Bartiaux, Françoise

Workshop on Models for environmental assessment of household consumption, 5 Dec 2013

DIAL UCLouvain

Available at:http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/150007[Downloaded 2019/04/19 at 10:30:25 ]"Family dynamics and social practice theories:an Investigation of daily consumption practices"Bartiaux, FrançoiseDocument type : Communication à un colloque (Conference Paper)Référence bibliographiqueBartiaux, Françoise. Family dynamics and social practice theories: an Investigation of dailyconsumption practices.Workshop on Models for environmental assessment of householdconsumption, 5 Dec 2013 (Torino (Italy), 05/12/2013).Françoise Bartiaux Université catholique de Louvain & National Fund for Scientific Research, Belgium francoise.bartiaux@uclouvain.be   Workshop on Models for environmental assessment  of household consumption, 5 Dec 2013  Family dynamics and social practice theories: an Investigation of daily consumption practices  Outline of this presentation An overview of social theories of practices An empirical research on daily practices based on an internet survey run by WWF-Belgium Conclusion An overview of  social theories of practices An overview of social theories of practices   Origins:   Bourdieu’s works on practices and habituses   Giddens’ structuration theory(1984), namely the key role of routines in structuring societies  Wittgenstein   → all departing from the usual dichotomies:  holism/individualism,  structure/agency,  macro/micro An overview of social theories of practices  Unit of analysis: practice   (always collective)  Key concepts:   Schatzki (1996): a practice is a coordinated entity, i.e. a “nexus of doings and sayings”   Reckwitz (2002): “The single individual – as a bodily and mental agent – then acts as the ‘carrier’ of a practice  Material arrangements products, techniques  Know-how and routines Teleo-affective          structures    Institutionalised rules      Practice: doings & sayings Source: Gram-Hanssen, 2010 An overview of social theories of practices  Key concepts:   The individual is a “crossing point” of many practices and acts at the intersection of many practices: “[a]s there are diverse social practices, and as every agent carries out a multitude of different social practices, the individual is the unique crossing point of practices, of bodily-mental routines.” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 256)  See ‘translation’ in the methods’ section  Practice change is  neither a matter of behavioural change  nor a matter of individual choice  Shove, Pantzar and Watson (2012):  Practice change if reconfiguration(s) of  Components of practice  Relations between practices  Careers and carriers of practices  Social networks through which practices circulate and develop Practice changes An empirical study Françoise Bartiaux et Luis Reátegui Salmón Compartmentalisation or domino effects between ‘green’ consumers’ practices? Some topics of practice theories observed with an Internet survey 2012 Family Dynamics and Social Practice Theories: An Investig-ation of daily practices related to food, mobility, energy consumption and tourism  2014   11 A sensitisation campaign with the ecological footprint Focus on ordinary consumption, Agenda 21  The ecological footprint concept  (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996)   Computing the ecological footprint  Per country: ‘top-down’ method   Per individual: ‘bottom-up’ method  http://www.footprintnetwork.org/index.php   Scope of this contribution  Neither discuss the concept nor test the estimations  Explore whether and how consumers’ practices are structured 12 A sensitisation campaign with the ecological footprint  10 questions Food Energy use Mobility Tourism  Estimation of footprint 17 possible commitments A sensitisation campaign run by WWF-Belgium October 2006, Internet questionnaire  Adds & tips in major newspaper, mails N = 33 186 → 29 778 Results on the ecological footprint (underestimated – top-down:5.2ha) (WWF-Belgium survey, 2006, N= 29 778) Mean 3,95 Mediane 3,70 Mode 3,30 Perc 10 2,50 Perc 20 2,90 Perc 25 3,00 Perc 30 3,20 Perc 40 3,40 Perc 50 3,70 Perc 60 4,00 Perc 70 4,30 Perc 75 4,50 Perc 80 4,70 Perc 90 5,60 Material arrangements products, techniques  Know-how and routines Teleo-affective          structures    Institutionalised rules      Practice: doings & sayings Source: Gram-Hanssen, 2010 4 linking components 1. Know-how & incorporated habits Knowledge on the environmental consequences of our lifestyle   ‘Mental routine’ of reflexivity 2. institutionalised knowledge, explicit rules Mandatory labelling of the country of production of fruits & vegetables Subsidies, fiscal deductions … for insulation works Possibility to change the electricity supplier (not in 2006 in Brussels and in Wallonia) → Policy lever! 4 linking components 3. Teleo-affective structures (engagements) Ethical values, ends, meanings, significations… Projects Raisons, motivations Socially accepted ways to link or not ‘doings’ (practices) and ‘sayings (environmental concern)  4. Technologies & material structure Food production system and market  Public transportation means, roads & highways, regional airports…   Methods  Variables of practices combinations   cfr individual at the intersection of numerous practices  + precise than a factor analysis  Analogy with the artifice of fictive cohort in demography From transversal to longitudinal Test of the domino effect  Multiple correspondence analysis Focus on practices  17  Search for information ?  ? Practices change  18 Information → Practice change?  Cfr postulates in economics, in social psychology There is a lack of information  Information → Practice change In social practice theories: importance of  know-how for linking doings & sayings Practical & embodied routines Ex: daily mobility, comfort temperature… ‘Mental routines’ (Reckwitz) Ex: reading labels, concern for electric consumption 19 20 ‘Very green’ practices reported Less open to environmental information % More open to environmental information % Fruits & vegetables: local, seasonal, not frozen 30,1 33,8 Meat < 4 times/week 25,3 29,0 Small dwelling, very well insulated, heated econom 5,0 4,2 Small dwelling & quite concerned for electricity 13,5 14,8 Never uses a car (not sig.) 9,7 8,9 Tourism in Belgium or nearby 31,6 28,5 Mean 1,151 1,191          Larger openness to environ-mental information & advice           Search for confirmation &                    ‘self-esteem bonuses’ (Moezzi) Already a few ‘green’ practices… Practices compartmentalisation  or domino effects?  22 23 Practices compartmentalisation  26 = 64 ways of combining ‘(very) green’ practices or ‘not green’ practices in various domains of every-day life: Food: fresh fruits & vegetables, meat < 4 times/week  Energy-use in housing: heating, electricity use   daily mobility: car use  tourism   Large diversity of combinations:  all 64 combinations are found in the sample Top 5 combinations of ‘green’ & not ‘green’ practices  PRACTICE % 1 9.1 2 8.7 3 8.4 4 4.2 5 4.1 Fruits & vegetables: local, seasonal, not frozen NO NO NO Y Y Meat < 4 times/week NO NO NO NO NO Middle-size or large dwelling, very well insulated, heated economically OR small dwelling NO Y NO Y NO Middle-size or large dwelling & quite concerned for electricity consumption OR small dwelling NO Y Y Y Y Car use < 50 km/day Y Y Y Y Y Tourism in Europe, no plane Y Y Y Y Y 25 Practices compartmentalisation Mean number of ‘green’ practices: ‘Very green’: 1.16 (out of 6) ‘Green’: 3.09 (out of 6) 26 Practices compartmentalisation  Mainly 1 ‘very green’ (or 3 ‘green’) practice(s)  Practices compartmentalisation: no transmigration of ‘green’ consideration (if any) (≠ Warde’s hypothesis)  And/or: no ‘green’ considerations in ‘green’ practices (but health, money, no driving license… Also mental compartmentalisation?  And/or: play, simulations (“What would be my ecol-ogical footprint if my answers/practices were ≠?”) A standardised  teleo-affective structure?  27 28 Standardised ways of  linking practices & commitments?  6 possible commitments to ‘green’ practices in the same domains of every-day life:  Food: fresh fruits & vegetables, no meat twice a week  Energy-use in housing: heating (-1°C), electricity use (5 CFL)  Daily mobility: walk or bike for <5 km  Tourism: no plane every other year   Numerous commitments combinations (26=64) 0 commitment: 10%; 6 commitments: 7% No standardised “teleoaffective” structure (in Schatzki’s terms) ⇒ Compartmentalisation between practices and commitments Multiple correspondence analysis 30 Policies implications  Sensitisation campaigns (?)  Technique  Reformulate the questionnaire  Customise the proposed commitments to the profile of the respondent  Content  Be ready for a playful use of an Internet campaign  Be aware of practical and mental compartmentalisation  Better appropriated by already-convinced persons  31 Personal Carbon Trading Scheme  www.eci.ox.ac.uk   Tool to ‘decompartmentalise’ practices in ≠ areas as there are no massive domino effects Energy use:  heating and electricity Daily mobility Tourism … Food   Problems of politics  and of implementation must first be solved   Influence of  significant personal relationships?  32 Adding social interactions When recruiting new practitioners and when changing practice: role played by reference persons:  building manager in Latvia (Ozoliņa and Garā 2011),   sales demonstrators seen as cultural intermediaries in Portugal (Truninger 2011),  dedicated employees acting as “Environment Champions” in England (Hargreaves 2011)  friends (Vittersø 2003),  partners for whom “my normal routines are confronted with your strange habits” (Ehn and Löfgren 2009; Bartiaux 2003; Kaufmann 2007)  children (Bartiaux 2009, Garabuau-Moussaoui et al. 2009) Giddens’ concept of discursive consciousness 34 Number of   ‘very green’ practices reported 1 person % 2  persons % 3  persons % Fruits & vegetables: local, seasonal, not frozen 30,5 31,8 29,6 Meat < 4 times/week 43,4 29,4 19,4 Small & very well insulated dwelling, heated econom. 13,5 5,6 2,6 Small dwelling & quite concerned for electricity 31,2 16,5 5,5 Never uses a car 24,6 9,9 6,9 Tourism in Belgium or nearby 37,0 27,8 33,3 Mean 1,802 1,211 0,977 35 Number of  ‘green’ practices reported 1 person % 2  persons % 3  persons % Middle-size or large dwelling, very well insulated, heated economically OR small dwelling 64,1 43,9 29,8 Middle-size or large dwelling & quite concerned for electricity consumption OR small dwelling 80,2 70,9 56,1 Car use < 50 km/day 84,1 78,4 71,0 Tourism in Europe, no plane 65,3 65,9 77,9 Mean 3,68 3,20 2,84 Practices are reinterpreted and less often (very) green Significant personal relationships are mediating the influences of the 4 components linking doings & sayings   36 2. Institutionalised knowledge & explicit rules 3. Teleo-affective structures 4. Technologies and material structure 1. Know-how and habits Practice theories revisited Practice (doings & sayings) Significant relationships Social networks 38 Conclusions Compartmentalisation of ‘green’ practices Few ‘green’ practitioners, namely for food  Very numerous combinations of practices: eclectism rather than ‘green’ coherence  Little or no domino effect in ≠ areas Green practices → search for + advice: sensitisation campaigns seem to be better appropriated by already-convinced persons   Practice change is  neither a matter of behavioural change  nor a matter of individual choice Thank you very much  for your attention!    francoise.bartiaux@uclouvain.be  

Family dynamics and social practice theories: an Investigation of daily consumption practices

https://dial.uclouvain.be/downloader/downloader.php?pid=boreal:150007&datastream=PDF_01&disclaimer=3487e0dd05e6afd0747f4251e31b724e6e7aa35b8f38174b7efad9d139af625e

Family dynamics and social practice theories: an Investigation of daily consumption practices

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DIAL UCLouvain