Green roles at home: exploring the impact of household social dynamic processes on consumption at the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus.

Capturing the social dynamic processes among household members that work to shape consumption patterns presents a complex problem for household resource conservation studies. To bridge the gap between the individual and household, we propose and test a series of quantitative measures that explore the underlying structure of household social dynamic processes through the lens of social practice theory. Based on previous qualitative research, we develop measures to test five distinct social dynamic processes that either encourage or deter pro-environmental action: enhancing, norming, preferring, constraining, and allocating. In a sample of households (n = 120) from suburban Midwestern USA, we find that positively framed social dynamic processes (enhancing and positive norming) positively predict variance in frequency of food-, energy-, and water-conserving pro-environmental actions. Pro-environmental orientation of the individual respondent, in turn, is positively associated with perception of positively framed dynamics. These findings suggest that social dynamic processes influence individual decision-making about household consumption, supporting previous research that illustrates consumption as embedded within the relationships that form residential life. We suggest ways forward for quantitative social science researchers to explore consumption through a practice-based approach that considers the influence of social institutions on emission-intensive lifestyles.

Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda.

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8.

Professors want to share: preliminary survey results on establishing open-source-endowed professorships.

This study proposes a novel policy to provide incentives for open science: to offer open-source (OS)-endowed professorships. To hold an open-source-endowed chair, in addition to demonstrated excellence in their field, professors would need to agree to (1) ensuring all of their writing is distributed via open access in some way and (2) releasing all of their intellectual property in the public domain or under appropriate open-source licenses. The results of this survey study of university professors in the U.S. show that a super majority (86.7%) of faculty respondents indicated willingness to accept an OS-endowed professorship, while only 13.3% of respondents would not be willing to accept the terms of an OS-endowed professorship. The terms of accepting an OS-endowed professorship that were the most popular among respondents were increased salary, annual discretionary budget, as a term of tenure and annual RA or TA lines. More than a quarter of responding professors declared that no additional compensation would be needed for them to accept the terms of an OS-endowed professorship. The results demonstrate a clear willingness of academics to expand open access to science, which would hasten scientific progress while also making science more just and inclusive. It is clear that science funders have a large opportunity to move towards open science by offering open-source-endowed chairs.

The energy crises revealed by COVID: Intersections of Indigeneity, inequity, and health.

The global COVID-19 pandemic is a health crisis, an economic crisis, and a justice crisis. It also brings to light multiple ongoing, underlying social crises. The COVID-19 crisis is actively revealing crises of energy sovereignty in at least four ways. First, there are many whose access to basic health services is compromised because of the lack of energy services necessary to provide these services. Second, some people are more vulnerable to COVID-19 because of exposure to environmental pollution associated with energy production. Third, energy services are vital to human wellbeing, yet access to energy services is largely organized as a consumer good. The loss of stable income precipitated by COVID-19 may therefore mean that many lose reliable access to essential energy services. Fourth, the COVID-19 crisis has created a window of opportunity for corporate interests to engage in aggressive pursuit of energy agendas that perpetuate carbon intensive and corporate controlled energy systems, which illuminates the ongoing procedural injustices of energy decision making. These four related crises demonstrate why energy sovereignty is essential for a just energy future. Energy sovereignty is defined as the right for communities, rather than corporate interests, to control access to and decision making regarding the sources, scales, and forms of ownership characterizing access to energy services. Energy sovereignty is a critical component in the design of a post-COVID-19 energy system that is capable of being resilient to future shocks without exacerbating injustices that are killing the most vulnerable among us.