Future visioning for sustainable household practices: spaces for sustainability learning?

Davies, Anna; Doyle, Ruth; Pape, Jessica

doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01054.x

Cited by 48 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These were explicitly designed to evaluate learning processes and stakeholder perceptions of POP backcasting approaches. The responses from the survey indicate that many found the experiment provided them with a new space for interaction, collaboration, and nexus thinking (Davies, Doyle, and Pape 2012). The process brought together stakeholders from different arenas, many of whom are either frequently in conflict (e.g., environmental groups and industry) or operating in dislocated spheres of activity (e.g., community activists and product developers).…”

Section: Conclusion: Creating Space For Imagining Socioecological Tramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The future is seen as a safe space to envision disruptive innovations, to elaborate weak signals in social trends or roll-out of prototypical technologies. As a result, studies explicitly focused on imagining alternative socioecological futures are expanding through a range of foresight methods including visioning, backcasting, and transition planning, methods that are orchestrated by a variety of actors and organizations across scales and sectors (Tukker and Fedrigo 2009;Davies, Doyle, and Pape 2012). As critiqued by those emphasizing the importance of social practices, however, these techniques often focus on elite perspectives, valorize technological fixes, and give limited attention to the governance and practice of everyday consumption, thus limiting their capacity to achieve substantive societal transformations (Shove and Walker 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transforming Household Consumption: From Backcasting to HomeLabs Experiments

Davies

Doyle

2015

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open Select article to confirm conditions of access and use.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: Creating Space For Imagining Socioecological Tramentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming Household Consumption: From Backcasting to HomeLabs Experiments

Davies

Doyle

2015

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While back-casting was first proposed in the 1970s in relation to energy studies (Lovins, 1977), participatory back-casting has gained in popularity since the early 1990s, with researchers in The Netherlands leading the way (Erkman, 2004). Participative visioning and back-casting workshops have been found to stimulate an understanding of the cultural norms of consumption (Davies et al, 2012), and have used various techniques such as role playing to further stimulate innovative ideas towards future sustainable lifestyles (Guillen and Nicolau, 2013). In the case of energy consumption and production, one important thematic area within "sustainability" research, these approaches are relevant when it comes to understanding how people learn new technologies, such as smart metres and energy-efficient lighting, and project themselves into future scenarios, but become all the more relevant when we consider households as having the potential to become producers of renewable energy in an increasingly liberalized energy market or "prosumers" (Darby, 2012).…”

Section: Historical Perspectives: the Emergence Of Living Labsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to keep a living lab alive?

Mastelic

Sahakian

Bonazzi

2015

Info

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This paper aims to explore how Living Labs might be evaluated, building on the current efforts of the European Network of Living Lab (ENoLL) to encourage new members, and complementing their existing criteria with elements from business model development strategies-specifically the Business Model Canvas (BMC) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Design/methodology/approach-First, it is explored how Living Labs have emerged, at the intersection of transition management, open innovation and collaborative consumption. It is then suggested that the BMC could be a complementary tool in Living Lab evaluation. Findings-This tool helped identify three important elements missing from current ENoLL evaluation criteria: identification of the cost structure, customer segments and the revenue stream. The case study of an Energy Living Lab created in Western Switzerland is used to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of different evaluation criteria; this paper is then concluded with some ideas on how future research might contribute to further strengthening Living Lab evaluation process towards long-term "sustainability". Originality/value-This article will be of value for ENoLL to refine their evaluation criteria for the next "wave" of application. It could as well help living labs to reflect on how to keep a living lab alive.

show abstract

“…Alternative governing approaches to support sustainable eating practices need to be developed and tested alongside ongoing attention to supply‐side interventions. This will require the construction of innovative governance techniques where producers and consumers, as well as all those who participate across the food chain, from suppliers and retailers to processers, can exchange knowledge and experience (see Davies et al ., ; ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Food Futures: Co‐designing Sustainable Eating Practices for 2050

Davies

2013

EuroChoices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Food Futures: Co‐designing Sustainable Eating Practices for 2050 The unsustainability of food and agriculture has long generated debate, policy initiatives and technological innovation, with proposed solutions predominantly focused on producing more food using fewer resources. Such supply‐side actions are important, but creating more sustainable eating practices also requires attention to demand‐side dimensions of the food equation. Even given the challenges faced by establishing precise levels of overconsumption (i.e. through levels of obesity) and food loss and wastage, it is clear that a ‘predict and provide’ approach to eating will not address current patterns of unsustainable consumption. This article documents an experiment in practice‐oriented participatory backcasting which explores the possibilities of engaging stakeholders and citizens in the design of more sustainable eating practices. This involved a phased process of multi‐stakeholder (including citizen‐consumer) collaboration to generate alternative scenarios for eating more sustainably and assess their desirability. This was followed by identification of promising practices and, finally, the development of a Transition Framework detailing pathways for more sustainable eating to 2050.The results suggest that mutually supportive technological, organisational and societal innovations are needed, to predict accurately which foods are required globally, prevent overconsumption, food loss and wastage, and ultimately to provide sustainable eating solutions.

show abstract

Future visioning for sustainable household practices: spaces for sustainability learning?

Cited by 48 publications

References 24 publications

Transforming Household Consumption: From Backcasting to HomeLabs Experiments

Transforming Household Consumption: From Backcasting to HomeLabs Experiments

How to keep a living lab alive?

Food Futures: Co‐designing Sustainable Eating Practices for 2050

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About