areas. The findings showed that in 2015 the total UCF was equal to 288 ktCO 2 , specifically deriving from electricity and natural gas consumption. Moreover, Residential, Industry and Tertiary are the most carbon-intensive economic sectors. The RCF was equal to 0.30; the city emission levels were lower than the national average. Therefore, the municipality represents a typical “net-consumer” community, dominated by homes with territorial emissions due to consumption and characterized by a low number of industries and an average income per capita that is 50% lower than the national one. Starting from these results, the study proposed an urban action plan according to the EU mitigation and adaptation policies. This plan could help the local government improve its environmental sustainability, even if more public city-level data is required for a more comprehensive analysis. Finally, it would be more appropriate for all actions to be aligned under a unique policy process to seize the opportunity to link the various local intervention policies from different fields, taking into account their existing funding, tools, processes, and resources. Capitalizing on the adaptation/mitigation connection will allow municipalities to leverage their climate change action efforts and accelerate progress toward their climate and energy goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: There is widespread concern that the ‘economy is crashing against the Earth’, already causing problems in terms of climate change, water depletion and loss of biodiversity. Yet, the global economy still will have to grow two- to four-fold to provide all future global inhabitants with the average yearly income of $10,000 that is needed to have a reasonable life expectancy and human development index. Rio+20 was intended to reconcile the need for poverty eradication with a green economy, but had limited perceived success. This paper analyses how some of the major international sustainability programs that contributed to Rio+20 could have supported a more far-reaching outcome. Two problems are identified: the programs showed significant overlap, and the programs themselves were often incremental in nature, seeking compromises and avoiding more radical approaches such as the ‘degrowth agenda’. To address the first problem, we suggest how a natural process of mutual collaboration, learning and strengthening could occur: the UN Green Economy Initiative could focus on providing the socio-economic rationale for sustainability; bodies like the IPCC and the UNEP Resources Panel could focus on providing the environmental rationale and planetary limits related to sustainability; programs in the field of sustainable consumption and production as well as resource-efficient and cleaner production could focus on providing hands-on support and proof of how to change direction. There seems no clear-cut answer for the second problem. Some authors suggest relying more on action outside formal policy systems that, by nature, seek compromises. However, they also see a required role for government action, which is exactly what Rio+20 and its supportive policy programs failed to achieve and negotiate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]