Advertisement

Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 27–44 | Cite as

A Map Is Not a Territory—Making Research More Helpful for Sustainable Consumption Policy

  • Eva HeiskanenEmail author
  • Oksana Mont
  • Kate Power
Original Paper

Abstract

The need to make consumption patterns more sustainable is widely acknowledged, yet effective policies for sustainable consumption are lacking. This article examines Nordic policy makers' views on why sustainable consumption research is difficult to apply in policy practice. We draw on the knowledge brokering literature to outline how the challenges of knowledge utilization in policy are connected to knowledge communication practices and to the types and scales of policy problems. Our empirical material is based on in-depth interviews with Nordic civil servants working with sustainable consumption issues. Our findings identify problems in sustainable consumption policy that are well documented in other fields, such as policy makers' lack of time and the inconclusiveness of research findings. However, we also identify more fundamental problems, which relate to administrative fragmentation and to the status of social science in policy making, as well as to the linear model of knowledge use in policy making in which administrators are forced to serve as knowledge brokers between researchers and policy makers. Our research suggests that better forms of knowledge dissemination are not sufficient to overcome these problems. New forms of knowledge co-production are needed, in which researchers, administrators, politicians, and other stakeholders work together to solve real-life problems and build up a shared knowledge community. We conclude by highlighting the implications for researchers aiming to promote change toward more sustainable consumption patterns.

Keywords

Sustainable consumption Policy Research Knowledge brokering 

References

  1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspegren, A. (2002). Miljöinformation som styrmedel: Förstudie. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, A. (2011). Not roadmaps but toolboxes: analysing pioneering national programmes for sustainable consumption and production. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bio Intelligence Service. (2011). Expanding the evidence base for the design of policy influencing consumer. Choice for products and services with environmental impacts (No. Final Report, contract EC DG ENV 07.0307/2009/549862/ETU/F1.). Brussels: European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  5. Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., Hugosson, M., & Brundell-Freij, K. (2012). The Stockholm congestion charges – five years on. Effects, acceptability and lessons learnt (Working papers in Transport Economics 2012:3). Stockholm CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).Google Scholar
  6. Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2003). Action research an opportunity for revitalising research purposes and practices. Qualitative Social Work, 2, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsson, C. (2004). Action research a tool for sustainable development? : Global Action Plan.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, M. J. (2006). Sustainable consumption research as democratic expertise. Journal of consumer policy, 29, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. New York: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  10. EEA. (2009). The benefits of and barriers to Ecological Tax Reform. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency.Google Scholar
  11. Eliasson, J., & Jonsson, L. (2011). The unexpected “yes” : explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm. Transport Policy, 18, 636–647.Google Scholar
  12. Eurobarometer. (2011). Attitudes of European citizens towards the Environment: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism. Policy inquiry in post-positivistic perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs, D., & Lorek, S. (2005). Sustainable consumption governance: a history of promises and failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gergen, K. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20, 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heiskanen, E. (2005). The performative nature of consumer research: consumers' environmental awareness as an example. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes, J., & Clark, R. (2008). Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 702–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IEA. (2012). World Energy Outlook 2012. Paris: International Energy Agency.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IEEP. (2011). EU Natural Resources policy: Signposts on the roadmap to sustainability. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Knight, C., & Lyall, C. (2013). Knowledge brokers: the role of intermediaries in producing research impact. Evidence & Policy, 9, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. K. (1979) Usable Knowledge, Social Science and Problem Solving. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melrose, M. J. (2001) Maximising the rigor of action research: Why would you want to? How could you? Field Methods 13: 160–180Google Scholar
  28. Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental problems and settings. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 994–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud or alarmed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mont, O., Heiskanen, E., Power, K., & Kuusi, H. (2013). Improving Nordic policymaking by dispelling myths on sustainable consumption. Stockholm: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  31. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2002). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nutley, S. M., Walter, J., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence. The Policy Press: How research can inform public services.Google Scholar
  33. Pape, J., Rau, H., Fahy, F., & Davies, A. (2011). Developing policies and instruments for sustainable household consumption: irish experiences and futures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: the promise of ‘realist synthesis’. Evaluation, 8, 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Reason, P., & Torbert, W. R. (2001). The action turn towards a transformational social science. Concepts and Transformations, 6(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reisch, L. (2011). Waltzing with a monster: The challenge of knowledge brokerage between research and policy in the field of sustainable consumption. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption Towards Action and Impact. Retrieved from http://www.sustainableconsumption2011.org/pdf/SuCo11_abstractvolume_corrigendum.pdf
  38. Sheikheldin, G., Krantzberg, G., & Schaefer, K. (2010). Science-seeking behaviour of conservation authorities in Ontario. Environ Manage, 45, 912–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1273–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York and London: Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory. Procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, London, New Dehli: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Thøgersen, J., & Schrader, U. (2012). From knowledge to action—new paths towards sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tourish, D. (2013). Evidence-based management or evidence-oriented organizing? A critical realist perspective. Organization, 20, 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tukker, A., Emmert, S., Charter, M., Vezzoli, C., Sto, E., Munch Andersen, M., et al. (2008). Fostering change to sustainable consumption and production: an evidence based view. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1218–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Verplanken, B. (2011). Old habits and new routes to sustainable behaviour. In S. Moser, L. Wittmarsh, S. O’Neill, & I. Lorenzoni (Eds.), Engaging the public with climate change: Behaviour change and communication. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  47. Ward, V., Smith, S., House, A. & Hamer, S. (2012) Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 297–304.Google Scholar
  48. Weingart, P. (2002). The moment of truth for science. EMBO Rep, 3, 703–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weiss, C. U. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: creation, diffusion, utilization. Science Communication, 1, 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wesselink, A., Buchanan, K. S., Georgiadou, Y., & Turnhout, E. (2013). Technical knowledge, discursive spaces, and politics at the science-policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolff, F., & Schönherr, N. (2011). The impact evaluation of sustainable consumption policy instruments. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. WWF. (2010). Living planet report: World Wildlife Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Consumer Research CentreHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.International Institute for Industrial Environmental EconomicsLund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Copenhagen Resource InstituteCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations