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

Journal of Consumer Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 27-44

  Heiskanen, Eva ^a   Mont, Oksana ^b   Power, Kate ^c  

^a National Consumer Research Centre   (Finland)

^b INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

^c Copenhagen Resource Institute ^*  (Denmark)

Author keywords

Knowledge brokering; Policy; Research; Sustainable consumption

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894439109     PISSN: 01687034     EISSN: 15730700     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10603-013-9247-8     Document Type: Article

References (52)

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.
2. Aspegren, A. (2002). Miljöinformation som styrmedel: Förstudie. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
3. Berg, A. (2011). Not roadmaps but toolboxes: analysing pioneering national programmes for sustainable consumption and production. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 9-23.
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 Commission.
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).
6. Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2003). Action research an opportunity for revitalising research purposes and practices. Qualitative Social Work, 2, 155-175.
7. Carlsson, C. (2004). Action research a tool for sustainable development?: Global Action Plan.
8. Cohen, M. J. (2006). Sustainable consumption research as democratic expertise. Journal of consumer policy, 29, 67-77.
9. Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. New York: Syracuse University Press.
10. EEA. (2009). The benefits of and barriers to Ecological Tax Reform. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency.
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.
12. Eurobarometer. (2011). Attitudes of European citizens towards the Environment: European Commission.
13. Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism. Policy inquiry in post-positivistic perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 129-146.
14. Fuchs, D., & Lorek, S. (2005). Sustainable consumption governance: a history of promises and failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 261-288.
15. Gergen, K. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309-327.
16. Hansen, U., & Schrader, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20, 443-468.
17. Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29, 77-94.
18. Heiskanen, E. (2005). The performative nature of consumer research: consumers' environmental awareness as an example. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 179-201.
19. Holmes, J., & Clark, R. (2008). Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 702-711.
20. IEA. (2012). World Energy Outlook 2012. Paris: International Energy Agency.
21. IEEP. (2011). EU Natural Resources policy: Signposts on the roadmap to sustainability. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.
22. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223-244.
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.
24. Knight, C., & Lyall, C. (2013). Knowledge brokers: the role of intermediaries in producing research impact. Evidence & Policy, 9, 309-316.
25. Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. K. (1979) Usable Knowledge, Social Science and Problem Solving. Yale University Press.
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.
27. Melrose, M. J. (2001) Maximising the rigor of action research: Why would you want to? How could you? Field Methods 13: 160-180.
28. Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental problems and settings. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 994-1011.
29. Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud or alarmed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 531-537.
30. Mont, O., Heiskanen, E., Power, K., & Kuusi, H. (2013). Improving Nordic policymaking by dispelling myths on sustainable consumption. Stockholm: Nordic Council of Ministers.
31. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2002). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
32. Nutley, S. M., Walter, J., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence. The Policy Press: How research can inform public services.
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.
34. Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: the promise of 'realist synthesis'. Evaluation, 8, 340-358.
35. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
36. Reason, P., & Torbert, W. R. (2001). The action turn towards a transformational social science. Concepts and Transformations, 6(1), 1-37.
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.
39. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1273-1285.
40. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York and London: Norton and Company.
41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory. Procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, London, New Dehli: Sage Publications.
42. Thøgersen, J., & Schrader, U. (2012). From knowledge to action-new paths towards sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 1-5.
43. Tourish, D. (2013). Evidence-based management or evidence-oriented organizing? A critical realist perspective. Organization, 20, 173-192.
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.
45. Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
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.
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.
48. Weingart, P. (2002). The moment of truth for science. EMBO Rep, 3, 703-706.
49. Weiss, C. U. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: creation, diffusion, utilization. Science Communication, 1, 381-404.
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.
51. Wolff, F., & Schönherr, N. (2011). The impact evaluation of sustainable consumption policy instruments. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 43-66.
52. WWF. (2010). Living planet report: World Wildlife Foundation.