Advertisement

Enabling and disabling policy environments for community-led sustainability transitions

  • Filippo CelataEmail author
  • Raffaella Coletti
Original Article

Abstract

This paper explores the role public policies have or may have in favoring or disfavoring the emergence, development, and diffusion of community-based sustainability initiatives. To this end, it presents evidence collected through a survey of 63 initiatives operating in six city-regions in Europe and across various domains of active citizenship: alternative food networks, community energy, sustainable mobility, and recycling. Results show that although they are mostly driven by pragmatic goals, the case of apolitical grassroots initiatives is quite rare. Most initiatives aspire both to challenge the political regime and strengthen their relationships with policy-makers. These two dimensions are correlated, showing that an “antagonist” attitude is as well infrequent. When it comes to the content of these relationships, the picture becomes more problematic: while one-half of the initiatives have been supported by public policies, almost two-thirds of them encountered some policy obstacle. The issue is very much context-specific. We show that in those countries or domains where the policy environment is more supportive—in the UK, Finland, waste and energy—the political activities of initiatives are also more dialogical. However, in unsupportive contexts—Central and Southern Europe, and food domain—they tend to be oppositional. Based on an analysis of the most recurrent policy barriers, the paper identifies some crucial areas where public policies can make a difference in facilitating or hindering a community-led sustainability transition.

Keywords

Community-based initiatives Active citizenship Sustainability transitions Grassroots innovation Environmental governance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors owe a very special thanks to all the participants to the project TESS: Towards European Societal Sustainability (www.tess-transition.eu), who gave a crucial contribution to the ideas developed in the article. The content of the article is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Funding information

The research received the financial support of the European Union Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no. 603705. The European Commission is not liable for any use that can be made of the information contained herein.

Supplementary material

10113_2019_1471_MOESM1_ESM.docx (41 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 40 kb)

References

  1. Argüelles L, Anguelovski I, Dinnie E (2017) Power and privilege in alternative civic practices: examining imaginaries of change and embedded rationalities in community economies. Geoforum 86:30–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes P (2015) The political economy of localization in the transition movement. Community Dev J 50(2):312–326.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsu042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker SL, Franke F, Gläsel A (2017) Regime pressures and organizational forms of community-based sustainability initiatives. Environ Innov Soc Trans 29:5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.004
  4. Buijs A, Mattijssen T, Van der Jagt A, Ambrose-Oji B, Andersson E, Elands B, Steen Møller M (2016) Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 22:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Celata F, Coletti R (2018) Community organizing, sustainability transitions and public policies: introduction to the special section. Environ Innov Soc Trans 29:1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.01.003
  6. Celata F, Sanna V, Hendrickson C, Reusser D, Holsten A, Pradhan P, Martellozzo F, Argüelles L, Passani A, Revell P, Prampolini A, Rabbi S, Ward N, Nastase C, Coletti R (2015) Assessment data sheets for community-based initiatives including the ecosystem services and green-infrastructure (ES-GI) assessment toolkit. TESS project deliverable 22, www.tess-transition.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/TESS-Deliverable_2.2_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 2 February 2018
  7. Conner D, Levine R (2007) Circles of association: the connections of community–based food systems. J Hunger Environ Nutr 3(4):37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J477v01n03_02 Google Scholar
  8. Creamer E (2015) The double-edged sword of grant funding: a study of community-led climate change initiatives in remote rural Scotland. Local Environ 20(9):981–999.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.885937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies A (2007) A wasted opportunity? Civil society and waste management in Ireland. Environ Polit 16(1):52–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010601073564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dinnie E, Holstead KL (2017) The influence of public funding on community-based sustainability projects in Scotland. Environ Innov Soc Trans 29:25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.08.003
  11. Ehnert F, Kern F, Borgström S, Gorissen L, Maschmeyer S, Egermann M (2018) Urban sustainability transitions in a context of multi-level governance: a comparison of four European states. Environ Innov Soc Trans 26:101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Felicetti A (2013) Localism and the transition movement. Policy Stud 34(5–6):559–574.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2013.862449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin A, Marsden T (2015) (Dis)connected communities and sustainable place-making. Local Environ 20(8):940–956.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.879852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghose R, Pettygrove M (2014) Urban community gardens as spaces of citizenship. Antipode 46(4):1092–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson-Graham JK (2006) A postcapitalist politics. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodman D, Dupuis E, Goodman M (2012) Alternative food networks: knowledge, practice, and politics. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hain JJ, Ault GW, Galloway S, Cruden A, McDonald JR (2005) Additional renewable energy growth through small–scale community orientated energy policies. Energy Policy 33(9):1199–1212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.11.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargreaves T, Hielscher S, Seyfang G, Smith A (2013) Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):868–880.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hess D (2013) Industrial fields and countervailing power: the transformation of distributed solar energy in the United States. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):847–855.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joseph K (2006) Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management. Habitat Int 30(4):863–871.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luckin D, Sharp L (2004) Remaking local governance through community participation? The case of the UK community waste sector. Urban Stud 41(8):1485–1505.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000226966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magnani N, Osti G (2016) Does civil society matter? Challenges and strategies of grassroots initiatives in Italy’s energy transition. Energy Res Soc Sci 13:148–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mason K, Whitehead M (2012) Transition urbanism and the contested politics of ethical place making. Antipode 44(2):493–516.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00868.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McClintock N (2014) Radical, reformist, and garden–variety neoliberal: coming to terms with urban agriculture’s contradictions. Local Environ 19(2):147–171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.752797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robbins C, Rowe J (2002) Unresolved responsibilities: exploring local democratisation and sustainable development through a community–based waste reduction initiative. Local Gov Stud 28(1):37–58.  https://doi.org/10.1080/714004128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosol M (2012) Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy? Green space production in Berlin. Antipode 44(1):239–257.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00861.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seyfang G, Haxeltine A (2012) Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community–based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 30(3):381–400.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c10222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seyfang G, Jin Park J, Smith A (2013) A thousand flowers booming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 61:977–989.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith A, Seyfang G (2013) Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):827–829.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith A, Hargreaves T, Hielscher S, Martiskainen M, Seyfang G (2016) Making the most of community energies: three perspectives on grassroots innovation. Environ Plan A 48(2):407–432.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15597908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor Aiken G (2014) Common sense community? The climate challenge fund’s official and tacit community construction. Scott Geogr J 130(3):207–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2014.921322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walker G (2008) What are the barriers and incentives for community–owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy 36(12):4401–4405.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wekerle G (2004) Food justice movements. Policy, planning and networks. J Plan Educ Res 23(4):378–386.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04264886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento Metodi e Modelli per l’Economia, il Territorio e la FinanzaUniversity of Rome La SapienzaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations