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

==== 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>