Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-17 (section)

=== 17.4.1 Behavioural and Lifestyle Changes ===

<div id="h2-13-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Transitions toward more sustainable development pathways are both an individual and a collective challenge, requiring an examination of the role of values, attitudes, beliefs and structures that shape behaviour, and of the dynamics of social movements and education at the local community, regional and global levels. Labelling the carbon included in products, for example, could help the decision-making process and increase awareness and knowledge. Individual action suggests aggregated but uncoordinated actions taken by individuals, whereas collective sustainability actions involve coordination, a process of participation and governance that may ensure more efficient, equitable and effective outcomes. There is evidence that the behaviour of individuals and households are part of a more encompassing collective action ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.4.1|Section 5.4.1]] ).

Indeed, individual actions are necessary but insufficient to deliver transformative mitigation, and it is suggested that this be coupled with collective actions to accelerate the transition to sustainable development ( [[#Dugast--2019|Dugast et al. 2019]] ). Actors with conflicting interests will compete to frame mitigation technologies that either ‘build or erode’ the legitimacy of the technology, contested framing sites that can occur between incumbent and emerging actors or between actors in new but competing spaces ( [[#Rosenbloom--2016|Rosenbloom et al. 2016]] ). How narratives are built around desired development pathways and specific emerging technologies, as well as how local values are integrated into visions of the future, have relevance for how these experiments are managed and enabled to expand ( [[#Horcea-Milcu--2020|Horcea-Milcu et al. 2020]] ; [[#Lam--2020|Lam et al. 2020]] ).

<div id="17.4.1.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="social-movements-and-education"></span>
==== 17.4.1.1 Social Movements and Education ====

<div id="h3-11-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Sustainable development and deep decarbonisation will involve people and communities being connected locally through various means – including globally via the internet and digital technologies ( [[#Bradbury--2015|Bradbury 2015]] ; [[#Scharmer--2018|Scharmer 2018]] ; Scharmer, C, Kaufer 2015) – in ways that form social fields that allow sustainability to unfold ( [[#Gillard--2016|Gillard et al. 2016]] ), and that prompt other shifts in thinking and behaviour that are consistent with the 1.5°C goal ( [[#O’Brien--2018|O’Brien 2018]] ; [[#Veciana--2018|Veciana and Ottmar 2018]] ). Indeed, social movements serve to develop collective identities, foster collective learning and accelerate collective action ranging from energy justice ( [[#Campos--2020|Campos and Marín-González 2020]] ) ( [[#17.4.5|Section 17.4.5]] ) to restricting fossil fuel extraction and supply ( [[#Piggot--2018|Piggot 2018]] ). This does not apply only to adults: as seen in the ‘Fridays for Future’ marches, the young are also involving themselves politically ( [[#Peterson--2019|Peterson et al. 2019]] ). Many initiatives have started with these marches, including ‘science for future’ and new forms of sustainability science ( [[#Shrivastava--2020|Shrivastava et al. 2020]] ).

It was Theory-U ( [[#Scharmer--2018|Scharmer 2018]] ), building on the work of scholars such as Schein, Lewin and Senge) that inspired a so-called ‘massive open online course’ (MOOC) jointly initiated by the Bhutan Happiness Institute and German Technical Assistance (GIZ) in 2015, since when it has been developed further and adapted to transform business, society and self as one example of how social movements can go together with science and education. It brings together people from different professions, cultures and continents in shared discussions and practices of sustainability. It also included marginalised communities and is shifting towards more sustainable lifestyles in all sectors ( [[#Nikas--2020|Nikas et al. 2020]] ), including climate action.

Moreover, approaches like the ‘Art of Hosting’ ( [[#Sandfort--2015|Sandfort and Quick 2015]] ) and qualitative research methods such as storytelling and first-person research, as well as second-person inquiries, for example (Scharmer, C, Kaufer 2015; [[#Trullen--2004|Trullen and Torbert 2004]] ; Varela 1999), have been employed to bridge differences in cultures and sciences, as well as to forge connections between those working on climate change and sustainable development. Likewise, experiential tools, simulations and role-playing games have been shown to increase knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change, the sense of urgency around action and the desire to pursue further learning ( [[#Ahamer--2013|Ahamer 2013]] ; [[#Eisenack--2013|Eisenack and Reckien 2013]] ; [[#Hallinger--2020|Hallinger et al. 2020]] ; [[#Rooney-Varga--2020|Rooney-Varga et al. 2020]] ).

The results from these research communities reveal how experiential learning takes place and how it encourages bonding between people, society and nature. This can be achieved by going jointly and consciously into nature ( [[#Gioacchino--2019|Gioacchino 2019]] ), by creating spaces for intensive-dialogue sessions with colleagues ( [[#Goldman-Schuyler--2017|Goldman-Schuyler et al. 2017]] ) and forming, for example, a very practical u.lab hub, which involves following the MIT-u.lab course with a local community and is accompanied scientifically ( [[#Pomeroy--2018|Pomeroy and Oliver 2018]] ). Others have pointed to social networks such as the ‘transition initiative’ ( [[#Hopkins--2010|Hopkins 2010]] ), eco-village networks ( [[#Barani--2018|Barani et al. 2018]] ), civil-society movements ( [[#Seyfang--2007|Seyfang and Smith 2007]] ) and intentional communities ( [[#Grinde--2018|Grinde et al. 2018]] ; [[#Veciana--2018|Veciana and Ottmar 2018]] ) as ways of generating the shared understandings that are central to inner and outer transitions, as well as the broader development of social movements. In some cases, these networks build on principles like permaculture to encourage people to ‘observe and interact’, ‘produce no waste’ and ‘design from patterns to details’, not only in agriculture and gardening, but also in sustainable businesses and technologies to reduce CO 2 emissions (Ferguson and Lovell 2014; [[#Lessem--2018|Lessem 2018]] ).

A related line of inquiry involves education for sustainable development (ESD). This builds on the UNESCO programme, ‘ESD for 2030’, and involves core values like peace culture, valuing cultural diversity and living global citizenship. One of the core insights from research on ESC is lifelong education continuing outside the classroom, a lifelong learning process that involves sustained actions by all ages and social segments ( [[#Hume--2015|Hume and Barry 2015]] ) and achieving collaboration ( [[#Munger--2012|Munger and Riemer 2012]] ). Some authors have pointed to good levels of communication either directly or through the internet as the key to facilitating this learning ( [[#Sandfort--2015|Sandfort and Quick 2015]] ). Others have noted that transformative learning – that is, deepening the learning process – is critical because it helps to induce both shared awareness and collective actions ( [[#Brundiers--2010|Brundiers et al. 2010]] ; [[#Singleton--2015|Singleton 2015]] ; [[#Wamsler--2018|Wamsler and Brink 2018]] ).

A final area of work points to the importance of moving toward the knowledge production that underpins awareness-raising ( [[#Pelling--2015|Pelling et al. 2015]] ). The accumulation of applied knowledge is leading increasingly to the co-design of participatory research with local stakeholders who are investigating and transforming their own situations in line with climate action and sustainable development ( [[#Wiek--2012|Wiek et al. 2012]] ; [[#Abson--2017|Abson et al. 2017]] ; [[#Fazey--2018|Fazey et al. 2018]] ).

<div id="17.4.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="habits-values-and-awareness"></span>
==== 17.4.1.2 Habits, Values and Awareness ====

<div id="h3-12-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Many of the cases that explore transitions to sustainable development point to ingrained habits, values and awareness levels as the most persistent yet least visible barriers to a transition. For example, in the transport sector, individuals can quickly become accustomed to personal vehicles, making it difficult for them to transition to sustainable, low-carbon modes of public transport. Demand for high-carbon transportation may also be locked-in, and habits reinforced, if low-cost housing (for instance) is not sufficiently served by more sustainable (i.e., mass transit, safe cycling and walking infrastructure) transportation options ( [[#Mattioli--2020|Mattioli et al. 2020]] ).

This is made all the more challenging because car-manufacturing ‘incumbents’ utilise information campaigns directed at the public, pursue lobbying and consulting with policymakers, and set technical standards that privilege the status quo and prevent the entry of more sustainable innovations ( [[#Smink--2015|Smink et al. 2015]] ; [[#Turnheim--2019|Turnheim and Nykvist 2019]] ). Tools such as congestion pricing, however, have been shown to be effective in motivating the switch from single-occupancy vehicle use to public transit, thus improving air quality and reducing traffic delays in dense city centres ( [[#Baghestani--2020|Baghestani et al. 2020]] ).

Complicating the problem further is that even well-intentioned top-down programmes initiated by an external actor may in some cases ultimately hinder transformative change ( [[#Breukers--2017|Breukers et al. 2017]] ). For instance, in Delhi, India, attempts to introduce ostensibly more sustainable bus rapid transit (BRT) systems failed in part due to an arguably top-down approach that had limited public support. It may nonetheless be difficult to win public support ( [[#Bachus--2018|Bachus and Vanswijgenhoven 2018]] ), and even grassroots initiatives may themselves be contested and dynamic, making it difficult to generate the collective push to drive a bottom-up transition forward ( [[#Hakansson--2018|Hakansson 2018]] ).

However, dominant, top-down approaches and local, grassroots ‘alternative’ approaches and values do overlap and interact. For example, in Manchester, UK, dominant and alternative discourses interact with each other to create sustainable transformations through re-scaling (decentralising) energy generation, creating local engagement with sustainability, supporting green infrastructure to reduce costs, reclaiming local land, transforming industrial infrastructure and creating examples of sustainable living ( [[#Hodson--2017|Hodson et al. 2017]] ).

Embedding local values in higher-level policy frameworks is also significant for forest communities in Nepal and Uganda. Even so, policy intermediaries are not confident that these values will be advanced due largely to an emphasis on carbon accounting and the distribution of benefits ( [[#Reckien--2018|Reckien et al. 2018]] ). In this case, however, norm entrepreneurs were able to promote the importance of local values through the formation of grassroots associations, media campaigns and international support networks ( [[#Reckien--2018|Reckien et al. 2018]] ).

<div id="17.4.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="technological-and-social-innovation"></span>