Energy Efficiency

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 497–519 | Cite as

Mobility, food and housing: responsibility, individual consumption and demand-side policies in European deep decarbonisation pathways

  • Karen R. MobergEmail author
  • Carlo Aall
  • Florian Dorner
  • Elsa Reimerson
  • Jean-Paul Ceron
  • Bore Sköld
  • Benjamin K. Sovacool
  • Valentino Piana
Original Article


The Brundtland Commission report ‘Our Common Future’ highlighted that residents in high-income countries lead lifestyles incompatible with planetary boundaries. Three decades later, consumption-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have continued to increase. To achieve ‘well below 2°C’ and 1.5 °C goals, consumption-related emissions must be substantially reduced in the coming decades. This paper provides insights on how to pursue 1.5 °C pathways through changes in household consumption. It draws on original data gathered in the project ‘HOusehold Preferences for reducing greenhouse gas Emissions in four European High Income Countries’ (HOPE) to analyse policies targeting and affecting direct and indirect GHG emissions in three household consumption categories (mobility, housing and food) in four countries (France, Germany, Norway and Sweden) and four medium-sized cities. This paper demonstrates discrepancies and similarities between current governmental policy approaches in the four countries and household perceptions of consumption changes with respect to policy mechanisms, responsibilities and space for acting on mitigation. Current demand-side policy strategies rely heavily on instruments of self-governance and nudging behaviour. Whilst some of our data suggests that households broadly accept this, it also suggests that governments could more actively lead and steer demand-side mitigation via adjusting and supplementing a comprehensive list of 20 climate policy measures currently in place in one or more of the case countries. The paper concludes by suggesting areas for more effective policy change and household-level climate change mitigation to feed the next update of climate pledges under the Paris Agreement.


Household energy use Behaviour Climate change mitigation Climate policy Energy consumption Governmentality 



The HOPE project is supported by the following national funding bodies under the umbrella of the Joint Program Initiative (JPI) Climate, a pan-European intergovernmental research platform: the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-JCLI-0001-03), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01UV1414A), the Research Council of Norway (244905/E10) and the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (214–2014-1717). Thanks to the people that contributed: household respondents; local, regional and national policymakers; and to the HOPE research team. Also, thanks to the reviewers for taking the time to provide constructive comments that helped us improved our article.


The HOPE project is supported by the following national funding bodies under the umbrella of the Joint Program Initiative (JPI) Climate, a pan-European intergovernmental research platform: the French National Research Agency (ANR-14-JCLI-0001-03), the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01UV1414A), the Research Council of Norway (244905/E10) and the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (214–2014-1717).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

All participants were given written information about the study objectives and modalities (points of assessment, length of questionnaires), data preparation and pseudonymised data storage, the expected amount of commitment, the voluntary nature of participation and their right to withdraw at any time. Furthermore, participants were informed verbally about the study purpose and procedures and were given the chance to ask questions. All participants provided written informed consent. All countries assure that data processing and storage is done in line with European and national data protection rules. Where necessary, the study procedures were approved by an ethical committee. In Norway, the Norwegian Center for Research Data approved the study (44003). In Germany, the Institutional Review Board of the Medical Faculty by the University of Heidelberg approved the study (S-611/2015). In Sweden, the study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå (2015/357-31Ö). In France, the project needed to fullfil the obligations of the CNIL (Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés), no specific ethical approval was necessary.

Supplementary material

12053_2018_9708_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (27 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 27 kb)


  1. Aall, C. (2001). Local agenda 21 as means of interpreting and introducing the new policy issue of sustainable production and consumption – Experiences from seven Norwegian municipalities. In W. Lafferty (Ed.), Sustainable communities in Europe (pp. 82–100). London: Earthscan Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Aall, C., & Hille, J. (2010). Consumption – A missing dimension in climate policy. In R. Bhaskar, C. Frank, K. G. Høyer, P. Naess, & J. Parker (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity and climate change: Transforming knowledge and practice for our global future (pp. 85–100). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asara, V., Otero, I., Demaria, F., & Corbera, E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a social-ecological transformation: Repoliticizing sustainability. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asdal, K., Jacobsen, E. (2009). Forbrukerens ansvar. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
  6. Bacchi, C. L. (2010). Foucault, policy and rule: Challenging the problem-solving paradigm. Aalborg: Institut for Historie, Internationale Studier og Samfundsforhold, Aalborg Universitet. FREIA's tekstserie, No. 74,
  7. Bäckstrand, G., & Ingelstam, L. (2006). Enough! Global challenges and responsible lifestyles. Development Dialogue, 47, 97–147.Google Scholar
  8. Bager, S., & Mundaca, L. (2017). Making ‘smart meters’ smarter? Insights from a Behavioural economics pilot field experiment in Copenhagen, Denmark. Energy Research & Social Science, 28(June), 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berthoû, S. K. G. (2013). The everyday challenges of pro-environmental practices. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 12(1), 53–68.Google Scholar
  10. Berthou, S. K. G., & Ebbesen, B. V. (2016). Local governing of climate change in Denmark: Recasting citizens as consumers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(3), 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bows-Larkin, A. (2015). All adrift: Aviation, shipping, and climate change policy. Climate Policy, 15(6), 681–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chilvers, J., & Longhurst, N. (2016). Participation in transition(s): Reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 585–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daly, H. E. (1968). On economics as a life science. Journal of Political Economy, 76(3), 392–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dauvergne, P. (2010). The problem of consumption. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Demaria, F., Schneider, F., Sekulova, F., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2013). What is degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement. Environmental Values, 22(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C., & Vandenberghe, M. P. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. PNAS, 106(44), 18452–18456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dubois, G., & Ceron, J. P. (2015). Consommation et modes de vie: Une autre perspective sur les politiques d’atténuation du changement climatique. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 23(supplément), S76–S90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ehrlich, P. R. & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science, 171(3977), 1212–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faruqui, A., & Sergici, S. (2010). Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: A survey of 15 experiments. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 38(2), 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality: With two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonisation. Science, 357(6357), 1242–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). Energy and economic myths. New York: Pergannon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Haas, R., Eichhammer, W., Huber, C., Langniss, O., Lorenzoni, A., Madlener, R., Menanteau, P., Huber, C., Langniss, O., Lorenzoni, A., Madlener, R., Menanteau, P., Morthorst, P. E., Martins, A., Oniszk, A., Schleich, J., Smith, A., Vass, Z., & Verbruggen, A. (2004). How to promote renewable energy systems successfully and effectively. Energy Policy, 32(6), 833–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herrmann, A., Fischer, H., Amelung, D., Litvine, D., Aall, C., Andersson, C., Baltruszewicz, M., Barbier, C., Bruyère, S., Bénévise, F., Dubois, G., Louis, V. R., Nilsson, M., Richardsen Moberg, K., Sköld, B., & Sauerborn, R. (2017). Household preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries: Does health information matter? A mixed-methods study protocol. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 71. Scholar
  28. Hertwich, E. G., & Peters, G. P. (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16), 6414–6420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Higgins, W., & Hallström, K. T. (2007). Standardization, globalization and rationalities of government. Organization, 14(5), 685–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howell, R. (2009). The experience of carbon rationing action groups: Implications for a personal carbon allowances policy. UK Energy Research Centre, demand reduction theme. University of Oxford. Accessed 28 October 2017.
  31. Høyer, K. G. (2008). Sustainable development. In D. Brune, D. Chapman, M. O. Gwynne, & J. M. Pacyna (Eds.), The global environment: Science, technology and management (pp. 1185–1205). Weinheim: VCH Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Huntington, H., & Smith, E. (2011). Mitigating climate change through energy efficiency: An introduction and overview. The Energy Journal, 32(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  33. IEA (2012). World Energy Outlook 2012. OECD/IEA Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  34. IEA (2017). Energy Technology Perspectives 2017: Catalysing Energy Technology Transformations. OECD/IEA. Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  35. IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J. C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  37. IPCC (2017). Chapter outline of the working group III contribution to the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6). Forty-sixth session of the IPCC, 6–10 September 2017. Montreal:. Accessed 17. April 2018.
  38. Jackson, T. (2006). The Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  39. Keskitalo, E., Sirkku Juhola, C. H., & Westerhoff, L. (2012). Climate change as governmentality: Technologies of Government for adaptation in three European countries. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(4), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knill, C., Tosun, J. (2012). Public policy: A new introduction. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Kriegler, E., Luderer, G., Bauer, N., Baumstark, L., Fujimori, S., Popp, A., Rogelj, J., Strefler, J., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2018). Pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C: A tale of turning around in no time? Philosophical Transactions Royal Society A, 376, 20160457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kunreuther, H., & Weber, E. U. (2014). Aiding decision making to reduce the impacts of climate change. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(3), 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lodge, M. (2007). Comparative public policy. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 273–288). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  45. Loiter, J. M., & Norberg-Bohm, V. (1999). Technology policy and renewable energy: Public roles in the development of new energy technologies. Energy Policy, 27(2), 85–97. Scholar
  46. Maniates, M. F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E., & Zysman, J. (2015). Winning coalitions for climate policy. Science, 349, 1170–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mendonça, M., Jacobs, D., & Sovacool, B. K. (2009). Powering the green economy: The feed-in tariff handbook. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  49. Millar, R., Fuglestvedt, J., Friedlingstein, P., Rogelj, J., Grubb, M., Matthews, H. D., Skeie, R. B., Forster, P. M., Frame, D. J., & Allen, M. R. (2017). Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Nature Geoscience, 10, 741–747. Scholar
  50. Miller, P., & Rose, N. S. (1995). Production, identity, and Democracy. Theory and Society, 23(3), 427–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller, P., & Rose, N. S. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Reprinted. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mishan, E. J. (1977). The economic growth debate: An assessment. London: G. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  53. Mol, A. P. J., Spaargaren, G., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2009). Ecological modernisation: Three decades of policy, practice and theoretical reflection. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernisation reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice (pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Mundaca, L., & Markandya, A. (2016). Assessing regional progress towards a ‘green energy economy. Applied Energy, 179(October), 1372–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OECD (2011). Climate change and tourism policies in OECD countries. OECD, UNEP. Paris: OECD, UNEP.Google Scholar
  56. OECD (n.d.). What are equivalence scales? OECD Project on Income Distribution and Poverty. Accessed 27 October 2017.
  57. Oels, A. (2005). Rendering climate change governable: From biopower to advanced liberal government? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riahi, K., Kriegler, E., Johnson, N., Bertram, C., den Elzen, M., Eom, J., Schaeffer, M., Edmonds, J., Isaac, M., Krey, V., Longden, T., Luderer, G., Méjean, A., McCollum, D. L., Mima, S., Turton, H., van Vuuren, D. P., Wada, K., Bosetti, V., Capros, P., Criqui, P., Hamdi-Cherif, M., Kainuma, M., & Edenhofer, O. (2015). Locked into Copenhagen pledges? Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Kriegler, E., Schaeffer, M., Krey, V., & Riahi, K. (2015). Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rogelj, J., Popp, A., Calvin, K. V., Luderer, G., Emmerling, J., Gernaat, D., Fujimori, S., Strefler, J., Hasegawa, T., Marangoni, G., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Doelman, J., Drouet, L., Edmonds, J., Fricko, O., Harmsen, M., Havlík, P., Humpenöder, F., Stehfest, E., & Tavoni, M. (2018). Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45, 1620–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rose, N. S., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruzzenenti, F., Bertoldi, P. (2017). Energy Conservation Policies in the Light of the Energetics of Evolution. In N. Labanca (Ed.), Complex Systems and Social Practices in Energy Transitions - Framing Energy Sustainability in the Time of Renewables (147–170). Switzerland: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  65. Sachs, I., Kapp, K. W., Iglesias, E. V. (1972). Development and environment: Report and working papers of a panel of experts, Founex, Switzerland, June 4–12, 1971. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
  66. Sachs, I., Ceron, J. P., Godard, O., Hourcade, J. C., Théry, D., Vallet, G., & Vinaver, K. (1973). Suggestions pour un programme environnement/développement, étude effectuée pour le programme des nations unies pour l'environnement. Paris: CIRED.Google Scholar
  67. Sanderson, B. M., O'Neill, B. C., & Tebaldi, C. (2016). What would it take to achieve the Paris temperature targets? Geophysical Reserch Letters, 43, 7133–7142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Santarius, T., Walnum, H. J., & Aall, C. (2016). Rethinking climate and energy policies: New perspectives on the rebound phenomenon. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schleussner, C. F., Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Lissner, T., Licker, R., Fischer, E. M., Knutti, R., Levermann, A., Frieler, K., & Hare, W. (2016). Science and policy characteristics of the Paris agreement temperature goal. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 827–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2005). It’s not my fault: Global warming and individual moral obligations. Advances in the Economics of Environmental Resources, 5, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, P., Davis, S. J., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J., Gabrielle, B., et al. (2015). Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6(1), 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sovacool, B. K. (2009). The importance of comprehensiveness in renewable electricity and energy-efficiency policy. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1529–1541. Scholar
  74. Sovacool, B. K. (2016). How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sovacool, B. K., Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D., & Goldthau, A. (2016). Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy, 16024, 1–6.Google Scholar
  76. Sovacool, B. K., Kivimaa, P., Hielscher, S., & Jenkins, K. (2017). Vulnerability and resistance in the United Kingdom’s smart meter transition. Energy Policy, 109, 767–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stern, P. C., Janda, K. B., Brown, M. A., Steg, L., Vine, E. L., Lutzenhiser, L., Janda, K. B., Brown, M. A., Steg, L., Vine, E. L., & Lutzenhiser, L. (2016). Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nature Energy, 1.
  78. The Economist (2003). A greener Bush. 13 February 2003, The Economist. Accessed 27 October 2017.
  79. Treib, O., Bähr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tvinnereim, E., Fløttum, K., Gjerstad, Ø., Johannesson, M. P., & Norbø, Å. D. (2017). Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions. Global Environmental Change, 46, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. UNECE. (2010). Catalysing change: The UNECE response to the climate countdown. United Nations (UN). Belley: Imprimerie Nouvelle Gonnet.Google Scholar
  82. UNEP (2017). The Emissions Gap Report 2017. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.Google Scholar
  83. UNFCCC (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations.>. Accessed 25 October 2017.
  84. UNFCCC (n.d.). NDC Registry (interim). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Accessed 19 October 2017.
  85. Utenriksdepartementet (2012). Utenfor og innenfor: Norges avtaler med EU (NOU 2012:2). Oslo: Utenriksdepartementet.Google Scholar
  86. Villadsen, K. 2010. Forord til den danske udgave. In M. Dean (Ed.), Governmentality. Magt og styring i det moderne samfund. Frederiksberg: Forlaget Sociologi.Google Scholar
  87. Voß, J., P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nölting, B. (2007). Steering for sustainable development: A typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence. Uncertainty and Distributed Power. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3–4), 193–212.Google Scholar
  88. Walters, W. (2012). Governmentality: Critical encounters. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. WCED. (1987). Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Weimer, D. L., Vining, A. R. (2016). Policy analysis (5th ed). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Xue, J., Walnum, H. J., Aall, C., & Næss, P. (2016). Two contrasting scenarios for a zero-emission future in a high-consumption society. Sustainability, 9.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Norway Research InstituteSogndalNorway
  2. 2.Institute of Public HealthHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  4. 4.Vaartoe – Centre for Sami ResearchUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  5. 5.Sweden CentreArctic Research Centre at Umeå University (Arcum)UmeåSweden
  6. 6.Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le DéveloppementParisFrance
  7. 7.Department of Public Health and Clinical MedicineUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  8. 8.Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), School of Business, Management and EconomicsUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  9. 9.Center for Energy Technologies, Department of Business Development and TechnologyAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  10. 10.Economics Web InstituteMonterotondoItaly

Personalised recommendations