Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (386) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2024 (1)
- 2023 (12)
- 2022 (16)
- 2021 (12)
- 2020 (16)
- 2019 (30)
- 2018 (24)
- 2017 (41)
- 2016 (22)
- 2015 (10)
- 2014 (18)
- 2013 (15)
- 2012 (10)
- 2011 (13)
- 2010 (4)
- 2009 (11)
- 2008 (6)
- 2007 (6)
- 2006 (9)
- 2005 (12)
- 2004 (18)
- 2003 (7)
- 2002 (2)
- 2001 (7)
- 2000 (9)
- 1999 (9)
- 1998 (10)
- 1997 (5)
- 1996 (9)
- 1995 (11)
- 1994 (8)
- 1993 (1)
Document Type
- Article (274)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (29)
- Review (26)
- Doctoral Thesis (24)
- Part of a Book (20)
- Other (10)
- Preprint (3)
Language
- English (386) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (386)
Keywords
- Germany (6)
- globalization (6)
- international organizations (6)
- European Union (5)
- accountability (4)
- capitalism (4)
- climate policy (4)
- democracy (4)
- financial crisis (4)
- financial institutions (4)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (386) (remove)
Responding to the global call for a "sustainable economy" requires meaningful insights into sustainability-conscious consumers and their actual buying behaviors. Sustainable consumption is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon because it encompasses several distinct behavioral patterns and consumption types. Therefore, companies are well advised to recognize multiple types of sustainability-conscious consumers with different expectations, attitudes, and values and to implement targeting strategies that do not rest on the assumption of homogeneity. Thus, the objective of this study is to provide a more fine-grained picture of (un)sustainable consumer segments and their differentiated effects in different product markets. Based on three large datasets, we create a robust six-segment typology of consumer consciousness regarding sustainable consumption. By using panel data on actual purchases, the results show not only that sustainability concerns significantly positively influence actual sustainable purchases, as expected, but also that sustainable buying can occur independently of sustainability concerns.
Whereas the US President signed the Kyoto Protocol, the failure of the US Congress to ratify it seriously hampered subsequent international climate cooperation. This recent US trend, of signing environmental treaties but failing to ratify them, could thwart attempts to come to a future climate agreement. Two complementary explanations of this trend are proposed. First, the political system of the US has distinct institutional features that make it difficult for presidents to predict whether the Senate will give its advice and consent to multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and whether Congress will pass the required enabling legislation. Second, elected for a fixed term, US presidents might benefit politically from supporting MEAs even when knowing that legislative support is not forthcoming. Four policy implications are explored, concerning the scope for unilateral presidential action, the potential for bipartisan congressional support, the effectiveness of a treaty without the US, and the prospects for a deep, new climate treaty.
Policy relevance
Why does the failure of US ratification of multilateral environmental treaties occur? This article analyses the domestic political mechanisms involved in cases of failed US ratification. US non-participation in global environmental institutions often has serious ramifications. For example, it sharply limited Kyoto's effectiveness and seriously hampered international climate negotiations for years. Although at COP 17 in Durban the parties agreed to negotiate a new agreement by 2015, a new global climate treaty may well trigger a situation resembling the one President Clinton faced in 1997 when he signed Kyoto but never obtained support for it in the Senate. US failure to ratify could thwart future climate agreements.
Recent years have seen a considerable broadening of the ambitions in urban sustainability policy-making. With its Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 Making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, the 2030 Agenda stresses the critical role of cities in achieving sustainable development. In the context of SDG17 on partnerships, emphasis is also placed on the role of researchers and other scientific actors as change agents in the sustainability transformation. Against this backdrop, this article sheds light on different pathways through which science can contribute to urban sustainability. In particular, we discern four forms of science-policy-society interactions as key vectors: 1. sharing knowledge and providing scientific input to urban sustainability policy-making; 2. implementing transformative research projects; 3. contributing to local capacity building; and 4. self-governing towards sustainability. The pathways of influence are illustrated with empirical examples, and their interlinkages and limitations are discussed. We contend that there are numerous opportunities for actors from the field of sustainability science to engage with political and societal actors to enhance sustainable development at the local level.
Despite the proliferation and promise of subnational climate initiatives, the institutional architecture of transnational municipal networks (TMNs) is not well understood. With a view to close this research gap, the article empirically assesses the assumption that TMNs are a viable substitute for ambitious international action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It addresses the aggregate phenomenon in terms of geographical distribution, central players, mitigation ambition and monitoring provisions. Examining thirteen networks, it finds that membership in TMNs is skewed toward Europe and North America while countries from the Global South are underrepresented; that only a minority of networks commit to quantified emission reductions and that these are not more ambitious than Parties to the UNFCCC; and finally that the monitoring provisions are fairly limited. In sum, the article shows that transnational municipal networks are not (yet) the representative, ambitious and transparent player they are thought to be.
Whilst the Covid-19 pandemic affects all European countries, the ways in which these countries are prepared for the health and subsequent economic crisis varies considerably. Financial solidarity within the European Union (EU) could mitigate some of these inequalities but depends upon the support of the citizens of individual member states for such policies. This paper studies attitudes of the Austrian population - a net-contributor to the European budget - towards financial solidarity using two waves of the Austrian Corona Panel Project collected in May and June 2020. We find that individuals (i) who are less likely to consider the Covid-19 pandemic as a national economic threat, (ii) who believe that Austria benefits from supporting other countries, and (iii) who prefer the crisis to be organized more centrally at EU-level show higher support for European financial solidarity. Using fixed effects models, we further show that perceiving economic threats and preferring central crisis management also explain attitude dynamics within individuals over time. We conclude that cost-benefit perceptions are important determinants for individual support of European financial solidarity during the Covid-19 pandemic.