Culture and low-carbon energy transitions

Abstract

How does culture influence low-carbon energy transitions? How can insights about cultural influences guide energy planners and policymakers trying to stimulate transitions, particularly at a time of rapid technological change? This Review examines the influence of culture on a selection of low-carbon technologies and behavioural practices that reflect different dimensions of sustainability. Based on a typology of low-carbon technology and behaviour, we explore the cultural dimensions of four specific cases: eco-driving, ridesharing, automated vehicles and whole-house retrofits. We conclude with recommendations for those seeking to analyse, understand, develop, demonstrate and deploy low-carbon innovations for sustainable energy transitions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: A technological and behavioural typology of low-carbon transitions.
Fig. 2: Levels of partial and full automation in vehicular mobility.
Fig. 3: Interconnections between home retrofits, EV adoption, ridesharing and AVs.
Fig. 4: A research agenda for culture and low-carbon energy transitions.

References

  1. 1.

    Stephenson, J. Sustainability cultures and energy research: an actor-centred interpretation of cultural theory. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 44, 242–249 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Stephenson, J. et al. The energy cultures framework: exploring the role of norms, practices and material culture in shaping energy behaviour in New Zealand. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 7, 117–123 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sovacool, B. K. & Griffiths, S. The cultural barriers to a low-carbon future: a review of six mobility and energy transitions across 28 countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 119, 109569 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sovacool, B. K. How long will it take? conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 202–215 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2018 (OECD/IEA, 2018).

  6. 6.

    2019 World Energy Issues Monitor (World Energy Council, 2019).

  7. 7.

    BP Energy BP Energy Outlook: 2019 Edition (BP, 2019).

  8. 8.

    Fostering Effective Energy Transition (World Economic Forum, 2019).

  9. 9.

    Energy Perspectives 2018 (Equinor, 2018).

  10. 10.

    Geels, F., Schwanen, T., Sorrell, S., Jenkins, K. & Sovacool, B. K. Reducing energy demand through low carbon innovation: a sociotechnical transitions perspective and thirteen research debates. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 23–35 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sovacool, B. K., Lipson, M. & Chard, R. Temporality, vulnerability, and energy justice in household low carbon innovations. Energy Policy 128, 495–504 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Shove, E., Pantzar, M. & Watson, M. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes (Sage Publishing, Ltd, 2012).

  13. 13.

    Reckwitz, A. Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 5, 243–263 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Jessop, B. Institutional re(turns) and the strategic-relational approach. Environ. Plan. A 33, 1213–1235 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Balmaceda, M. et al. Energy materiality: a conceptual review of multi-disciplinary approaches. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 56, 101220 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rahwan, I. et al. Machine behaviour. Nature 568, 477–486 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Boucher, J. L. in Sustainable Consumption, Promise or Myth: Case Studies from the Field (eds Boucher, J. L. & Heinonen, J.) 64–99 (Cambridge Scholars, 2019).

  18. 18.

    Miller, D. (ed.) Car Cultures (Berg Publishers, 2001).

  19. 19.

    Carrabine, E. & Longhurst, B. Consuming the car: anticipation, use and meaning in contemporary youth culture. Sociol. Rev. 50, 181–196 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Zavalko, A. Applying energy approach in the evaluation of eco-driving skill and eco-driving training of truck drivers. Transp. Res. D 62, 672–684 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sivak, M. & Schoettle, B. Eco-driving: strategic, tactical, and operational decisions of the driver that influence vehicle fuel economy. Transp. Policy 22, 96–99 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Huang, Y. et al. Eco-driving technology for sustainable road transport: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93, 596–609 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Lois, D., Wang, Y., Boggio-Marzet, A. & Monzon, A. Multivariate analysis of fuel consumption related to eco-driving: interaction of driving patterns and external factors. Transp. Res. D 72, 232–242 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M. & Van den Bergh, B. Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 392–404 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ashmore, D. P., Pojani, D., Thoreau, R., Christie, N. & Tyler, N. A. The symbolism of ‘eco cars’ across national cultures: potential implications for policy formulation and transfer. Transp. Res. D 63, 560–575 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Moeckli, J. & Lee, J. D. The Making of Driving Cultures (Univ. Iowa, 2007).

  27. 27.

    Hopkins, D. & Stephenson, J. Generation Y mobilities through the lens of energy cultures: a preliminary exploration of mobility cultures. J. Transp. Geogr. 38, 88–91 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hopkins, D. & Stephenson, J. The replication and reduction of automobility: findings from Aotearoa, New Zealand. J. Transp. Geogr. 56, 92–101 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kuipers, G. The rise and decline of national habitus: Dutch cycling culture and the shaping of national similarity. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 16, 17–35 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Stoffers, M. Cycling as heritage: representing the history of cycling in the Netherlands. J. Transp. Hist. 33, 92–114 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Atchley, P., Shi, J. & Yamamoto, T. Cultural foundations of safety culture: a comparison of traffic safety culture in China, Japan and the United States. Transp. Res. F 26, 317–325 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ellison‐Potter, P., Bell, P. & Deffenbacher, J. The effects of trait driving anger, anonymity, and aggressive stimuli on aggressive driving behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31, 431–443 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Gallus, J., Kirchner, U., Vogt, R. & Benter, T. Impact of driving style and road grade on gaseous exhaust emissions of passenger vehicles measured by a Portable Emission Measurement System (PEMS). Transp. Res. D 52, 215–226 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Faria, M. V., Duarte, G. O., Varella, R. A., Farias, T. L. & Baptista, P. C. Driving for decarbonization: assessing the energy, environmental, and economic benefits of less aggressive driving in Lisbon, Portugal. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47, 113–127 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Driving More Efficiently (United States Department of Energy, accessed 10 December 2019); https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp

  36. 36.

    Ellison, P. A., Govern, J. M., Petri, H. L. & Figler, M. H. Anonymity and Aggressive driving behavior: a field study. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 10, 265–272 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Lupton, D. Monsters in metal cocoons: ‘road rage’ and cyborg bodies. Body Soc. 5, 57–72 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cristea, M. et al. Extending the theory of planned behavior: the role of behavioral options and additional factors in predicting speed behavior. Transp. Res. F 21, 122–132 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Møller, M. & Haustein, S. Peer influence on speeding behaviour among male drivers aged 18 and 28. Accid. Anal. Prev. 64, 92–99 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Horvath, C., Lewis, I. & Watson, B. The beliefs which motivate young male and female drivers to speed: a comparison of low and high intenders. Accid. Anal. Prev. 45, 334–341 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Zhang, T. & Chan, A. The association between driving anger and driving outcomes: a meta-analysis of evidence from the past twenty years. Accid. Anal. Prev. 90, 50–62 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Zhang, X., Qu, X., Tao, D. & Xue, H. The association between sensation seeking and driving outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 123, 222–234 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    de Waard, D., Dijksterhuis, C. & Brookhuis, K. A. Merging into heavy motorway traffic by young and elderly drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41, 588–597 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Musselwhite, C. B. A. & Haddad, H. Exploring older drivers’ perceptions of driving. Eur. J. Ageing 7, 181–188 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Jain, J., Calvert, T., Clayton, B. & Parkhurst, G. Driver Attitudes and Behaviours Literature Review (Centre for Transport & Society, UWE Bristol, 2017).

  46. 46.

    Circella, G. & Alemi, F. in Advances in Transport Policy and Planning Vol. 1 (eds Shiftan, Y. & Kamargianni, M.) 119–144 (Academic Press, 2018).

  47. 47.

    Cai, H., Wang, X., Adriaens, P. & Xu, M. Environmental benefits of taxi ride sharing in Beijing. Energy 174, 503–508 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Chen, X., Zahiri, M. & Zhang, S. Understanding ridesplitting behavior of on-demand ride services: an ensemble learning approach. Transp. Res. C 76, 51–70 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Hertwich, E. G. et al. Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 043004 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Axsen, J. & Sovacool, B. K. The roles of users in electric, shared, and automated mobility transitions. Transp. Res. D 71, 1–21 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Watanabe, C., Naveed, K., Neittaanmäki, P. & Fox, B. Consolidated challenge to social demand for resilient platforms - lessons from Uber’s global expansion. Technol. Soc. 48, 33–53 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Boyd, E. B. How Uber’s new deal will help it take control of the Middle East. Fast Company (26 March 2019).

  53. 53.

    Ghosh, S. & Thapar, A. Careem: Raising a Unicorn (Harvard Business School, 2017).

  54. 54.

    Davis, J., Vo, M. & Yang, A. Grab vs. Uber vs. Go-Jek: Digital Platform-based International Competition in South East Asia (INSEAD, 2018).

  55. 55.

    Yu, H. For some platforms, network effects are no match for local know-how. Harvard Business Review (26 July 2018).

  56. 56.

    Dajani, H. Emiratis get in the driving seat for Careem. The National (14 February 2019); https://go.nature.com/2x77wno

  57. 57.

    AFED Arab Environment: Sustainable Consumption. Annual Report of Arab Forum for Environment and Development, 2015 (Technical Publications, 2015).

  58. 58.

    Sovacool, B. K. & Axsen, J. Functional, symbolic and societal frames for automobility: implications for sustainability transitions. Transp. Res. A 118, 730–746 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Nielsen, J. R. et al. Of ‘white crows’ and ‘cash savers:’ a qualitative study of travel behavior and perceptions of ridesharing in Denmark. Transp. Res. A 78, 113–123 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    SAE J3016A: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (SAE International, accessed 12 May 2017); http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/

  61. 61.

    Sprei, F. Disrupting mobility. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 238–242 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Sperling, D., Pike, S. & Chase, R. in Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future (ed. Sperling, D.) 1–20 (Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, 2018).

  63. 63.

    Milakis, D., van Arem, B. & van Wee, B. Policy and society related implications of automated driving: a review of literature and directions for future research. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 21, 324–348 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Taiebat, M., Brown, A. L., Safford, H. R., Qu, S. & Xu, M. A. Review on energy, environmental, and sustainability implications of connected and automated vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 11449–11465 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Marletto, G. Who will drive the transition to self-driving? A socio-technical analysis of the future impact of automated vehicles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 139, 221–234 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Wadud, Z., MacKenzie, D. & Leiby, P. Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles. Transp. Res. A 86, 1–18 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Liu, F., Zhao, F., Liu, Z. & Hao, H. Can autonomous vehicle reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A country-level evaluation. Energy Policy 132, 462–473 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Axsen, J. & Sovacool, B. K. The roles of users in electric, shared and automated mobility transitions. Transp. Res. D 71, 1–21 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Rolnick, D. et al. Tackling climate change with machine learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05433 (2019).

  70. 70.

    Arbib, J. & Seba, T. Rethinking Transportation 2020-2030: The Disruption of Transportation and the Collapse of the Internal-Combustion Vehicle and Oil Industries (RethinkX, 2017).

  71. 71.

    Tennant, C., Stares, S. & Howard, S. Public discomfort at the prospect of autonomous vehicles: building on previous surveys to measure attitudes in 11 countries. Transp. Res. F 64, 98–118 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Gkartzonikas, C. & Gkritza, K. What have we learned? A review of stated preference and choice studies on autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. C 98, 323–337 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Hao, K. This is how AI bias really happens—and why it’s so hard to fix. MIT Technology Review (4 February 2019); https://go.nature.com/2xaxZjZ

  74. 74.

    Wilson, B., Hoffman, J. & Morgenstern, J. Predictive inequity in object detection. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.11097 (2019).

  75. 75.

    Rasouli, A. & Tsotsos, J. K. Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: a survey of theory and practice. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11773 (2018).

  76. 76.

    Pele, M. et al. Cultural influence of social information use in pedestrian road-crossing behaviours. R. Soc. Open Sci 4, 160739 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Awad, E. et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563, 59–64 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    2019 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index (KPMG, 2019).

  79. 79.

    Self-Driving Vehicles in an Urban Context (World Economic Forum and Boston Consulting Group, 2015).

  80. 80.

    Sanderson, D. Driverless cars risk being racist, new research suggests. The National (12 March 2019); https://go.nature.com/2Xe0Nmn

  81. 81.

    Hudson, J., Orviska, M. & Hunady, J. People’s attitudes to autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. A 121, 164–176 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Mannion, P. Vulnerable road user detection: state-of-the-art and open challenges. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03601 (2019).

  83. 83.

    Jones, P., Li, X., Perisoglou, E. & Patterson, J. Five energy retrofit houses in South Wales. Energy Build. 154, 335–342 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Kerr, N., Gouldson, A. & Barrett, J. The rationale for energy efficiency policy: assessing the recognition of the multiple benefits of energy efficiency retrofit policy. Energy Policy 106, 212–221 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Brown, D., Sorrell, S. & Kivimaa, P. Worth the risk? An evaluation of alternative finance mechanisms for residential retrofit. Energy Policy 128, 418–430 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Satish, B. K. & Brennan, J. Understanding the energy use behaviour of British Indian households to shape optimised sustainable housing strategies in existing housing stock. Sustain. Cities Soc. 48, 101542 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Miller, W. et al. Involving occupants in net-zero-energy solar housing retrofits: an Australian sub-tropical case study. Solar Energy 159, 390–404 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Collins, M. & Curtis, J. An examination of the abandonment of applications for energy efficiency retrofit grants in Ireland. Energy Policy 100, 260–270 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Sunikka-Blank, M. & Galvin, R. Irrational homeowners? How aesthetics and heritage values influence thermal retrofit decisions in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 97–108 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Khalid, R. & Sunnika-Blank, M. Homely social practices, uncanny electricity demands. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 34, 122–131 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Wilhite, H. & Lutzenhiser, L. Social loading and sustainable consumption. Adv. Consum. Res. 26, 281–287 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Ryghaug, M. & Toftaker, M. A Transformative practice? Meaning, competence, and material aspects of driving electric cars in Norway. Nat. Cult. 9, 146–163 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Sagberg, F., Selpi, Piccinini, G. F. B. & Engström, J. A review of research on driving styles and road safety. Hum. Factors 57, 1248–1275 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Roberts, L. Outlining the Commercial Applications of Autonomous Vehicles (Lux Research, 2019).

  95. 95.

    How Uber Makes Money (CB Insights, 2018).

  96. 96.

    Hao, K. The three challenges keeping cars from being fully autonomous. MIT Technology Review (23 April 2019); https://go.nature.com/34dgQCp

  97. 97.

    Greenblatt, J. B. & Saxena, S. Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions of US light-duty vehicles. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 860–863 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Bardazzi, R. & Pazienza, M. G. Switch off the light, please! Energy use, aging population and consumption habits. Energy Econ. 65, 161–171 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Dew, N., Aten, K. & Ferrer, G. How many admirals does it take to change a light bulb? Organizational innovation, energy efficiency, and the United States Navy’s battle over LED lighting. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 27, 57–67 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Norgaard, K. Nature, culture and the production of race. Section Culture: Newsletter of the ASA Culture Section Vol. 31 (2019); https://go.nature.com/2whidTS

  101. 101.

    Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J. & Sorrell, S. Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45, 12–42 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Li, R., Crowe, J., Leifer, D., Zou, L. & Schoof, J. Beyond big data: social media challenges and opportunities for understanding social perception of energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 56, 101217 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Schumacher, E. F. Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered 3rd edn (Vintage, 2011).

  104. 104.

    Panetta, K. A data and analytics leader’s guide to data literacy. Gartner (6 February 2019); https://go.nature.com/3bTNETj

  105. 105.

    IEA Digitalization & Energy (OECD/IEA, 2017).

  106. 106.

    Vinuesa, R. et al. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Commun. 11, 233 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Sovacool, B. K. What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 1–29 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Rasmussen, J. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modeling problem. Safe. Sci. 27, 183–213 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support from UK Research and Innovation through the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions, grant reference no. EP/R035288/1. We thank the members of the Energy and Social Science Network (EASSN), and the Sustainability Transitions Research Network (STRN), for sharing studies to help build the evidence base for the Review. M. Jefferson and T. Fawcett also offered very helpful suggestions for improvement.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

B.K.S. and S.G. conceived of and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin K. Sovacool.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sovacool, B.K., Griffiths, S. Culture and low-carbon energy transitions. Nat Sustain 3, 685–693 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0519-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing