EXPLORING DIFFERENT COMMUNITY ATTITUTES TO SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES

misbe2011 Tracking Number 133

Different communities have different attitudes to sustainable technologies, and this paper will explore those differences, and how they affect the adoption of sustainable technologies. A number of reports published in recent years (IPCC 2007, Stern 2006) have highlighted concerns of climate change as a result of human activity, and the importance of acting to mitigate those changes. As a result, the Climate Change Act (2008) sets a legally binding target to cut carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050. This legislation has led to large numbers of initiatives to use sustainable technologies. Some of these initiatives are in the form of top down interventions, imposed by local authorities or other bodies, while others have been community-led, or bottom up. Communities have different socio-economic backgrounds. Their choices are constrained by the physical, social, cultural and institutional context in which they find themselves (Owens 2008) and this affects their attitudes to sustainable technologies, and the ways in which they might go about adopting them. For this pilot paper, two socio-economically different communities were looked at – Northfield and Moseley, both in Birmingham. These communities underwent the adoption of sustainable technologies via different governance or community arrangements and interventions. Northfield is an economically challenged community that has seen some houses benefit from ‘Birmingham Energy Savers’, a Birmingham City Council led project that has retrofitted houses to provide them with PV. Moseley is a more affluent community which has received funding from British Gas as part of their Green Street competition to help cut carbon emissions, a project led by the community group Sustainable Moseley (SusMo). Comparison showed that community governance arrangements or interventions need to relate to the context of the community in question. Northfield, being a more challenged community with financial concerns and less of a community identity, was able to benefit from a top down intervention from a trusted body - Birmingham City Council – who was itself only able to offer this programme to disadvantaged community members living in its own housing stock. Moseley, being an affluent community, is unable to benefit from Birmingham City Council’s project, but is able to self organise. It is however, experiencing difficulties meeting its objectives due to the amount of time volunteers are required to contribute to the project. Just as there are many communities, there are many attitudes to sustainable technologies, therefore many methods of intervention, governance and action will be possible. It is vital that these relate to the context in which they will be applied.