Toward a post-carbon society: supporting agency for collaborative climate action

Research

INTRODUCTION

Despite decades of negotiations, progress in addressing climate change has, so far, remained insufficient (Anderson et al. 2020, IPCC 2022a). Sweden is no exception to this (Matti et al. 2021). Despite its ambition to become one of the first fossil-free welfare nations by 2045, the country is nowhere near its annual emissions reduction target of 2.4 per cent (Swedish Climate Policy Council 2023).

High levels of climate awareness and ambitions have not, in practice, translated into sustainable transformation (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002, IPCC 2022b, 2022a). While most Swedes consider it vitally important to take both societal and individual measures to address climate change (Blennow and Persson 2009, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2021), they lead a carbon-intensive lifestyle. Their ecological footprint remains critically high, and related issues are largely overlooked by national and local policy goals (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2022, Global Footprint Network n.d.).^[1]

The failure to address this knowledge-action gap comes from, among other things, a widespread tendency to treat climate change as a purely external, technical challenge. Accordingly, most research and policy approaches aimed at understanding and addressing climate change have, so far, only targeted broader socioeconomic structures, governance dynamics, economic interventions, and technological solutions (O’Brien 2018, Mundaca et al. 2019, Köhler et al. 2019, Leichenko and O’Brien 2020, Ives et al. 2020, Wamsler et al. 2020, IPCC 2022b, 2022a).

While such approaches are important, they do not address the root causes of the climate crisis; that is, our individual and collective mindsets, values, beliefs, and paradigms, which underpin and are continually reproducing the crisis (Figueres and Rivett-Carnac 2020, Leichenko and O’Brien 2020, Wamsler et al. 2020, 2021). Consequently, externally-focused approaches such as taxes and other nudges to change individual behavior and attitudes are increasingly seen as insufficient and, in some cases, even ethically questionable (Moser 2007, Schubert 2017, Hügel and Davies 2020). Moreover, they tend to overlook people’s inner potential, their role in influencing broader processes of change, and the linkages between individual, collective, and systems change (Wamsler et al. 2021, Ives et al. 2023).

Against this background, an increasing number of studies and heuristics underline the importance of better-linking inner and outer dimensions of sustainability to tackle societal challenges and support transformation (Wamsler et al. 2021). The literature on socio-technical systems and transition management often focuses on the meso level, which seeks to transcend the longstanding micro versus macro debate (Geels 2004). This perspective is similar to recent heuristics on inner-outer transformations^[2]; however, the latter pays particular attention to relationships and the role of inner dimensions in supporting collective and systems change (O’Brien 2018, Wamsler et al. 2021, Ives et al. 2023). Epistemologically and axiologically, research informed by this perspective explores dimensions that involve individual and collective mindsets, values, beliefs, worldviews, and associated human qualities and capacities, and investigates how to nurture this inner potential to support transformation across individual, collective, and systems levels (Wamsler et al. 2021, Ives et al. 2023). In this study, we adopt the latter perspective.

Such inner dimensions have long been an overlooked aspect in sustainability debates (Kapoor 2007, O’Brien 2015, Wamsler et al. 2021, Woiwode et al. 2021). This includes the broad stream of thought on post-growth,^[3] degrowth, and a-growth that also questions lifestyle environmentalism approaches. Although it offers a sound diagnosis of some of the core drivers of the climate breakdown, it pays little attention to if, and how, inner dimensions can support change across scales (Fitzpatrick et al. 2022, Buch-Hansen and Nesterova 2023). At the same time, the degrowth literature emphasizes the need to deepen and revitalize democracy to support climate action (Kallis et al. 2018); while related literature on civic engagement on both local and regional levels often lacks a relational understanding of agency (Wamsler and Raggers 2018, Hügel and Davies 2020, Hegger et al. 2022).

Our study addresses the described shortcomings by linking current approaches and discourses on inner-outer transformation, post-growth, and civic engagement. More specifically, we explore if, and how, inner dimensions influence people’s agency, to become active agents of change as part of a wider systemic and post-carbon societal transformation. By doing so, our results provide new knowledge and policy recommendations on how to better support and involve citizens in collaborative sustainability work at local, regional, and national levels, and show that inner dimensions are of value to more fundamental critiques of current, dominant developmental paradigms.

Closing the described knowledge gap is significant for several reasons, both theoretically and practically. From a system’s perspective, the mindset and paradigms from which a system arises are considered a deep leverage point for transformation (Meadows 1999, Fischer and Riechers 2019). In addition, from a critical realist perspective on degrowth, one’s “inner being” is the ultimate site from which one can exercise agency and, thus, enact change in the world (Buch-Hansen and Nesterova 2023:3). Empowering people by supporting their agency is also a critical democratic question, as it relates to contested notions of means and ends to achieve transformation, wherein power (and its configuration, allocation and exercise) is a central component; that is, who gets to influence the future, and on what terms (Patterson et al. 2017, Avelino 2021, Pickering et al. 2022). Finally, exploring the role of inner dimensions to accelerate sustainability transformation addresses the interlinkages of our contemporary crises and societal ills in, for example, how the climate crisis is linked to increasing mental health issues such as climate anxiety and affective polarization, and how that, in turn, is affected by inequality and feelings of apathy, alienation, and inaction (Ingle and Mikulewicz 2020, Lawrance et al. 2021, Bristow et al. 2022).

Put together, this study aims to increase knowledge on how citizens can become more active agents of change as part of a wider systemic and post-carbon societal transformation process, in collaboration with other actors. In particular, we assess how citizens relate to climate change, what motivates them to act, and how they imagine potential future transformation pathways. The research questions are thus as follows:

1. How do citizens in Sweden relate to, and act on, climate change?
2. What drivers motivate them to act - individually and in collaboration? And,
3. What collaborative transformation pathways do they perceive as important for achieving change in the future?

The first question explores peoples’ sense of agency and how it relates to social and systemic mechanisms and structures. The second moves from the practical level to the personal, inner dimension of transformation to determine what motivates and hinders people from acting on climate change, individually and collaboratively. Finally, the third question shifts the temporal focus, and looks at what priorities people would like to see in future sustainability work, and how they perceive their role in it to support individual, collective, and systems change in collaboration with other actors. Such climate imaginaries are increasingly recognized as valuable tools for exploring and facilitating alternative pathways to societal transformation (Jessop 2010, Stoddard et al. 2021, Oomen et al. 2021, Johansson 2021).

To answer our research questions, we capture people’s “grounded discourse” - including their perspectives, experiences, and attitudes (Van der Merwe et al. 2019) to identify how these relate to their sense of agency to support systems change. We consider, in this context, the role of citizens in promoting cultural and systems transformation and the potential implications of imposing change versus people’s empowerment to drive change. The resultant findings are key to improving current policies and interventions, and supporting alternative and parallel change trajectories, based on more active notions of citizenship. By generating knowledge on potential drivers of mobilization and transformation, our findings contribute to the broader field of sustainable lifestyles, collaborative governance, civic engagement and post-growth (Emerson et al. 2012, Kallis et al. 2018, Hegger et al. 2022). Our work also exposes the limits and potential pitfalls of dominant consumer-oriented lifestyle approaches, and policies to achieve transformative change (Akenji 2014).

METHODOLOGY

Overall research design and approach

Exploring people’s agency and associated inner dimensions in relation to climate change requires a methodology able to capture their “grounded discourse” or “micronarratives” - that is, the perspectives, experiences, and attitudes that underlie their everyday practices. The SenseMaker approach is designed to do just that (Van der Merwe et al. 2019). In this context, we apply Grounded Theory to information-rich responses to identify emerging themes and patterns regarding our research questions. We discuss the themes and patterns identified by our data analyses in relation to current lifestyle environmentalism and degrowth discourses.

The SenseMaker methodology and Grounded Theory

For this study, we employed the SenseMaker methodology to collect data through a survey (N = 1237). SenseMaker is a mixed methods approach that allows survey participants to share micronarratives, which they self-interpret through interactive widgets in a so-called “self-signification” framework. Triads assess the relative importance of three conflicting aspects; dyads indicate the relative strength of a single aspect; and multiple-choice questions provide further insight into the micronarrative, or capture participants’ demographics (Appendix 1 for the complete survey). It can thus be understood as a digital, distributed ethnography that draws on lived experiences and interpretations of the world as primary data (Van der Merwe et al. 2019). Accessing this colloquial form of social knowledge can reveal elements of grounded discourses that reflect public truths, individual and social paradigms, and associated behaviors (Van der Merwe et al. 2019). Since our research questions focus on exploring people’s perceptions, experiences, and sense of agency concerning climate change, this methodology was particularly suitable.

Through a national survey, data were collected between September 2020 and January 2021 with the help of cooperating municipal and civil society actors and a market research firm (Norstat).^[4] While the sample is representative regarding gender, age, education, and income, the present study focuses on the exploration of qualitative analyses of information-rich individuals and groups, as opposed to a previous study using the same dataset (Wamsler et al. 2022b) (more on this below). To do so, we applied Grounded Theory to our qualitative SenseMaker survey data. This approach generated insightful results regarding people’s imaginaries, motivations, perceptions, sense of agency, and associated barriers or drivers.

In accordance with our aims and research questions, the survey was divided into three parts. The first (“everyday life and experiences”) asked respondents to share and reflect on a story (micronarrative) concerning a recent experience or decision that was influenced by climate change. In the second part (“city-level context and actions”) they were asked to share a story about climate change-related decisions or initiatives taken by different actors at the city level. Finally, the third part (“creating the future”) focused on exploring individual and collective responsibility through two open questions. Here, the aim was to capture narratives regarding future pathways for sustainability transformations, including the role of different actors, and people’s capacities and motivations (Appendix 1 for the full survey).

For the data analysis, we first coded our data inductively by identifying information-rich groups within the overall sample and then categorized emerging coding categories (or “themes”). Grounded Theory was then applied to assess the data and identify emerging themes and patterns related to our research questions (Walker and Myrick 2006). Using Nvivo software, entries from the open survey questions were coded line by line, using open, axial, and selective techniques (Hutchison et al. 2010). We conducted three rounds of coding, each focused on one of the three research questions (Appendix 2 for details). Open coding was used to fracture the data and identify emerging themes and patterns (Corbin and Strauss 2008). This was followed by axial coding, which puts the data back together by crosscutting and drawing connections between the identified open categories and subcategories (Corbin and Strauss 2008). Finally, selective coding was applied to capture the essence of our analysis and build theory (Walker and Myrick 2006). In total, 39 categories were identified across the three rounds of coding, each containing 10–60 entries (Appendix 2 for details). In the results section, we refer to these categories as “groups.” In-depth data analyses revealed an “engaged” group (n = 72). This group of participants exhibited a higher level of engagement and generally also provided more detailed and reflective answers about the relationship between their way of thinking and how they act (on climate change). We isolated this group’s answers and compared them to the other participants’ responses (Appendix 4) as we were interested in exploring information-rich data to understand processes that underlie people’s sense of agency and engagement. After analysing the qualitative data, the results from closed-ended triads, dyads and multiple-choice questions were used to challenge, support, or develop the categories that emerged from the coding process.^[5] Accordingly, in the results section, we compare our qualitative results with the overall dataset and quantitative findings.

Based on the outcome of the coding exercise, in the discussion and conclusion section we discuss our findings through the lens of our theoretical framework (lifestyle environmentalism and post-growth).

As mentioned above, in earlier work we used the same sample to run qualitative and quantitative statistical analyses (comparative, correlation, and goodness of fit) of the overall sample, including respondents’ demographic factors (Wamsler et al. 2022b). While the latter study provides a representative overview of the sample, it does not present in-depth analyses of the qualitative information, particularly information-rich individuals and groups, to better understand underlying processes and aspects.

A methodological novelty of the present study is that it combines SenseMaker and Grounded Theory approaches, and it contrasts the qualitative results with both quantitative findings and wider framings and discourses in the field of lifestyle environmentalism and post-growth. The comparison with our previous, quantitative findings allowed us to compare, nuance, challenge and, ultimately, develop the themes identified in an abductive manner. This approach supported a deeper exploration of the data, providing a more complete picture. At the same time, qualitative analyses are related to individual stories, as opposed to more general questions, which can be seen as a limitation. This limitation is addressed by the SenseMaker methodology that allows participants to provide additional information through their own interpretations of the data in the form of follow-up questions and by combining and contrasting qualitative and quantitative questions and analyses.

Lifestyle environmentalism and post-growth discourses on climate action and agency

In response to climate change, social inequality, environmental degradation, and declining trust in governmental institutions, citizens have developed various non-traditional forms of civic engagement. A widespread form is so-called lifestyle environmentalism, which targets changes in everyday life, such as consumption practices. De Moor (2017) distinguishes lifestyle movements based on their individual or collective level of organization, and direct or indirect strategic logics. These movements have often tended towards encouraging individualized forms of engagement within the private sphere (such as shopping habits), as opposed to encouraging collective action in the public sphere (e.g., through public advocacy; Haenfler et al. 2012). More recent developments, such as sustainable materialism, place a stronger emphasis on people collaboratively creating alternative and localized systems of (re)production. The latter encompasses areas such as food, energy and clothing (Schlosberg and Craven 2019). The transformative potential of related strategies can, however, be limited. This relates to the fact that climate change is an intricate process that is embedded in a broader, asymmetric world system (Martínez-Alier 2012, Hornborg 2019).

Accordingly, the climate crisis is intrinsically linked to other crises, such as financial crises, neo-colonialism, and global inequality that are, in turn, rooted in modern societies’ dominant social paradigm, which is characterized by overconsumption, extractivism, and economic growth (Kallis et al. 2018, Leichenko and O’Brien 2020, Wamsler et al. 2021, Walsh et al. 2021, Brand and Wissen 2022, IPCC 2022a). This dominant social paradigm is linked to inner aspects such as (self-maximizing) individualism, materialism, competition, and scientific ontologies characterized by dualism and empiricism, all of which are increasingly seen as inadequate to address the complex and wicked challenges of the climate crisis (Böhme et al. 2022, Buch-Hansen and Nesterova 2023).

Better understanding how ordinary citizens perceive their role, and act within and against the dominant social paradigm, is important for developing a framework for inclusive and collaborative change. The latter relates to the notion of active citizens, which views people’s agency as reaching beyond their purchasing power (Islar and Busch 2016). In contrast to discourses on sustainable consumption, which see citizens purely as consumers, it can reduce the complexity of environmental problems and commodify proposed solutions (Kenis 2015). Alternative approaches that envision a future with a critical approach to economic growth have emerged under the banner of post-growth, with degrowth being among the most popular strands. In a degrowth framework, not only is growth itself questioned, but also the “ideology of growth” as a “system of representation” that renders everything in economic terms (Fournier 2008:529). This is accompanied by a critique of commodification (Kallis et al. 2015) and the “omnipresence of market-based relations in society” (Demaria et al. 2013:209). There are also less radical, growth-skeptic or growth-agnostic perspectives, which proposes abandoning economic growth as a measure of progress, and instead focus on enacting effective environmental and social policies (van den Bergh and Kallis 2012, King et al. 2023). Overall, post-growth alternatives aim to detach the public dialogue from economism and overcome economic growth as a social objective in and of itself (Kallis et al. 2015).

There are close linkages between the post-growth discourses and inner transformation for sustainability. For instance, three values are said to promote a post-growth future: (1) sufficiency as an ethic of living and being satisfied with what is ecologically sustainable, (2) autonomy as an individual and collective principle of freedom and self-limitation, and (3) care as the commitment to caring for humans, nonhumans, and the shared biosphere (Parrique 2019). Accordingly, Buch-Hansen and Nesterova (2023) argue that degrowth entails inner growth as it touches upon various dimensions of social being, including how humans relate to one another, nonhumans, and nature. This mirrors the inner-outer transformation discourse that emphasizes the role of people’s relationship to self, others, and nature, to address climate change and other interrelated societal crises (Wamsler et al. 2021). Nevertheless, various degrowth proponents continue to treat questions of inner change as irrelevant, limiting their engagement with radical political change based on ethical arguments (cf. Buch-Hansen and Nesterova 2023). At the same time, there are more and more studies that acknowledge the need for increasing consideration of inner dimensions such as values for facilitating sustainability transformation (e.g., Horcea-Milcu 2022, Pascual et al. 2023). This is in line with emergent research on inner transformation for sustainability that shows the fundamental role of inner dimensions (including individual and collective capacities, worldviews, and values), and which has the potential to advance current post-growth debates (cf. Wamsler et al. 2021, Ives et al. 2023).

Even though post-growth scholarship has grown immensely in recent decades, few studies have looked at its linkages to inner dimensions for supporting change at local, regional and national levels, such as via people’s beliefs and sense of agency. To address this gap, in this article we explore connections between people’s beliefs, sense of agency and individual and collective action with respect to a spectrum of issues ranging from lifestyle environmentalism to post-growth.

RESULTS

In the following subsections we present our results in relation to our three research questions.

How people relate to, and act on, climate change

In sum, the following patterns were identified regarding how people relate to, and act on climate change:

• People’s actions are mostly confined to small changes in habits. They reflect dominant social paradigms in which lifestyles are incentivized by materialism and consumption.
• People’s perceptions regarding their possibilities to act are limited and constrained to their role of being a consumer.
• At the same time, for some, climate change has disrupted their mainstream modes of thinking and associated actions, leading to a shift in their relationship to, and engagement with, climate change.
• While climate change is often experienced as an abstract, distant phenomenon, people try to address and materialize it through small-scale everyday choices.
• Climate change creates tensions and conflicts for individuals across many levels, not necessarily because they lack the commitment to act, but because it conflicts with currently incentivized lifestyles (the underlying dominant social paradigms and related sustainability approaches).
• People who are more aware of the entanglement of individual, collective, and system change also seem to be more engaged.

When asked to share a recently-taken action or decision related to climate change, most respondents cite activities that are embedded in (but do not break with) their everyday routines and lifestyle. Almost all mention changes in practices that are tied to current, dominant social paradigms, expressed as a lifestyle centered on work and consumption. Examples range from making more eco-friendly shopping choices, cycling to work, or choosing a more sustainable service provider. Dyad 1, which asks to what extent climate change influences personal choices and experiences, supports this result (Appendix 3). In fact, the majority of respondents state that they do consider climate change in their daily actions.

Only in a few cases do respondents report more fundamental lifestyle changes. For example, one individual had changed career path after 15 years to help companies and organizations become more sustainable; another decided not to pursue a master’s degree to engage more with climate activism. These changes reflect how climate change can be a driver for disrupting mental and practical habits and routines.

During our analysis, we identified two distinct groups: those who were changing more significant components of their life, which we call the “engaged” group (n = 72), and those who were making minor lifestyle changes (consisting of most of the remaining coded sample). In both groups, it was clear that climate change, as a perceived phenomenon, has made people challenge their ways of thinking (either within or challenging the dominant social paradigm). The following two examples illustrate this unifying theme:

It has struck me lately how many new things are produced all the time. New clothes, new things in the form of electronics or something as simple as kitchen accessories. For most people, it is natural to go to a store when they need something for the home or themselves. But there is mass production. All of this is produced somewhere, and it uses power and energy and, above all, money. Why do we feel that everything has to be new all the time? [...] We must stop living in such hysteria, it eats away at our environment; we produce and throw away, produce and throw away constantly.

I have decided to stop driving and instead cycle to work. I took the decision when I was suddenly struck by how stupid it was to have a car at all when I both live and work in the city. I found myself taking the car everywhere, even if the distance was short. [...]. I decided to park the car for six months to see how it would go. I [now] feel much better both physically and mentally, I have lost weight, made an effort for the climate and the planet, and saved a lot of money, so the decision was easy. After those six months, I gave the car away.

These quotes show how climate change awareness can make individuals question taken-for-granted, or unconscious assumptions. Whether it be consumption patterns or perceptions about how society functions, almost all the coded respondents treated climate change as something they are concerned about, and that requires modifying their daily life to a certain extend.

Further analyses of this identified pattern reveals that the extent to which people manifest their concerns varies considerably. As illustrated by the two previous quotes, climate change awareness often creates contradictions, tensions, and micro-conflicts in everyday life. Confronting these issues requires participants to challenge dominant mindsets and norms to varying degrees, such as (in the previous quoted cases) those related to car ownership and consumerism.

For some respondents, embracing this type of change means giving up something without having an alternative immediately available. One example is a recent university graduate, who stated that they had recently quit a new job amid the Covid-19 pandemic, due to their employer’s lack of environmental concern, but who had not found another, more appropriate position. Although this example showcases a rare degree of commitment, it also illustrates how engagement can be limited by structural constraints.

Respondents who report breaking with old mental patterns describe how this has helped them to find new perspectives regarding their own role and forms of engagement. The following quote illustrates this process:

There’s a lot I’ve changed after my ‘awakening’ a few years ago. I have fundamentally changed my consumption. I see myself as a citizen of the world [...]. From flying frequently a few years ago, this has basically come to a full stop. On top of that, I basically don’t eat meat anymore, I buy less stuff in general and I’ve redirected my savings. What I believe in and have done, above all, is to do what I can to inspire other people to change, with the knowledge that no change can begin at any other level than at the individual level. [...]

Together, the described results illustrate how respondents’ sense of agency concerning climate change is continuously negotiated and navigated in relation to prevailing social paradigms and related modes of (re)production and consumption. Climate change thus becomes, in this context, an abstract phenomenon that can support a cognitive break with old routines and materialize through a change in practices. Being an active citizen thus requires an ongoing effort to go against the tide. The people in the engaged group (who do challenge current paradigms in their actions) more often express a recognition of the entangled relationship between inner and outer change. They write about related issues in the way they describe their actions and decisions, how they reason, related reflections on social norms and expectations, and how that relates to changes they have made in their lives. Interestingly, the answers of this group are also more balanced; they consider that technical, cognitive, and emotional capacities are equally important for addressing climate change and related governmental, private, and civil society action (Appendix 4, T5 and T7).^[6]

What motivates climate change engagement in everyday life - individually and in collaboration?

Our analysis of what motivates engagement in everyday life identified the following five patterns:

• The most commonly-expressed motivating factor is a general concern and care for future generations and the planet.
• Many express a conviction that individual engagement and agency are, to some extent, needed to support transformation.
• Feeling part of a community is seen as important for individual engagement (e.g., to share a vision and as a source of hope).
• Several respondents share anecdotes about their personal experience of the negative effects of climate change, which has motivated them to change certain aspects of their life.
• The degree to which individuals perceive that they can effectively engage in meaningful climate action influences people’s level of engagement. This perceived degree of autonomy contrasts with other, less active respondents who feel alienated and lack a sense of agency.

The results show that general concerns for the environment and future generations are the most commonly-expressed motivating factors. The quantitative data also confirms this, showing that the majority of people seem to be mainly driven by a sense of care for the environment and the lives of future generations (Triad 1 and 2, Appendix 3). While future generations are referred to frequently, notably respondents’ children or future children, fewer express concern for distant populations and associated issues of climate justice.

A large group of respondents note the importance of individual and collective engagement for systemic change and transformation. Within this group, some emphasize that it is a duty (“everyone must do their bit” or “[...] we can all do something”), indicating that shared responsibility and collectivism are important values. Others express a belief in individual agency as a creative force that can fundamentally alter the course of development and not simply sustain current trajectories. Connecting this finding to the overall sample, it can be seen that most respondents not only believe that they can exert influence, but also deem it important to do so (Triad 3 and Dyad 5, Appendix 3).

Our analyses also found that the engaged group, in particular, highlights the importance of acting as part of a group or community. In addition, they share more stories about the way in which different actors work together (Appendix 4). Communities and collective action are here often seen as a refuge where individuals can find empowerment and feel part of a shared vision. This driver is, for instance, expressed as “the need to meet other people who are confronting the most important questions facing us, however serious, with a sense of active hope!” or as “[a] feeling of community and emotional connection - because that is what matters in life.” Communities are also said to serve as a forum to develop new ideas and share honest reflections that support engagement. Meeting with other people can, thus, inspire new channels of engagement, as illustrated by the quote below:

My contact with our countryside and the concrete efforts that are being made by the people who live there has provided me with food for thought. We need groups of people like this; people who not only rethink, but also create different contexts to be active in. Therefore, my longing for a concrete change resulted in taking a weekend course in organic farming. There are already many practical ways to make use of nature together, and the conviction to start growing something myself is teaching me a lot about how nature works, and what it needs. The people who are taking action in these contexts are leading the way for the rest of us in reducing [our resource use] and recycling. It is good to be able to discuss this time of transition with those who are already on the way.

A theme that emerged within the same pattern was how communities have both affective and pragmatic components that influence agency and collaboration. While the data reveals a few illustrative cases where people who are seeking meaning have explored ways to engage (concrete examples include transition networks, and practices for sharing access to goods and services), such actions are not widespread among most respondents. This point is also confirmed by the observation that, when asked to provide a story about an initiative or action on the city level, almost no one mentioned an example corresponding to the types of engagement given above. While many cannot think of anything at all, most respondents who did share an example mention a one-directional top-down initiative; that is, an initiative (often from municipal or state actors) that does not support collaboration with citizens, nor enable them to engage and influence its process or design. The quantitative data supports related aspects. It revealed, for instance, that most city-level actions involved an actor who works in isolation, while there are considerably fewer examples of collaboration (64% vs. 27%, Appendix 2).

Our analysis also shows that both positive and negative emotions can motivate individual and collective engagement. As stated, care (for the environment and future generations) is most common, and being part of a community can invoke other positive emotions such as hope or courage. Negative emotions are, in turn, often related to an experience of climate change-related impacts. They include grief, which for some becomes a motivation to live a more environmentally-friendly life. A shortage of water (during a heat wave) led one respondent, for instance, to reduce their water consumption. For others, warmer winters are seen as an incentive to eat less meat. These described connections illustrate that respondents translate real-life events into (what they deem) is a set of suitable responsive actions, through a discursive realm of imagined and real linkages and possibilities.

The final pattern that emerges relates to the degree to which an individual can carry out individual and collective actions that they deem meaningful and impactful; we term this autonomy. Among the engaged group, this theme emerged as an underlying factor in the majority of cases. Autonomy also touches upon some of the other themes outlined above, such as a belief in the importance of one’s own agency and engagement for systemic change and seeing oneself as acting as part of a wider community. The notion of autonomy contrasts with behavioral nudges, such as a tax on plastic bags, which respondents frequently mention as deeply frustrating.

Autonomy can be contrasted with alienation. Among respondents who express emotions of anger and frustration, most also indicate that they feel a lack of agency because their current individual actions do not seem to have any meaningful impact regarding climate change. The following quote is an illustrative example:

I see today’s sustainability discussion as one-sided; households must spend their valuable free time on various time-consuming actions and activities for the benefit of the climate. At the same time, companies only act in a climate-friendly manner if they will make a profit from it. [...] The environmental and climate issue is, today, an income issue. Paradoxically, the richest emit the most, while they are the ones who can afford the expensive environmentally-friendly alternatives.

Our analysis indicates that alienation, and an associated lack of meaning, are closely related to a lack of a sense of agency and action-taking. This relates to one’s possibilities to act, individually and collectively, from the personal to the systemic level. The identified autonomy-alienation dichotomy can be understood as the degree to which the individual feels that they can exercise and pursue change through their agency. Put together, our findings show that the factors that may motivate and enable this notion of agency include a belief or worldview that individual agency is linked to systemic change; being part of a community with a shared vision; concerns for future generations; and the ability to take part in meaningful action (autonomy).

Imaginaries: possible transformation pathways and associated drivers

This section presents the results of the analysis of which transformation pathways are perceived as important to achieve future change and the factors that empower people to act individually and collectively. The following patterns were identified:

• While most respondents mention external, technical solutions such as electric cars and renewable energy as key pathways for a sustainable future, other narratives emerge. The latter revolve around alternative lifestyles, including increased citizen engagement and new community structures.
• Central to the latter is the management and (re)distribution of responsibilities and a reconsideration of desirable societal goals. Within this theme, two complementary understandings arise:
• Empowering individuals is key. This understanding is linked to the importance given to creating new spaces for engagement and broader opportunities for different lifestyles through nurturing new paradigms (through new societal goals and associated systemic changes).
• Collective mobilization is key to ensure that each actor manages their fair share of responsibility. In this context, respondents highlighted that polluting industries and governments worldwide need to take more responsibility.

Many respondents see the prevailing economic system, and related lifestyles, hinged on economic growth, materialism, profit, and consumption, as significant obstacles to a fossil-free future. As stated by a respondent, “the prevailing economic structures are not a solution to the problem, as these structures are one of the leading roots of the problem.” Another describes what they view as a type of path-dependency:

I think the Western world has made the biggest mistake in that they only trust money, and they do not care about people or nature, just GROWTH. That’s all they want, and it’s absolutely WRONG, we have to reduce emissions drastically, otherwise the biggest disaster will come, and we won’t be able to cope with it!

Others explicitly recognize the unsustainable social paradigms that the current system builds on, and state that “[to] re-evaluate economic growth - we need to change our mindset - collectively.” Another respondent states that:

(...) we need to re-evaluate what we value most, money / consumption / individualism or more leisure/ culture/ collectivism. We must begin to understand and take seriously that we are part of a larger context, and that everything is connected. That all life is closely connected down to the smallest cell level.

Such calls for systemic re-evaluation appear throughout the data, particularly among the engaged group. Linkages between inner, collective, and systems change are also mentioned in this context. For example, one respondent wants to see more time given to engaging with sustainable practices:

Create time. Only in this way can people, regardless of their role (private, political, business, civil society, research, media, etc.), have the opportunity to make sustainable decisions, rather than fall into the filter bubble / hamster wheel / the prevailing narrative that surrounds them.

The significance of this theme is confirmed by comparing it to the overall sample, particularly to people’s answers regarding how the work of local and national governments should be judged. Of the three options (wellbeing, economic growth, and personal freedom), most indicate that wellbeing (often in combination with the other two goals) is most important (Triad 6, Appendix 3). Interestingly, the engaged group, in particular, considers wellbeing as a more worthy societal goal.

In the context of departing from the conventional economic growth model, we identify a range of potential future actions in the data, which emphasize transitioning from consumerist practices to more convivial alternatives, particularly among the engaged group. Examples include spaces where people can be part of what they perceive as meaningful change, and embody new worldviews, purposes, and approaches needed to support sustainable transformations. Comments range from “more civic and communal initiatives [...], for example, initiatives to share goods and services” to “local engagement and small-scalability.”

Significant parallels can be drawn between these envisioned future imaginaries, and the driving forces behind respondent engagement, as discussed in the preceding sub-section. Notably, there is a clear alignment with the emphasis on community and autonomy in respondents’ motivations. This alignment is exemplified by their references to spaces such as farmers’ markets, self-sufficiency practices, and sharing services. These serve as the embodiment of values that challenge prevailing social paradigms such as consumerism. It appears that many individuals, especially in the engaged group, perceive consumerism as dictating the terms of their engagement, or as shaping structural opportunities for meaningful action.

Within the overall sample, many respondents note the need to (re)consider the role and responsibility of larger societal actors. They demand, for instance, greater international cooperation, making national and foreign governments take action, and ensuring that businesses and corporations adopt more sustainable practices. Accordingly, when asked who should be mainly responsible for addressing climate change, respondents see private, public, and civil spheres as equally responsible. However, governmental actors stand out (Triad 5, Appendix 3). The qualitative analysis strengthened these quantitative outcomes by revealing how respondents tend to perceive their role in transformation efforts. Starting with government, and its relation to the private sector, one group of respondents expresses the need to put more pressure on powerful private actors (notably multinational corporations). Proposed actions include higher taxation and a tighter legal framework. Another group call for the private sector to take more responsibility, without providing much detail about how.

Across the different groups, two principal functions of government are seen as crucial to support transformation: i) limiting the harmful practices of polluting businesses, corporations, and industries; and ii) supporting local, collaborative initiatives. One group of responses also suggests that functions must go hand in hand with an ethos of pursuing wellbeing across individual, collective, and planetary levels, and an end to the pursuit of economic growth for its own sake.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide important insights into the interplay between people’s motivation, sense of agency, and social paradigms, with direct implications for sustainability policy and practice. They can be summarized under four crosscutting themes, which all shed light on the role of individuals as potential change agents in addressing complex social-ecological challenges such as climate change. In the following, we first present the four themes by summarizing related findings and linking them to the broader body of knowledge on lifestyle environmentalism and post-growth. On this basis, we present the implications of our findings for sustainability policy and practice.

1. Linking social paradigms and engagement: moving from inaction to action

The first crosscutting theme relates to the interplay between engagement and the societal frame in which people act on climate issues, both individually and collectively. Our findings show that people’s actions often align with the principles of lifestyle environmentalism, encompassing behaviors such as eco-friendly shopping choices and recycling practices (Stolle et al. 2005) that align with modern societies’ social paradigm. In other words, their actions predominantly operate within structures and norms that prioritize economic growth, consumption, and materialism. The habitual nature of lifestyle choices within established structures and norms makes it difficult to break free from routines and roles that are rooted in dominant social paradigms (Linder et al. 2022). Accordingly, people’s actions often reflect a relatively limited sense of agency and engagement.

2. Extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation: moving from individualistic actions to collective change

The second crosscutting theme delves further into the relationship between the motivations that drive engagement and the tangible actions individuals undertake. As mentioned, lifestyle environmentalism emerges as a prevalent form of engagement, and it primarily takes the form of individualistic action that rests on short-term and self-centered incentives (cf. Van Lange and Huckelba 2021). This can also be seen as a reflection of our current dominant social paradigm (see previous point). At the same time, our findings confirm other research that emphasizes the role of intrinsic motivators, such as a sense of agency, community and care to transcend and shift behaviors toward collective long-term interests (Steg 2016, Brick et al. 2021). While such motivators are increasingly recognized in post-growth discourses, they have so far not received adequate attention (Pascual et al. 2023).

3. Responsibilisation versus empowerment: moving from imposing to nurturing change

The third crosscutting theme relates to the relationship between responsibility, empowerment, and engagement. Our findings underscore that sustained and transformative climate engagement is supported by certain intrinsic values and capacities, such as care, co-creation, courage, and autonomy (cf. Bristow et al. 2022, Wamsler et al. 2022a, Ives et al. 2023). This also aligns with ongoing discussions on the nexus between degrowth and democracy, emphasizing the need to empower and mobilize (as opposed to imposing) individuals to actively participate in shaping a more sustainable future (Hausknost 2017, Kallis et al. 2018). There is a critical distinction between nurturing change (even on a small scale), and imposing or nudging it. The latter can foster a lack of agency, feelings of injustice, and alienation. This can, in turn, drive polarization and reactions such as the yellow vests protest in France (Martin and Islar 2021, Mehleb et al. 2021).

4. Societal implications: from incremental change to transformation

The fourth crosscutting theme relates to the broader societal implications of the previously-described aspects. In line with emergent research, the need to reconsider the dominant societal goals, and support more integrative inner-outer transformation, becomes evident (cf. Leichenko and O’Brien 2020, Buch-Hansen and Nesterova 2023, Ives et al. 2023). In this context, our findings highlight the need for more collaborative and democratic ways of including and deliberating with citizens (Stirling 2011, Emerson et al. 2012, Elstub and Escobar 2019), which is supported by the degrowth community (Hausknost 2017, Kallis et al. 2018). Collective and bottom-up initiatives, such as democratic assemblies, can create spaces for the deliberation of agency and shared values that are necessary for visioning and creating desirable futures (Fazey et al. 2018, Elstub and Escobar 2019, Pascual et al. 2023), including post-growth ones. This is fundamentally different from the context of lifestyle environmentalism, as a focus on “everyday practices” and incremental change is not generally informed by a critical view of underlying systems of governance and economics.

The European Green Deal formally reflects considerations of citizen engagement to some extent (EU 2019). However, it fails to fully recognize the importance of intrinsic capacities and relationships that lie at the core of inner-outer transformation, and an understanding of citizens as active agents of change, who have a rightful claim to influence transformation pathways (Hausknost 2017, Fazey et al. 2018, Wamsler et al. 2021, Pascual et al. 2023). Wamsler et al. (2021) provide a roadmap for such a transformation. In line with our findings, the authors’ model of change stresses that different, complementary measures are needed to support such change across individual, collective, and system levels. Measures at the individual and collective level can involve diverse forms of education or training (formal or informal, direct or indirect), that can help people to tap into their inner capacities and potential and nourish fields of change. This entails creating learning and working environments that can help to discover individual thinking and internalized cultural messages of separation, superiority, and instrumentalization, and develop alternative approaches. The latter can take the form of climate assemblies, leadership courses, exhibitions, festivals, etc. Measures at the system level aim to systematically mainstream the consideration of inner dimensions into existing institutional and political systems. In line with our findings, it entails modifying organizations’ aims, vision statements, policies, communication, and working structures. A concrete example would be to change communication structures by moving away from the common meta messages, which support feelings of powerlessness and anxiety, toward communicating a new theory of change that supports agency and hope, recognizing that inner development, collective and systems change are never separate but co-created (Wamsler et al. 2021, Wamsler and Osberg 2022, Ives et al. 2023).

Concluding remarks

Taken together, our findings and the identified crosscutting themes offer new perspectives on climate change engagement. They strengthen criticism of the information deficit model (Suldovsky 2017), rational choice models (Whitmarsh et al. 2013), and the focus on extrinsic motivators (Thiermann and Sheate 2020), which fail to account for inner dimensions of sustainability. At the same time, they consolidate a growing consensus in the field of environmental psychology, namely that intrinsic motivation (driven by internal factors such as individual and collective values and worldviews) is more effective and long-lasting than extrinsically-motivated behavior (driven by incentives and regulations; Thiermann and Sheate 2020). Our results thus highlight how an inner dimensions perspective is relevant for nurturing people’s full potential based on their intrinsic capacities, motivations, and values. These attributes can be nourished and strengthened through both educational activities, and their systematic mainstreaming in existing organizations, and policies to create enabling environments for change (Wamsler and Osberg 2022).

In conclusion, our study contributes to ongoing discourses on climate change engagement by analyzing the complex interplay between agency, social paradigms, motivations, and imaginaries. The transition from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation, the cultivation of inner capacities, and the reconsideration of societal priorities and narratives are essential steps toward fostering sustainable and impactful engagement. We call for integrated measures at the individual, collective, and system level to support this.

__________

^[1] It is, however, important to note that higher-income households tend to emit considerably more than medium- or lower-income households (Andersson 2014, Nässén et al. 2015).

^[2] Transformations, as such, can be understood as “the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions make the existing system untenable” (Walker et al. 2004:3). In relation to agency, Westley et al. (2013) argue that people’s agency within these systems is a vital component in the understanding of transformation. Inner transformation, in turn, refers in this context to a profound shift in perspectives towards a more relational paradigm, by emphasizing, expanding and strengthening interdependency and connectedness between ourselves, others, and the world we share, and cultivating a deeply caring and compassionate quality of such relationships (Wamsler et al. 2020, 2021, Ives et al. 2023).

^[3] We will henceforth use “post-growth” as the umbrella-term for the varying debates on growth-critical and sceptic strands of thought (Patterson et al. 2017, King et al. 2023).

^[4] The sample of respondents identified by Norstad was based on data provided by Statistics Sweden. The latter government agency is responsible for producing official statistics for decision-making, debate, and research.

^[5] Appendix 3 for the full results of the triads, dyads, and multiple-choice questions.

^[6] MCQ3 shows that the engaged group engages significantly more in the following types of actions: vote for environmental parties (16.5% vs 12%); attend marches and other forms of movements/ protests (10% vs 6%); being active members of environmental organizations (7.5% vs 5%); and volunteering (7% vs 2.5%). On the other hand, they engage less (compared to the remaining sample) in signing petitions (15.7% vs 16.1%). As the engaged group do more “active” actions (attending rallies, volunteering, etc.) and vote for environmental parties, while “passive” actions (signing petitions, donating money, etc.) remain somewhat the same between the two groups, it is reasonable to conclude that the engaged group is more ready to use their individual agency for system change.

LITERATURE CITED

Akenji, L. 2014. Consumer scapegoatism and limits to green consumerism. Journal of Cleaner Production 63:13-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.022

Anderson, K., J. F. Broderick, and I. Stoddard. 2020. A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of ‛climate progressive’ nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways. Climate Policy 20(10):1290-1304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728209

Andersson, D. 2014. What characterizes persons with high and low GHG emissions? Lifestyles, well-being and values among Swedish households. Dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Avelino, F. 2021. Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation. Journal of Political Power 14(3):425-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1875307

Blennow, K., and J. Persson. 2009. Climate change: motivation for taking measure to adapt. Global Environmental Change 19(1):100-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.003

Böhme, J., Z. Walsh, and C. Wamsler. 2022. Sustainable lifestyles: towards a relational approach. Sustainability Science 17:2063–2076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01117-y

Brand, U., and M. Wissen. 2022. The hegemony of the global exploitation of humans and nature. Pages 373-388 in Z. Cope and I. Ness, editors. The Oxford handbook of economic imperialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.53

Brick, C., A. Bosshard, and L. Whitmarsh. 2021. Motivation and climate change: a review. Current Opinion in Psychology 42:82-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.001

Bristow, J., R. Bell, and C. Wamsler. 2022. Reconnection: meeting the climate crisis inside out. The Mindfulness Initiative and LUCSUS, Lund, Sweden.

Buch-Hansen, H., and I. Nesterova. 2023. Less and more: conceptualising degrowth transformations. Ecological Economics 205:107731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107731

Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Third edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153

Demaria, F., F. Schneider, F. Sekulova, and J. Martinez-Alier. 2013. What is Degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement. Environmental Values 22(2):191-215. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327113X13581561725194

de Moor, J. 2017. Lifestyle politics and the concept of political participation. Acta Politica 52(2):179-197. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2015.27

Elstub, S., and Ó. Escobar, editors. 2019. Handbook of democratic innovation and governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433862

Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1):1-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011

Fazey, I., P. Moug, S. Allen, K. Beckmann, D. Blackwood, M. Bonaventura, K. Burnett, M. Danson, R. Falconer, A. S. Gagnon, R. Harkness, A. Hodgson, L. Holm, K. N. Irvine, R. Low, C. Lyon, A. Moss, C. Moran, L. Naylor, K. O’Brien, S. Russell, S. Skerratt, J. Rao-Williams, and R. Wolstenholme. 2018. Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda. Climate and Development 10(3):197-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864

Figueres, C., and T. Rivett-Carnac. 2020. The future we choose: surviving the climate crisis. Knopf Publishing Group, New York, New York, USA.

Fischer, J., and M. Riechers. 2019. A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People and Nature 1(1):115-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.13

Fitzpatrick, N., T. Parrique, and I. Cosme. 2022. Exploring degrowth policy proposals: a systematic mapping with thematic synthesis. Journal of Cleaner Production 365:132764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132764

Geels, F. W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33(6):897-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015

Global Footprint Network. (n.d.). Country Trends: Sweden. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=210&type=earth

Haenfler, R., B. Johnson, and E. Jones. 2012. Lifestyle movements: exploring the intersection of lifestyle and social movements. Social Movement Studies 11(1):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.640535

Hausknost, D. 2017. Degrowth and democracy. In C. L. Spash, editor. Routledge handbook of ecological economics. Routledge, Abingdon, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315679747-54

Hegger, D., H. Mees, and C. Wamsler. 2022. The role of citizens in sustainability and climate change governance: taking stock and looking ahead. Environmental Policy and Governance 32(3):161-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1990

Horcea-Milcu, A.-I. 2022. Values as leverage points for sustainability transformation: two pathways for transformation research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 57:101205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101205

Hornborg, A. 2019. Nature, society, and justice in the Anthropocene: unraveling the money-energy-technology complex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108554985

Hügel, S., and A. R. Davies. 2020. Public participation, engagement, and climate change adaptation: a review of the research literature. WIREs Climate Change 11(4):e645. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.645

Hutchison, A. J., L. H. Johnston, and J. D. Breckon. 2010. Using QSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: an account of a worked example. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 13(4):283-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570902996301

Ingle, H. E., and M. Mikulewicz. 2020. Mental health and climate change: tackling invisible injustice. Lancet Planetary Health 4(4):e128-e130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30081-4

IPCC. 2022a. Skea, J., P. Shukla, A. Reisinger, R. Slade, M. Pathak, A. Khourdaji, R. van Diemen, A. Abdulla, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, Q. Bai, I. Bashmakov, C. Bataille, G. Berndes, G. Blanco, K. Blok, M. Bustamante, E. Byers, L. Cabeza, K. Calvin, C. Carraro, L. Clarke, A. Cowie, F. Creutzig, D. Korecha Dadi, D. Dasgupta, H. de Coninck, F. Denton, S. Dhakal, N. Dubash, O. Geden, M. Grubb, C. Guivarch, S. Gupta, A. Hahmann, K. Halsnaes, P. Jaramillo, K. Jiang, F. Jotzo, T. Yong Jung, S. Ribeiro, S. Khennas, Ş. Kılkış, S. Krebiehl, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, W. Lamb, F. Lecocq, S. Lwasa, N. Mahmoud, C. Mbow, D. McCollum, J. Minx, C. Mitchell, R. Mrabet, Y. Mulugetta, G. Nabuurs, G. Nemet, P. Newman, L. Niamir, L. Nilsson, S. Nugroho, C. Okereke, S. Pachauri, A. Patt, R. Pichs-Madruga, J. Pereira, L. Rajamani, K. Riahi, J. Roy, Y. Saheb, R. Schaeffer, K. Seto, S. Some, L. Steg, F. Toth, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, D. van Vuuren, E. Verdolini, P. Vyas, Y. Wei, M. Williams, H. Winkler, editors. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

IPCC. 2022b. Pörtner, H.-O., D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama, editors. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/

Islar, M., and H. Busch. 2016. “We are not in this to save the polar bears!” - the link between community renewable energy development and ecological citizenship. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 29(3):303-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2016.1188684

Ives, C. D., R. Freeth, and J. Fischer. 2020. Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of inner worlds. Ambio 49(1):208-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w

Ives, C. D., N. Schäpke, C. Woiwode, and C. Wamsler. 2023. IMAGINE sustainability: integrated inner-outer transformation in research, education and practice. Sustainability Science 18:2777-2786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01368-3

Jessop, B. 2010. Cultural political economy and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies 3(3-4):336-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171003619741

Johansson, E. 2021. Participatory futures thinking in the African context of sustainability challenges and socio-environmental change. Ecology and Society 26(4):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12617-260403

Kallis, G., F. Demaria, and G. D’Alisa. 2015. Degrowth. Pages 24-30 in J. D. Wright, editor. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Second edition. Elsevier, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.91041-9

Kallis, G., V. Kostakis, S. Lange, B. Muraca, S. Paulson, and M. Schmelzer. 2018. Research on degrowth. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43(1):291-316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941

Kapoor, R. 2007. Transforming self and society: plural paths to human emancipation. Futures 39(5):475-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.10.001

Kenis, A. 2015. From individual to collective change and beyond: ecological citizenship and politicisation. Dissertation, Arenberg Doctoral School.

King, L. C., I. Savin, and S. Drews. 2023. Shades of green growth scepticism among climate policy researchers. Forthcoming in Nature Sustainability 1-5. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4516544

Köhler, J., F. W. Geels, F. Kern, J. Markard, E. Onsongo, A. Wieczorek, F. Alkemade, F. Avelino, A. Bergek, F. Boons, L. Fünfschilling, D. Hess, G. Holtz, S. Hyysalo, K. Jenkins, P. Kivimaa, M. Martiskainen, A. McMeekin, M. S. Mühlemeier, B. Nykvist, B. Pel, R. Raven, H. Rohracher, B. Sandén, J. Schot, B. Sovacool, B. Turnheim, D. Welch, and P. Wells. 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31:1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004

Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3):239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401

Lawrance, D. E., R. Thompson, G. Fontana, and D. N. Jennings. 2021. The impact of climate change on mental health and emotional wellbeing: current evidence and implications for policy and practice. International Review of Psychiatry 34(5):443-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2022.2128725

Leichenko, R., and K. O’Brien. 2020. Climate and society: transforming the future. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.

Linder, N., M. Giusti, K. Samuelsson, and S. Barthel. 2022. Pro-environmental habits: an underexplored research agenda in sustainability science. Ambio 51(3):546-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01619-6

Martin, M., and M. Islar. 2021. The ‛end of the world’ vs. the ‛end of the month’: understanding social resistance to sustainability transition agendas, a lesson from the Yellow Vests in France. Sustainability Science 16(2):601-614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00877-9

Martínez-Alier, J. 2012. Environmental justice and economic degrowth: an alliance between two movements. Capitalism Nature Socialism 23(1):51-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2011.648839

Matti, S., C. Petersson, and C. Söderberg. 2021. The Swedish climate policy framework as a means for climate policy integration: an assessment. Climate Policy 21(9):1146-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1930510

Meadows, D. 1999. Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland.

Mehleb, R. I., G. Kallis, and C. Zografos. 2021. A discourse analysis of yellow-vest resistance against carbon taxes. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 40:382-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.08.005

Moser, S. C. 2007. More bad news: the risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. Pages 64-80 in S. C. Moser and L. Dilling, editors. Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535871.006

Mundaca, L., J. Sonnenschein, L. Steg, N. Höhne, and D. Ürge-Vorsatz. 2019. The global expansion of climate mitigation policy interventions, the Talanoa Dialogue and the role of behavioural insights. Environmental Research Communications 1(6):061001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab26d6

Nässén, J., D. Andersson, J. Larsson, and J. Holmberg. 2015. Explaining the variation in greenhouse gas emissions between households: socioeconomic, motivational, and physical factors. Journal of Industrial Ecology 19(3):480-489. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12168

O’Brien, K. 2015. Political agency: the key to tackling climate change. Science 350(6265):1170-1171. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad0267

O’Brien, K. 2018. Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31:153-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010

Oomen, J., J. Hoffman, and M. A. Hajer. 2021. Techniques of futuring: on how imagined futures become socially performative. European Journal of Social Theory 25(2):252-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431020988826

Parrique, T. 2019. The political economy of degrowth. Dissertation (compilation), Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C. B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A. Martin, C. M. Raymond, M. Termansen, A. Vatn, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620(7975):813-823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

Patterson, J., K. Schulz, J. Vervoort, S. van der Hel, O. Widerberg, C. Adler, M. Hurlbert, K. Anderton, M. Sethi, and A. Barau. 2017. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

Pickering, J., T. Hickmann, K. Bäckstrand, A. Kalfagianni, M. Bloomfield, A. Mert, H. Ransan-Cooper, and A. Y. Lo. 2022. Democratising sustainability transformations: assessing the transformative potential of democratic practices in environmental governance. Earth System Governance 11:100131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2021.100131

Schlosberg, D., and L. Craven. 2019. Sustainable materialism: environmental movements and the politics of everyday life. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841500.001.0001

Schubert, C. 2017. Green nudges: do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological Economics 132:329-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.009

Steg, L. 2016. Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41(1):277-292. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085947

Stirling, A. 2011. Pluralising progress: from integrative transitions to transformative diversity. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1(1):82-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.03.005

Stoddard, I., K. Anderson, S. Capstick, W. Carton, J. Depledge, K. Facer, C. Gough, F. Hache, C. Hoolohan, M. Hultman, et al. 2021. Three decades of climate mitigation: why haven’t we bent the global emissions curve? Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46(1):653-689. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104

Stolle, D., M. Hooghe, and M. Micheletti. 2005. Politics in the supermarket: political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review 26(3):245-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105053784

Suldovsky, B. 2017. The information deficit model and climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.301

Swedish Climate Policy Council. 2021. 2021: Klimatpolitiska rådets rapport. https://novus.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/novusklimatrapporthosten2021.pdf

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Allmänheten om klimatet 2021: En kvantitativ undersökning om den svenska allmänhetens syn på lösningar för klimatet. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/contentassets/6ffad3e6018c47cea06e6402f0eea066/rapport-allmanheten-klimatet-2021.pdf

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Konsumtionsbaserade växthusgasutsläpp per person och år. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/data-och-statistik/konsumtion/vaxthusgaser-konsumtionsbaserade-utslapp-per-person

Thiermann, U. B., and W. R. Sheate. 2020. Motivating individuals for social transition: the 2-pathway model and experiential strategies for pro-environmental behaviour. Ecological Economics 174:106668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106668

van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., and G. Kallis. 2012. Growth, a-growth or degrowth to stay within planetary boundaries? Journal of Economic Issues 46(4):909-920. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-3624460404

Van der Merwe, S. E., R. Biggs, R. Preiser, C. Cunningham, D. J. Snowden, K. O’Brien, M. Jenal, M. Vosloo, S. Blignaut, and Z. Goh. 2019. Making sense of complexity: using SenseMaker as a research tool. Systems 7(2):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7020025

Van Lange, P. A. M., and A. L. Huckelba. 2021. Psychological distance: how to make climate change less abstract and closer to the self. Current Opinion in Psychology 42:49-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.03.011

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Walker, D., and F. Myrick. 2006. Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure. Qualitative Health Research 16(4):547-559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305285972

Walsh, Z., J. Böhme, and C. Wamsler. 2021. Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, and education. Ambio 50(1):74-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01322-y

Wamsler, C., I. Hertog, and L. Di Paola. 2022a. Education for sustainability: sourcing inner qualities and capacities for transformation. Pages 49-62 in E. Ivanova and I. Rimanoczy, editors. Revolutionizing sustainability education: stories and tools of mindset transformation. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003229735-6

Wamsler, C., and G. Osberg. 2022. Transformative climate policy mainstreaming - engaging the political and the personal. Global Sustainability 5:e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.11

Wamsler, C., G. Osberg, W. Osika, H. Hendersson, and L. Mundaca. 2021. Linking internal and external transformation for sustainability and climate action: towards a new research and policy agenda. Global Environmental Change 71:102373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102373

Wamsler, C., G. Osberg, A. Panagiotou, B. Smith, P. Stanbridge, W. Osika, and L. Mundaca. 2022b. Meaning-making in a context of climate change: supporting agency and political engagement. Climate Policy 23(7):829-844. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2121254

Wamsler, C., and S. Raggers. 2018. Principles for supporting city-citizen commoning for climate adaptation: from adaptation governance to sustainable transformation. Environmental Science & Policy 85:81-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.021

Wamsler, C., N. Schäpke, C. Fraude, D. Stasiak, T. Bruhn, M. Lawrence, H. Schroeder, and L. Mundaca. 2020. Enabling new mindsets and transformative skills for negotiating and activating climate action: lessons from UNFCCC conferences of the parties. Environmental Science & Policy 112:227-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.005

Westley, F. R., O. Tjornbo, L. Schultz, P. Olsson, C. Folke, B. Crona, and Ö. Bodin. 2013. A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(3):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327

Whitmarsh, L., S. O’Neill, and I. Lorenzoni. 2013. Public engagement with climate change: what do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics 9(1):7-25. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.9.1.7_1

Woiwode, C., N. Schäpke, O. Bina, S. Veciana, I. Kunze, O. Parodi, P. Schweizer-Ries, and C. Wamsler. 2021. Inner transformation to sustainability as a deep leverage point: fostering new avenues for change through dialogue and reflection. Sustainability Science 16(3):841-858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00882-y