The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field

Abstract

The application of practice theories in the domain of sustainability research in consumer studies is increasingly advocated based on the premise that this allows to analyse consumption as a social phenomenon. Consequently, the applications of social practice theories to this field are expanding geometrically and to date, little retrospective work on this evolution has been made. We conduct a bibliometric analysis of applications of practice theories in the domain of sustainability research in consumer studies. Our results show a temporal succession of research trends: ‘consumer identity’ dominated the field between 2009 and 2012, ‘business and governance’ between 2012 and 2014, ‘sustainable consumption and production’ between 2013 and 2014, ‘urban living and policy’ between 2014 and 2015 and ‘household energy’ from 2015 until the present. We see a high potential of future applications of practice theories in the fields of the sharing and circular economy, as well as in research on smart cities. We provide new insights into the evolution and future trends of applications of social practice theory to domains that are relevant for research on sustainability and consumer studies.

Full text

sustainability
Article
The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on
Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and
Future Directions of the Field
Filippo Corsini 1, *, Rafael Laurenti 2, Franziska Meinherz 3, Francesco Paolo Appio 4
and Luca Mora 5
1Istituto di Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, 56127 Pisa, Italy
2ITM School of Industrial Engineering and Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden; rafa@kth.se
3Laboratory for Human-Environment Relations in Urban Systems, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de
Lausanne EPFL, Station 2, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; franziska.meinherz@epfl.ch
4Research Center, Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, 92916 Paris La Défense, France;
francesco.appio@devinci.fr
5The Business School, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH14 1DJ, UK; l.mora@napier.ac.uk
*Correspondence: f.corsini@santannapisa.it
Received: 7 December 2018; Accepted: 7 January 2019; Published: 11 January 2019


Abstract:
The application of practice theories in the domain of sustainability research in consumer
studies is increasingly advocated based on the premise that this allows to analyse consumption
as a social phenomenon. Consequently, the applications of social practice theories to this field are
expanding geometrically and to date, little retrospective work on this evolution has been made.
We conduct a bibliometric analysis of applications of practice theories in the domain of sustainability
research in consumer studies. Our results show a temporal succession of research trends: ‘consumer
identity’ dominated the field between 2009 and 2012, ‘business and governance’ between 2012 and
2014, ‘sustainable consumption and production’ between 2013 and 2014, ‘urban living and policy’
between 2014 and 2015 and ‘household energy’ from 2015 until the present. We see a high potential
of future applications of practice theories in the fields of the sharing and circular economy, as well
as in research on smart cities. We provide new insights into the evolution and future trends of
applications of social practice theory to domains that are relevant for research on sustainability and
consumer studies.
Keywords:
sustainability; sustainable consumption; bibliometric analysis; practice theory; circular
economy; sharing economy; smart city
1. Introduction
Several actors in society have acknowledged that we are facing a global sustainability crisis
that is likely to have major negative impacts on the natural, social and economic foundations of
society. The global demand for ecosystem services is beyond what the planet can provide, and human
activities in various domains are on the verge of profoundly altering the underlying earth systems [
1
–
4
].
These sustainability challenges emphasise the urgent need to better understand consumption patterns
as a means to shape the societal sustainability transition [5–7].
Consumer studies thus increasingly address unsustainable consumption patterns. Amongst the
many approaches that find application in the study of consumption, social practice theory seems to play
an increasingly important role and has inspired recently published research [
8
–
12
]. The application
of practice theories to the field of consumption has notably been advocated as a means to analyse
Sustainability 2019,11, 341; doi:10.3390/su11020341 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 2 of 19
consumption as a social phenomenon [
13
–
15
]. Unlike methodologies inspired by social psychology,
such as the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), which look at consumer behaviour as individual
decisions in a set context, approaches drawing on practice theories look at how elements such as norms,
values or material constraints coevolve with consumption practices. Practice theories have proven
useful to study the often observed path dependence and stickiness of consumption practices [16–19].
Originally, practice theories have had a very conceptual focus and were aimed at overcoming the
structure–agency dichotomy [
20
–
22
]. They thus need to be operationalised for empirical work [
23
].
However, there is little knowledge on whether such efforts of operationalising practice theories have
also been made for domains others than consumer studies, but where lifestyles, behaviour or practices
also play an important role. Indeed, the question of the domains in which practice theories have found
empirical application remains, to date, unanswered. Such knowledge would, however, allow the
identification of potential grounds for synergies and cross-fertilisations across different streams of
research. Given the complexity of sustainability issues and their interdisciplinary character, exploring
these grounds seems essential.
Furthermore, there is currently no understanding as to how the field of practice theory
inspired approaches to consumer studies is evolving. So far, practice theories have found
application in numerous areas of consumer studies, such as mobility, hygiene, nutrition and energy
consumption [6,8–12,15–17,23–25].
However how far are these different applications draw on each
other or develop relatively independently of each other and whether there are transversal topics or
authors that connect all these different domains are still open questions.
With this article, we aim to bring some light into these questions. This should allow us to provide
not only insights on core research trends and the key publications in the different domains in which
practice theories have found application, but also to identify future directions that applications of
practice theories to consumer studies in the domain of sustainability research can take—based on the
insights already gained through research that has already been conducted and based on the emerging
fields in sustainability research.
To do so, we use a bibliometric mapping approach to analyse where theories of practice have
found application in research dealing with sustainability issues in consumer studies, whether and
how the focus of applications of practice theories to the domain of sustainable consumption has
evolved over time, the degree to which such applications of theories of practice are fragmented and
whether there are potential yet unexplored synergies across different fields of application. The resulting
overview of applications and operationalisations also provide a guideline for future work that draws
on theories of practice for its analysis.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present practice theories and how they are
increasingly used as a counterpoint to theories inspired by social psychology. In Section 3, we present
the method by which we selected the papers for the bibliometric analysis, as well as how we conducted
this analysis. In Section 4, we present the results of our analysis, which we illustrate by means of
bibliometric maps. In Section 5, we discuss the implications of our findings regarding the evolution and
possible future developments of applications of practice theories to the field of sustainability research
in consumer studies. In Section 6, we briefly conclude and present the limitations of our research.
2. Theoretical Background: Practice Theories and Their Development
2.1. Practice Theories: Their Origin and Intellectual Legacy
Practice theories can be traced back to philosophers such as Wittgenstein, and more prominently
the interpretations of his work by Schatzki, as well as to sociologists Bourdieu and Giddens.
They are the result of the endeavour to overcome the structure–agency dualism, which for a long
time characterised and divided social theory. With this, practice theories marked a departure
from individualist, structuralist and poststructuralist approaches, as well as from the opposition
between constructivism and essentialism [
21
]. Practice theory overcomes this traditional duality of

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 3 of 19
individualism and structuralism in that it neither conceives of the social by placing the individual
and her agency at the centre, nor by superposing social structure onto individual agency. The human
is neither seen as an isolated, independent actor, nor as a passive entity subjugated to social forces
that she cannot comprehend. In practice theories, the human is active and reflexive, but it must not
be looked at as the centre object of social theory. Indeed, practice theory conceives of the social as
being built of practices. This makes the social a continuously changing composition of interconnected
human activities, and of what these activities embody [26,27].
Practice theoretic approaches inspired theoretical reflections in domains as diverse as social
theory, cultural theory, discourse theory and theory of science. They significantly contributed to the
contemporary understanding of social life and human activity, subjectivity, human rationality and
meaning. Corresponding to this multitude of fields that have integrated practice theories in their
reflections, and the wealth of concepts they have been applied to, it is no surprise that already at an
early stage, there was no unified practice theoretic approach [
21
]. Practice theories should therefore be
considered more of an analytical turn, rather than an agreed upon theory [
15
,
21
]. What all these different
reflections have in common is that practices embody the tacit understandings that motivate human
activities, the practical understanding that enables human activities, and the meanings that are attached
to these activities. Correspondingly, it is through practices that meanings and understandings are enacted
and have an existence in the world. It is through practices that social order manifests itself. This motivates
the assertion of practice theorists that the social has to be understood as a nexus of practices [21,26,28].
However, authors differ in how they conceive of practices, and of the interrelations between
practices. In Bourdieu’s perspective, practices are actions that are largely shared amongst individuals,
and which go largely unquestioned. They contain the tacit and collectively shared experience of what
is possible in a given context, and thus constitute a form of shared contextual rationality, which in
turn motivates the individual actions of which practices consist. Practices are thus the result of the
internalisation of the conditions of a given context, and are shared amongst the people who share these
experiences. For Bourdieu, these internalised experiences depend on people’s position in the social
structure—meaning on how people are embedded in power relations. These structures or relations
and a person’s position in them are thought to be shaped by the volume, structure, distribution and
evolution of economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital. People who occupy similar positions in the
social structure thus likely share the same internalised experiences [
28
,
29
], and it is these experiences
that shape practices. At the same time, it is through practices that these social structures are enacted
and order the social world [28].
In Giddens’ view, practices are constituted by practical knowledge, which is tacit and implicit,
and by discursive knowledge, of which people are aware [
20
]. Giddens emphasises the importance
of routines in the structure of everyday social activity, and in the continuous enactment of social
structure [
27
]. Just like Bourdieu, Giddens therefore also emphasises how structure is simultaneously
created through its enactment in practices, and at the same time constitutes these practices.
Giddens looks at social systems as structured insofar as the relationships of which they consist
are stabilised across time. He conceives of social structure as being constituted of rules and resources
which are mobilised in the reproduction of the structure. Resources can be both of an authoritative
nature, resulting from the coordination of human activity, and of an allocative nature, given by control
over the material world [
27
,
30
]. Routinised practices simultaneously hold this system of rules and
resources together, and are the means through which it is transformed. Practices, situated in this
structure, are concerted and thus reproduce the structure [27].
2.2. The Revival of Practice Theories in Consumer Studies
Practice theories have recently been operationalised for empirical field work related to consumer
studies in an attempt to overcome the lacunae found in the theoretical approaches which have
dominated the field. In consumer studies, just like in other fields of research looking at behaviour,
the most commonly used approaches to conceptualise human agency and decision-making build,

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 4 of 19
in one form or the other, on theories that focus on individual behaviour and personal responsibility.
Such individualistic approaches see individuals’ actions as goal-oriented, with people being perfectly
autonomous and free to set their goals and choose the means to pursue them. Translated into policy
measures, such approaches focus on individual agency and choice [
10
]. As Shove [
10
] notes, this
analytical frame prevails not only in policy documents, but also in academic research on behaviour.
One of the most commonly used approaches in the domain of individualistic approaches is the
rational choice theory. Rational choice theory assumes perfectly rational individuals, who strive to
maximise their individual wellbeing, and do so based on personal cost–benefit calculations. Rational
choice theory has however been criticised for not accounting for social dynamics, given that its key
assumption is ceteris paribus [
10
,
23
,
26
]. Furthermore, rational choice theory has proven weak to hold
up to empirical evidence, and consequently, a number of alternatives, although still individualistic,
approaches have developed [31].
The theory of bounded rationality is one of these alternative individualistic approaches. It starts
out from the observation that in the context of complex decisions, there are oftentimes too many factors
to take into consideration, and too high degrees of uncertainty, for a human to be able to process
rationally. Drawing heavily on experimental research on people’s decision-making patterns, the
theory of bounded rationality explores the simplifying heuristics which people apply in situations of
information overflow, uncertainty and urgency. Research inspired by the theory of bounded rationality
currently inspires most environmental policies, which consequently focus on changing the cost–benefit
structure of environmental problems, or on improving the availability and quality of information [
31
].
However, approaches inspired by the theory of bounded rationality have been criticised
for not considering the complexity that arises due to conflicting motivations and values that
individuals uphold. Approaches inspired by social psychology have been proposed as an alternative.
They explicitly include individual value systems, the complexity inherent to conflicting goals and
motivations, and perceived and actual loci of action in the analysis of individuals’ decision-making
processes [
31
,
32
]. The theory of planned behaviour, developed by Ajzen [
33
], stands out as one
example. In this view, for an individual to act pro-environmentally, it is necessary that she can
consolidate her individual motivations with the prevailing social norms, that she is aware of the need
for action, that she perceives her actions as impactful, and that she can act in her desired way given
the circumstances [
33
,
34
]. The theory of planned behaviour does however not provide any insights on
how individuals’ motivations, perceived or actual loci of action, and social norms are formed [
10
,
25
,
35
].
Indeed, just like other individualistic approaches, the theory of planned behaviour does not allow for
studying changes in the rules of the game, so to speak [10,23,25].
Theories of practice have been advocated as a response to these lacunae. They mark a departure
from individualistic approaches. By assuming the context in which practices are enacted and the
practice as mutually constitutive and constituting, practice theories focus on the mutual reproduction
of the practice and its context of enactment. Practice theories therefore provide insights into the
dynamics of social norms, motivations and perceptions, and how they are formed and transformed
through their continued enactment [10,15].
However, this originally purely conceptual focus of theories of practice means that to be applied
to the analysis of a specific case study, theories of practices need to be operationalised for empirical
work [
15
]. Furthermore, the very general nature of theories of practice implies that they could be
applied to a number of fields, with sustainability research being but one of them. To our knowledge,
there is however no work that provides an overview of the fields of application of theories of practice,
and that looks at how they have been operationalised in these different fields, and in how far its
operationalisations in different fields are coherent. Gram-Hanssen [
15
] provides an overview over four
different operationalisations of practices; her analysis is, however, confined to two conceptual works,
and two papers which apply theories of practice to sustainability.
The aim of this paper is to overcome this gap, and to complement the existing theoretical and
conceptual work on theories of practice with an overview of their application to different research

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 5 of 19
fields and foci. It is analysed in which fields of research theories of practice find application, and how
the theoretical notions are translated into operationalised concepts in these different fields. With this,
the paper aims to explore to which degree applications of theories of practice are fragmented, and
whether there are potential yet unexplored synergies across different fields of application. The resulting
overview of applications and operationalisations should also provide a guideline for future work
that draws on theories of practice for its analysis. For this purpose, the following research questions
are explored.
1.
To which fields of research have theories of practice been applied, and how have they been
operationalised in these different fields? And is sustainability one of a main focus of social
practice research?
2. Are there interlinkages between how theories of practice are operationalised in different fields?
3. How has the application of theories of practice evolved over time?
In particular, the paper aims at helping scholars and practitioners in understanding the main
areas of interest and the knowledge produced by social practice theory research.
3. Methodology
The methodological approach we used in order to answer to the before mentioned research
questions is represented by a bibliometric mapping technique.
A bibliometric mapping technique considers scientific literature in order to build maps that are
able to visualise the relationships among diverse items of interest [
36
] and can be quite useful for
supporting a systematic literature review. This approach has been applied in several fields to explore
static and dynamic structures of the academic research. Bibliometric mapping techniques deliver a
visual delineation of the state of the art in a field of research, but can also be used to provide orientation
for scientists in developing their area of interest on a certain topic, potentially representing inspiration
for future theoretical and practical approaches to expand a certain field of the literature [37–41].
3.1. Data Collection
To carefully select the publications to include in our analysis we used a straight forward multistep
procedure. The first step concerned the identification of a robust academic citation indexing service.
Scopus, which is widely acknowledged as solid and appropriate [
42
], was adopted for the identification
of the dataset of literature.
As many authors underline [
19
,
43
], practice theory was recently reintroduced in consumer studies
inspired by earlier work of Schatzki [
21
], further developed based on his later work [
21
] and discussed
and expanded by Reckwitz [
44
] and Warde [
19
]. We used these four references for conducting the
research of the academic literature limiting the dataset to papers matching at least two of the four
references we identified as fundamental for the examination of practice theory in consumer studies.
By doing so, we aimed at excluding those research papers that are too generic for our aims (i.e., not
exactly dealing with practice theory in consumer studies). This decision excluded, for example, a paper
like the one written by McFarlane and Silver [
45
] dealing with the dialectics of everyday urbanism and
that is thus only marginally related to our research aims.
Then, we decided to exclude the grey literature on the topic (i.e., report, working paper, etc.)
relying only on manuscripts accepted in peer review journals and papers presented and discussed
in conferences. By doing so, as suggested by Light and Pillemer [
46
], we improved consistently the
quality of the analysis.
In order to ground our analysis on consistent data we finally performed a systematic review of
the titles of the papers to remove those too generic. This final check allowed confirming the goodness
of the selection procedure.
This procedure found a total of 1519 articles in peer-reviewed journals matching the
keyword criteria.

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 6 of 19
3.2. Term Maps of the Research Domain
After having prepared the dataset of scientific publications we performed the bibliometric map
analysis in order to generate a visual representation of noun phrases occurring multiple times in titles
and abstracts. The VOS algorithm mapping technique implemented in the software VOSviewer [
36
]
was then used to produce the term maps. Once we produced and analysed the first map we refined it
by using a thesaurus file to iteratively exclude terms that are too generic such as “methods”, “aims”,
“results ”, “conclusions”, etc. The map generation process requires VOSviewer to (1) identify the
noun phrases by performing part-of-speech tagging through the use of the Apache OpenNLP toolkit
(http://opennlp.apache.org/) [
47
], (2) assess the Kullback–Leibler distance [
48
,
49
] and select the most
relevant noun phases, (3) map and cluster the terms by using the unified framework [
50
,
51
] and (4)
visualise the results of the mapping and clustering exercise.
The resulting maps illustrate the relations between relevant terms. In particular, the map makes it
possible to capture the following features.
1. Clusters: words belonging to the same cluster are depicted in the same colour.
2.
Dimension of the words: words in larger fonts are those occurring most frequently across the
sample of publications, while those in smaller fonts are those occurring less frequently.
3.
Distances: between words: the higher is the distance between two terms and the smallest is their
co-occurrence, while the smaller is the distance between two terms the higher their co-occurrence.
4.
Linkages: connections between words show the bonds between words mostly occurring together
in the database of scientific publication.
3.3. Co-Citation Analysis of the Research Domain
In order to obtain a deeper understanding of how interlinkages between theories of practice are
operationalised in different knowledge fields, a document co-citation analysis is conducted. Co-citation
analysis is an effective method for discovering the intellectual structure of research domains and
its deployment makes it possible to measure similarities between documents by means of citation
relationships [
52
,
53
]. Co-citation was firstly defined by Small [
54
] as the “frequency with which two
documents are cited together by other documents”. A co-citation exists when two references appear
together in the same publication and the more co-citations two documents have, the higher the degree
of similarity between them [54,55].
The data collected were elaborated with BibExcel [
56
]. BibExcel assist in the analysis of
bibliographic data by generating ad hoc files which can be uploaded onto any software program
that takes tabbed data records for further processing. Then, we decided to use the VOS algorithm
mapping technique implemented in the software VOSviewer to produce the maps [
36
]. VOSviewer’s
algorithm aims at locating the items in a low-dimensional space so that the distance between two
items is an accurate indicator of their relatedness. Take two items iand j, the input for VOS is a
non-negative similarity s
ij
(treated on a ratio scale). These similarities s
ij
are calculated using the
following equation [57,58].
ASij =cij
cicj
VOSviewer determines the position of the items in the map by minimising the weighted sum of
the squared distances between all pairs of items:
V(x1, ..., xn) = ∑
i<j
sij kxi−xjk2
where the squared distance between item pairs is weighted by their similarity, a constraint is imposed
in order to avoid the trivial solutions in which all items have the same location:
2
n(n−1)∑
i<j
kxi−xjk=1

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 7 of 19
The resulting co-citation map illustrates the relations between the relevant literature cited in this
field. In more detail, the map captures the following features.
1. Clusters: authors belonging to the same cluster are depicted in the same colour.
2.
Dimension of the references: references in larger fonts are those occurring most frequently across
the identified publications, while those in smaller fonts are those occurring less frequently.
3.
Linkages: connections between references show the bonds between references co-occurring
together in the database of scientific publication; the size of the linkage is larger when the number
of co-citations is large while is smaller when the number of co-citations is small.
3.4. Overlay Representation of Journals in a Global Map of Science
In addition, in order to further explore the interrelation in the field of research, we used the
Leydesdorff et al. [
59
] overlay framework. Such framework allows plotting the journals containing the
1519 academic papers on a global map of science based on 20,554 academic journals. In more detail,
such process allows to counts the number of occurrences of each journal title in the dataset composed
by the 1519 academic papers matching the journal titles with the positional information of the base
map [59]. The resulting journals map is as follows.
1.
The journal names under investigation are highlighted with colour in the map; on the contrary
all other nodes are depicted in grey.
2. The size of each journal as a node is depicted proportionally to the number of occurrences.
Finally, we used also the Rao–Stirling diversity index as a measure of interdisciplinarity in the
sets under investigation [60–62].
4. Results
4.1. Static Analysis
The visual representation based on the overall set of 1519 academic publications (Figure 1) presents
the connections between different research areas.
Sustainability2019,11,xFORPEERREVIEW7of19
Theresultingco‐citationmapillustratestherelationsbetweentherelevantliteraturecitedinthis
field.Inmoredetail,themapcapturesthefollowingfeatures.
1. Clusters:authorsbelongingtothesameclusteraredepictedinthesamecolour.
2. Dimensionofthereferences:referencesinlargerfontsarethoseoccurringmostfrequentlyacross
theidentifiedpublications,whilethoseinsmallerfontsarethoseoccurringlessfrequently.
3. Linkages:connectionsbetweenreferencesshowthebondsbetweenreferencesco‐occurring
togetherinthedatabaseofscientificpublication;thesizeofthelinkageislargerwhenthe
numberofco‐citationsislargewhileissmallerwhenthenumberofco‐citationsissmall.
3.4.OverlayRepresentationofJournalsinaGlobalMapofScience
Inaddition,inordertofurtherexploretheinterrelationinthefieldofresearch,weusedthe
Leydesdorffetal.[59]overlayframework.Suchframeworkallowsplottingthejournalscontaining
the1519academicpapersonaglobalmapofsciencebasedon20,554academicjournals.Inmore
detail,suchprocessallowstocountsthenumberofoccurrencesofeachjournaltitleinthedataset
composedbythe1519academicpapersmatchingthejournaltitleswiththepositionalinformationof
thebasemap[59].Theresultingjournalsmapisasfollows.
1.Thejournalnamesunderinvestigationarehighlightedwithcolourinthemap;onthecontrary
allothernodesaredepictedingrey.
2.Thesizeofeachjournalasanodeisdepictedproportionallytothenumberofoccurrences.
Finally,weusedalsotheRao–Stirlingdiversityindexasameasureofinterdisciplinarityinthe
setsunderinvestigation[60–62].
4.Results
4.1.StaticAnalysis
Thevisualrepresentationbasedontheoverallsetof1519academicpublications(Figure1)
presentstheconnectionsbetweendifferentresearchareas.

Figure1.Termmapoftheresearchfield.
Figure 1. Term map of the research field.

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 8 of 19
The term analysis identified seven clusters, represented by colours in Figure 1. The pink colour
cluster group keywords relate to the use of social practice theory in the energy field. Most of those
studies deal with household practices. An example of a study conducted in this field is represented by
the work by Shove & Walker [
63
]. The authors contrapose the common understanding of energy as a
resource base, of which the management and organisation depends on various interconnected systems
(i.e., economic, political and technological) to a different perspective viewing energy supply and energy
demand as part of the continuous reproduction of bundles and complexes of social practice.
The yellow colour cluster groups keywords related to sustainable behavioural change in general
terms and policy interventions needed to fully address the transition to more sustainable lifestyles.
An example of published research in this field is represented by the work of Hargreaves [
6
]. Making use
of social practice theory, the author provides insights into pro-environmental behaviour adoption
using an ethnographic case study of a behaviour change initiative. The article enlightens the barriers
encountered in attempts changing practices and underlining issues to be addressed to overcome
those barriers.
The green colour cluster groups consumer and consumption studies using a social practice theory
approach; it is worth noting that one of the aspects related to consumption is connected with food.
In this case, one representative example is the work conducted by Delormier et al. [
64
]. The authors
illustrate a framework for the analysis of eating patterns as a social phenomenon trying to understand
how food choice practices are routinised by families, showing how family rules and resources act as a
driver or a limit condition under which family members develop food choices.
The light blue cluster groups keywords of studies in the field of education and learning. In this
case, one representative example is the work conducted by Keller & Ruus [
65
]. In their research the
authors examine the co-shopping practices of children and parents in supermarkets providing several
implications for consumer education.
Finally, the blue cluster groups keywords related to pure business aspects (e.g., accounting,
value creation and marketing). A relevant study in this area is represented by the work of
Echeverri & Skålén
[
66
]. In this case, the authors using a practice–theory perspective analyse the
interactive value formation at the provider-customer interface. In particular, with their analysis the
authors [
66
] characterise four types of interactive value formation cases corresponding with four
subject positions which practitioners’ step into when engaging in interactive value formation.
The red cluster groups several keywords that are widely used in different research areas and
which are consequently difficult to categorise properly.
As for more a general overview, two patterns seem evident. First, a significant share of research
has focused on change, interactions between practices, agency and strategy and on the domains of
household practices, food and energy, relating to consumers and policies. Second, many applications
of SPT tackle sustainability related issues. Some of the sustainability issues have been close and related
to education research as well as food consumption.
4.2. Dynamic Analysis
Figure 2shows how the application of SPT in research domains has varied over time. The first
applications appear to be in domains related to pure business-related aspects, in blue colour, in 2012.
More in detail, social practice theory research in this period contributes mainly to the discussion on the
relationship between identity and consumption [
67
,
68
] and the dynamics and transitions of practices
in everyday life [
69
,
70
]. Then, in 2013, SPT was stated to be applied to innovation issues, marketing
research and business strategy. There are several studies dealing with strategic and innovation
management theories and applications [
71
–
73
] and applied marketing research [
74
,
75
]. Consumption
studies related to change, behaviour, consumer and sustainability seem to be predominant topics
around the years 2013 and 2014. The application of SPT to policy, food and travel use dominated the
years 2015 and 2016. The energy related field of research seems actually the hot spot of current research
related to SPT.

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 9 of 19
Sustainability2019,11,xFORPEERREVIEW9of19

Figure2.Temporaltermmapoftheresearchfield.
4.3.Co‐CitationAnalysis
ToanalysetheapplicationofSPTtoconsumerstudiesinmoredetail,wealsoproducedaco‐
citationmapgroupingthe50mostcitedacademicpublicationsinthefieldofanalysis(Figure3).

Figure3.Co‐citationmapoftheresearchfield.
Inthiscasetherearefourmainclustersofinterest.Thegreencluster,whichrepresentsoneof
thebiggestinthefigure,groupsseveralstudiesrelatedtosustainableconsumptionpatternsand
energyrelatedissues.TheworkconductedbyShove&Walker[63]andRøpke[7]areclearexamples
ofthekindofresearchesrelatedtosustainableconsumptionandenergyrelatedissues.Theredcluster
groupsgeneralliteratureonpracticetheory.Itisworthnotingthatthreeoutoffourreferencesused
Figure 2. Temporal term map of the research field.
4.3. Co-Citation Analysis
To analyse the application of SPT to consumer studies in more detail, we also produced a
co-citation map grouping the 50 most cited academic publications in the field of analysis (Figure 3).
Sustainability2019,11,xFORPEERREVIEW9of19

Figure2.Temporaltermmapoftheresearchfield.
4.3.Co‐CitationAnalysis
ToanalysetheapplicationofSPTtoconsumerstudiesinmoredetail,wealsoproducedaco‐
citationmapgroupingthe50mostcitedacademicpublicationsinthefieldofanalysis(Figure3).

Figure3.Co‐citationmapoftheresearchfield.
Inthiscasetherearefourmainclustersofinterest.Thegreencluster,whichrepresentsoneof
thebiggestinthefigure,groupsseveralstudiesrelatedtosustainableconsumptionpatternsand
energyrelatedissues.TheworkconductedbyShove&Walker[63]andRøpke[7]areclearexamples
ofthekindofresearchesrelatedtosustainableconsumptionandenergyrelatedissues.Theredcluster
groupsgeneralliteratureonpracticetheory.Itisworthnotingthatthreeoutoffourreferencesused
Figure 3. Co-citation map of the research field.
In this case there are four main clusters of interest. The green cluster, which represents one of the
biggest in the figure, groups several studies related to sustainable consumption patterns and energy
related issues. The work conducted by Shove & Walker [
63
] and Røpke [
7
] are clear examples of
the kind of researches related to sustainable consumption and energy related issues. The red cluster
groups general literature on practice theory. It is worth noting that three out of four references used for

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 10 of 19
conducting the research of the academic literature [
21
,
26
,
44
] belong to this cluster. The blue cluster
groups the third largest area of research. Literature listed in this cluster deals also with general aspects
on practice theory but more on a theoretical and methodological perspective in comparison to the
previous one. For instance, Halkier [
76
], grounding his argumentation on practice theory, contributes
to the discussions about generalising, by way of exemplifying some of the methodological practicalities
in analytical generalisation.
The yellow cluster, which is the smallest one in comparison to the others, groups just five studies
dealing mostly with consumer and marketing research issues [
77
]. This cluster is located in a complete
opposite position with respect to the green one and very few linkages are depicted between the
two clusters.
4.4. Overlay Representation
Moreover, in order to further explore the interrelation in this field of research we produced a map
showing the journals containing the 1519 academic papers plotted on a global map of science (Figure 4).
As presented in the map, most of academic researches related to social practice theory were made in
journals dealing with psychology and social science, economic and management and environmental
sciences. Only a smaller number of publications were made in journals related to human health-related
journals. The scarce interdisciplinarity of the area of research is also confirmed by the Rao–Stirling
diversity index [60–62] of 0.11.
Sustainability2019,11,xFORPEERREVIEW10of19
forconductingtheresearchoftheacademicliterature[21,26,44]belongtothiscluster.Thebluecluster
groupsthethirdlargestareaofresearch.Literaturelistedinthisclusterdealsalsowithgeneral
aspectsonpracticetheorybutmoreonatheoreticalandmethodologicalperspectiveincomparison
tothepreviousone.Forinstance,Halkier[76],groundinghisargumentationonpracticetheory,
contributestothediscussionsaboutgeneralising,bywayofexemplifyingsomeofthemethodological
practicalitiesinanalyticalgeneralisation.
Theyellowcluster,whichisthesmallestoneincomparisontotheothers,groupsjustfivestudies
dealingmostlywithconsumerandmarketingresearchissues[77].Thisclusterislocatedina
completeoppositepositionwithrespecttothegreenoneandveryfewlinkagesaredepictedbetween
thetwoclusters.
4.4.OverlayRepresentation
Moreover,inordertofurtherexploretheinterrelationinthisfieldofresearchweproduceda
mapshowingthejournalscontainingthe1519academicpapersplottedonaglobalmapofscience
(Figure4).Aspresentedinthemap,mostofacademicresearchesrelatedtosocialpracticetheory
weremadeinjournalsdealingwithpsychologyandsocialscience,economicandmanagementand
environmentalsciences.Onlyasmallernumberofpublicationsweremadeinjournalsrelatedto
humanhealth‐relatedjournals.Thescarceinterdisciplinarityoftheareaofresearchisalsoconfirmed
bytheRao–Stirlingdiversityindex[60–62]of0.11.

Figure4.Overlayrepresentationofjournals.
5.Discussion
Fromatheoreticalperspective,itisevidentfromthetermmaphowpracticetheoretic
approachesinconsumerstudieshavebridgedtoothertheoreticalframeworks.Thereare,indeed,
severalreferencestotechnologyandinnovation(respectivelyonthecentralandlowerpartofthe
maps).Thisshowshowsomescholarslinkpracticetheoriestodifferentaspectsofsociotechnological
transitions[7,9,70,78],orstudyhowinterconnectedpracticesplayintosociotechnologicalchange
[8,43].Inthisdomain,linkshavealsobeencreatedbetweentheoriesofpracticeandtransitiontheories,
whichstudytransitionsinsociotechnologicalsystems[73,79,80].Otherauthorsalsofocuson
technology,butemphasisetheagentiveaspectsoftechnologyinthereproductionofpractices,and
onhowtechnologiesareembeddedinpractices[7,11,16,81].However,stillunderthistheoretical
perspective,surprisinglybothinthetermmaps(Figures1and2)andintheco‐citationmap(Figure
3)onlyveryfewlinkscouldbefoundtothetheoryofreasonedaction[82]orthetheoryofplanned
Figure 4. Overlay representation of journals.
5. Discussion
From a theoretical perspective, it is evident from the term map how practice theoretic approaches
in consumer studies have bridged to other theoretical frameworks. There are, indeed, several references
to technology and innovation (respectively on the central and lower part of the maps). This shows how
some scholars link practice theories to different aspects of sociotechnological transitions [
7
,
9
,
70
,
78
], or
study how interconnected practices play into sociotechnological change [
8
,
43
]. In this domain, links
have also been created between theories of practice and transition theories, which study transitions
in sociotechnological systems [
73
,
79
,
80
]. Other authors also focus on technology, but emphasise the
agentive aspects of technology in the reproduction of practices, and on how technologies are embedded
in practices [
7
,
11
,
16
,
81
]. However, still under this theoretical perspective, surprisingly both in the
term maps (Figures 1and 2) and in the co-citation map (Figure 3) only very few links could be found

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 11 of 19
to the theory of reasoned action [
82
] or the theory of planned behaviour [
33
] that are often used as
framework to analyse sustainable behaviours related to consumption.
Several other considerations can be taken into account when analysing past and current research
trends; indeed, building on the static analysis that identified five main streams of research topics
(Figure 1), the dynamic analysis on the evolution of the fields in which SPT found application
(Figure 2) and the co-citation analysis which allowed us to identify influential publications in each
field (Figure 3), a framework of potential near-future directions in the application of social practice
theories in sustainability research is proposed and shown in Figure 5.
Sustainability2019,11,xFORPEERREVIEW11of19
behaviour[33]thatareoftenusedasframeworktoanalysesustainablebehavioursrelatedto
consumption.
Severalotherconsiderationscanbetakenintoaccountwhenanalysingpastandcurrentresearch
trends;indeed,buildingonthestaticanalysisthatidentifiedfivemainstreamsofresearchtopics
(Figure1),thedynamicanalysisontheevolutionofthefieldsinwhichSPTfoundapplication(Figure
2)andtheco‐citationanalysiswhichallowedustoidentifyinfluentialpublicationsineachfield
(Figure3),aframeworkofpotentialnear‐futuredirectionsintheapplicationofsocialpracticetheories
insustainabilityresearchisproposedandshowninFigure5.

Figure5.Frameworklinkingpastandcurrenttofutureapplicationareasofsocialpracticetheories.
Asmentionedintheresultssection,sustainabilityemergedasapredominanttopicaroundthe
years2013and2014.Inthistimeperiod,socialpracticetheoryresearchwasusedmainlytostudy
whatplaysintotheemergenceofsustainableconsumptionandproductionpracticesorwhatkeeps
unsustainablemodesofconsumptionandproductioninplace[16,73,83–86];aswellastoshedlight
onhowpracticesareintertwinedindifferentcontextsofconsumption[15,87–89].
Withtime,applicationsofsocialpracticetheorytoconsumerstudiesincreasinglyfocusedon
analysingthepotentialforachievingashifttomoresustainablepracticesinthecontextofurban
livingandpolicydevelopment(2014–2015).Suchapplicationsincludeworkonsustainableeating
[16,90–92],community,infrastructure,technology[77,93–98]andhowpracticesplayintothe
interfacebetweenconsumptionandsustainablepolicy[99–107].
Finally,theapplicationofsocialpracticetheoryfrom2015todatehasbeenlargelyinthecontext
ofhouseholdenergyuseanddemand;morespecificallyrelatedtoelectricityconsumptionandusage
[108–119]andthermalcomfort[120–129].
Basedontheseinsights,weidentifysomefieldsinwhichsocialpracticetheorycouldbeapplied
infutureresearch.
Circulareconomyandsharingeconomyarefertileandpromisingareasforfutureapplications
ofsocialpracticetheory.Indeed,thecommonlyusedlinearproductionmodelhasbeenrecently
contestedbydevelopmentsinthefieldofcirculareconomy,aconceptthatconceivesofproduction
systemsbyextendingtheusefullifeofgoods,materialsandresourcesbeyondtheiruseasconsumer
goods(e.g.,bymeansofreusingandsharingpractices[130])andwastemanagementconscious
behaviour[131](e.g.,suchaswastepreventionbehaviours[132]).Withinthisfieldofresearch,a
significantbodyofresearchrelatedtosharing,repairandreusebehaviourseemstobeemergingfrom
thestreams‘businessandgovernance’,‘sustainableconsumptionandproduction’and‘urbanliving’
(Figure4).Moreindetail,weenvisageasignificantstreamofemergingresearchdealingwiththe
diffusionofaccess‐basedconsumptionandbusinessmodels,andexaminationofitsdynamicsinthe
contextofthesharingeconomyasrepresentedbythefewrecentpublicationsalreadyavailable[133–
Figure 5. Framework linking past and current to future application areas of social practice theories.
As mentioned in the results section, sustainability emerged as a predominant topic around the
years 2013 and 2014. In this time period, social practice theory research was used mainly to study
what plays into the emergence of sustainable consumption and production practices or what keeps
unsustainable modes of consumption and production in place [
16
,
73
,
83
–
86
]; as well as to shed light on
how practices are intertwined in different contexts of consumption [15,87–89].
With time, applications of social practice theory to consumer studies increasingly focused on
analysing the potential for achieving a shift to more sustainable practices in the context of urban living
and policy development (2014–2015). Such applications include work on sustainable eating [
16
,
90
–
92
],
community, infrastructure, technology [
77
,
93
–
98
] and how practices play into the interface between
consumption and sustainable policy [99–107].
Finally, the application of social practice theory from 2015 to date has been largely in the context
of household energy use and demand; more specifically related to electricity consumption and
usage [108–119] and thermal comfort [120–129].
Based on these insights, we identify some fields in which social practice theory could be applied
in future research.
Circular economy and sharing economy are fertile and promising areas for future applications of
social practice theory. Indeed, the commonly used linear production model has been recently contested
by developments in the field of circular economy, a concept that conceives of production systems by
extending the useful life of goods, materials and resources beyond their use as consumer goods (e.g.,
by means of reusing and sharing practices [
130
]) and waste management conscious behaviour [
131
]
(e.g., such as waste prevention behaviours [
132
]). Within this field of research, a significant body
of research related to sharing, repair and reuse behaviour seems to be emerging from the streams
‘business and governance’, ‘sustainable consumption and production’ and ‘urban living’ (Figure 4).
More in detail, we envisage a significant stream of emerging research dealing with the diffusion of
access-based consumption and business models, and examination of its dynamics in the context of the

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 12 of 19
sharing economy as represented by the few recent publications already available [
133
–
135
]. Moreover,
investigation of behavioural practices and circular business models related to replacement, repair and
reuse in the context of the circular economy could also represent a future trend supported, also in this
case, by few recent publications already showing such tendency [136–141].
Another promising area for the application of social practice theory is represented by smart
cities. The concept behind making a city smarter has been widely explored by researchers during
the recent years [
142
–
146
]. Within this context, as a derivation of the more recent research focused
on the streams ‘urban living and policy’ and ‘household energy’, it appears that the application of
social practice theory is heading to the direction of reframing the challenges and potentials of orienting
citizens’ behaviour in the context of energy consumption and production in smart cities [
111
,
147
–
150
].
During the last decade, we assisted also to a wider interest in promoting sustainable decentralised
energy production fostered by citizen participation is a number of local projects implemented in
smart cities contexts [
151
,
152
]. Such projects comprehend a wide range of activities ranging from
energy generation projects to energy conservation projects (e.g., renewable energy generation from
locally-owned infrastructures, refurbishment of community building, programs fostering behavioural
change, etc.) which take the appellative of energy communities [
153
]. Within this filed of research,
practice theory could represent the theoretical approach, in the future, to analyse how community
engagement programs can change over time the response to the rapid deployment and adoption of
locally-owned renewable energy systems.
6. Conclusions
With this research we have mapped the emerging trend of applications of practice theories
to consumer studies, and put these applications in relation with applications of practice theories
in other domains. We found that sustainability research represents one of the main foci of social
practice studies. In particular, there is extensive literature dealing with sustainable behaviour change
and a recently also an increasing application of practice theory to research on energy consumption.
Our results revealed that sustainability issues in practice theory started to be predominant topics
around the years 2013 and 2014 and that the energy related field of research represent the newest
field of research related to practice theory. Over time, consumer identity (2009–2012), business and
governance (2012–2014), sustainable consumption and production (2013–2014), urban living and policy
(2014–2015) and household energy (2015-present) were the areas in which the social practice theory
has been extensively applied to.
This analysis has allowed us to identify synergies that could be explored between different
fields of application of practice theories to open up possible future fields where an application of
practice theories could be promising. This notably concerns two emerging fields in the domain of
sustainability research—the sharing economy and circular economy, as well as smart cities—both
fields where applications of practice theories could usefully contribute to already ongoing work and
fruitfully draw on previous applications of practice theories to different but closely related fields of
research. Such applications could, in the case of the sharing and circular economy, focus for instance
on replacement, reusing and repairing practices, and in the case of smart cities, on the practices related
to the deployment and adoption of locally-owned renewable energy systems.
Some limitations need to be taken into consideration in the interpretation of our results.
Those notably concern the data. The produced sample depends on the assumptions which guided
the paper selection process, and which we have documented in the methods section. Lastly, since
they constitute a simplified depiction of the bibliometric analysis, the produced maps might create
some distortions.
Finally, knowledge about which are the major field of analysis of the practice theory research could
be helpful in complementing and confronting the findings of the presented paper. More specifically,
how the findings from the application of the competing practice theory differ from those concerning
sustainable behaviours is a salient gap needing attention. Bridging the gaps between these research

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 13 of 19
fields would represent an important contribution in the pursue of addressing (un)sustainable
consumption patterns in consumer studies.
Author Contributions:
Writing—original draft, F.C., R.L., F.M., F.P.A. and L.M.; Writing—review & editing, F.C.,
R.L., F.M., F.P.A. and L.M.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Haberl, H.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Krausmann, F.; Martinez-Alier, J.; Winiwarter, V. A socio-metabolic
transition towards sustainability? challenges for another great transformation. Sustain. Dev.
2011
,19, 1–14.
[CrossRef]
2.
OECD. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction; Organisation for Economic
Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2012.
3.
Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, I.F.S.; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.;
Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc.
2009,14, 1–33. [CrossRef]
4.
WWF. Living Planet Report 2016. Risk and Resilience in a New Era; WWF International: Gland, Switzerland, 2016.
5.
Hansen, A.; Nielsen, K.B.; Wilhite, H. Staying cool, looking good, moving around: Consumption,
sustainability and the rise of the south. Forum Dev. Stud. 2016,43, 5–25. [CrossRef]
6.
Hargreaves, T. Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental
behaviour change. J. Consum. Cult. 2011,11, 79–99. [CrossRef]
7.
Røpke, I. Theories of practice. new inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecol. Econ.
2009,68, 2490–2497. [CrossRef]
8.
Jensen, C.L. Understanding energy efficient lighting as an outcome of dynamics of social practices.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017,165, 1097–1106. [CrossRef]
9.
Jalas, M.; Hyysalo, S.; Heiskanen, E.; Lovio, R.; Nissinen, A.; Mattinen, M.; Rinkinen, J.; Juntunen, J.K.;
Tainio, P.; Nissilä, H. Everyday experimentation in energy transition: A practice-theoretical view.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017,169, 77–84. [CrossRef]
10.
Mylan, J. Understanding the diffusion of sustainable product-service systems: Insights from the sociology of
consumption and practice theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,97, 13–20. [CrossRef]
11.
Järvensivu, P. A post-fossil fuel transition experiment: Exploring cultural dimensions from a
practice-theoretical perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,169, 143–151. [CrossRef]
12.
Leray, L.; Sahakian, M.; Erkman, S. Understanding household food metabolism: Relating micro-level material
flow analysis to consumption practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,125, 44–55. [CrossRef]
13.
Shove, E. Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plan. A
2010
,42,
1273–1285. [CrossRef]
14.
Spaargaren, G. Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and culture: Exploring the relevance of
practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-order.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011,21, 813–822. [CrossRef]
15.
Gram-Hanssen, K. Understanding change and continuity in residential energy consumption. J. Consum. Cult.
2011,11, 61–78. [CrossRef]
16.
Sahakian, M.; Wilhite, H. Making practice theory practicable: Towards more sustainable forms of
consumption. J. Consum. Cult. 2014,14, 25–44. [CrossRef]
17.
Shove, E. Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. J. Consum. Policy
2003
,26,
395–418. [CrossRef]
18.
Strengers, Y. Peak electricity demand and social practice theories: Reframing the role of change agents in the
energy sector. Energy Policy 2012,44, 226–234. [CrossRef]
19. Warde, A. Consumption and theories of practice. J. Consum. Cult. 2005,5, 131–153. [CrossRef]
20.
Baber, Z. Beyond the structure/agency dualism: An evaluation of Giddens theory of structuration. Sociol. Inq.
1991,61, 219–230. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 14 of 19
21.
Schatzki, T.R.; Knorr Cetina, K.; von Savigny, E. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory; Routledge: London,
UK, 2001.
22.
Gram-Hanssen, K. New needs for better understanding of household’s energy consumption—Behaviour,
lifestyle or practices? Archit. Eng. Des. Man 2014,10, 91–107. [CrossRef]
23.
Cass, N.; Faulconbridge, J. Commuting practices: New insights into modal shift from theories of social
practice. Transp. Policy 2016,45, 1–14. [CrossRef]
24.
Plessz, M.; Dubuisson-Quellier, S.; Gojard, S.; Barrey, S. How consumption prescriptions affect food practices:
Assessing the roles of household resources and life-course events. J. Consum. Cult.
2016
,16, 101–123.
[CrossRef]
25.
Sanne, C. Willing consumers or locked in? policies for a sustainable consumption. Ecol. Econ.
2002
,42,
273–287. [CrossRef]
26.
Schatzki, T.R. Practices and actions a Wittgensteinian critique of Bourdieu and Giddens. Philos. Soc. Sci.
1997,27, 283–308. [CrossRef]
27. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984.
28.
Bourdieu, P. Esquisse D’une Théorie de la Pratique: Précédéde Trois Études D’ethnologie Kabyle; Editions du Seuil:
Paris, France, 1972.
29.
Berzano, L.; Genova, C. Lifestyles and Subcultures: History and a New Perspective; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2015.
30. Milly, B.; Delas, J.-P. Histoire des Pensées Sociologiques; Armand Colin: Paris, France, 2009.
31.
Popa, F. Motivations to contribute to public goods: Beyond rational choice economics. Environ. Policy Gov.
2015,25, 230–242. [CrossRef]
32. Paavola, J.; Adger, W.N. Institutional ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 2005,53, 353–368. [CrossRef]
33. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Decis. Proc. 1991,50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
34.
Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002,8, 239–260. [CrossRef]
35. Holtz, G. Generating social practices. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 2014,17, 17. [CrossRef]
36.
Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer: A computer program for bibliometric mapping.
Scientometrics 2010,84, 523–538. [CrossRef]
37.
Corsini, F.; Rizzi, F.; Gusmerotti, N.M.; Frey, M. Extended Producer Responsibility and the Evolution of
Sustainable Specializations: Evidences from the e-Waste Sector. Bus. Strat. Environ.
2014
,24, 466–476.
[CrossRef]
38.
Certomà, C.; Corsini, F.; Rizzi, F. Crowdsourcing urban sustainability. Data, people and technologies in
participatory governance. Futures 2015,74, 93–106. [CrossRef]
39.
Appio, F.P.; Martini, A.; Massa, S.; Testa, S. Unveiling the intellectual origins of Social Media-based innovation:
Insights from a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics 2016,108, 355–388. [CrossRef]
40.
Mora, L.; Bolici, R.; Deakin, M. The First Two Decades of Smart-City Research: A Bibliometric Analysis.
J. Urban Technol. 2017,24, 3–27. [CrossRef]
41.
Mora, L.; Deakin, M.; Reid, A. Smart City Development Paths: Insights from the First Two Decades
of Research. In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Region: Results of SSPCR 2017; Bisello, A.,
Vettorato, D., Laconte, P., Costa, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
42.
Aguillo, I. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics
2011
,91, 343–351.
[CrossRef]
43.
Shove, E.; Pantzar, M.; Watson, M. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes; SAGE:
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2012.
44.
Reckwitz, A. Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. Eur. J. Soc. Theory
2002,5, 243–263. [CrossRef]
45.
McFarlane, C.; Silver, J. Navigating the city: Dialectics of everyday urbanism. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr.
2017
,42,
458–471. [CrossRef]
46.
Light, D.B.; Pillemer, R.J. Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research; Harvard University Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 1984.
47.
Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Buter, R.K. Automatic term identification for bibliometric
mapping. Scientometrics 2010,82, 581–596. [CrossRef]
48. Kullback, S.; Leibler, R.A. On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Stat. 1951,22, 79–86. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 15 of 19
49. Kullback, S. Information Theory and Statistics; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1959.
50.
Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L.; Dekker, R.; Van den Berg, J. A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric
mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2010,61, 2405–2416. [CrossRef]
51.
Waltman, L.; Van Eck, N.J.; Noyons, E.C.M. A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric
networks. J. Inform. 2010,4, 629–635. [CrossRef]
52.
Culnan, M.J. The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972–1982: A co-citation
analysis. Manag. Sci. 1986,32, 156–172. [CrossRef]
53.
Nerur, S.P.; Rasheed, A.A.; Natarajan, V. The intellectual structure of the strategic management field:
An author co-citation analysis. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008,29, 319–336. [CrossRef]
54.
Small, H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents.
J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 1973,24, 265–269. [CrossRef]
55.
Gmur, M. Co-citation Analysis and the Search for Invisible Colleges: A Methodological Evaluation.
Scientometrics 2003,57, 27–57. [CrossRef]
56.
Persson, O.; Danell, R.; Schneider, J. How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis.
In Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies. In A Festscrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday; Åström, F.,
Danell, R., Larsen, B., Schneider, J., Eds.; ISSI: Leuven, Belgium, 2009.
57.
Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Bibliometric mapping of the computational intelligence field. Int. J. Uncertain.
Fuzz. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2007,15, 625–645. [CrossRef]
58.
Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L.; Van den Berg, J.; Kaymak, U. Visualizing the computational intelligence field.
IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 2006,1, 6–10. [CrossRef]
59.
Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F.; Guerrero-Bote, V.P. Journal maps, interactive overlays, and the
measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of Scopus data (1996–2012). J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol.
2015,66, 1001–1016. [CrossRef]
60.
Porter, A.L.; Cohen, A.S.; Roessner, J.D.; Perreault, M. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics
2007,72, 117–147. [CrossRef]
61.
Rao, C.R. Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: A unified approach. Theor. Popul. Biol.
1982
,21, 24–43.
[CrossRef]
62.
Stirling, A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J. R. Soc. Interface
2007,4, 707–719. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Shove, E.; Walker, G. What is energy for? Social practice and energy demand. Theory Cult. Soc.
2014
,31,
41–58. [CrossRef]
64.
Delormier, T.; Frohlich, K.L.; Potvin, L. Food and eating as social practice-understanding eating patterns
as social phenomena and implications for public health. Sociol. Health Illn.
2009
,31, 215–228. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
65.
Keller, M.; Ruus, R. Pre-schoolers, parents and supermarkets: Co-shopping as a social practice. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 2014,38, 119–126. [CrossRef]
66.
Echeverri, P.; Skålén, P. Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value
formation. Mark. Theory 2011,11, 351–373. [CrossRef]
67.
Shankar, A.; Elliott, R.; Fitchett, R.A. Identity, consumption and narratives of socialization. Mark. Theor.
2009
,
9, 75–94. [CrossRef]
68. Hitchings, R. People can talk about their practices. Area 2012,44, 61–67. [CrossRef]
69.
McMeekin, A.; Southerton, D. Sustainability transitions and final consumption: Practices and socio-technical
systems. Technol. Anal. Strateg. 2012,24, 345–361. [CrossRef]
70.
Watson, M. How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system.
J. Transp. Geogr. 2012,24, 488–496. [CrossRef]
71.
Vaara, E.; Whittington, R. Strategy-as-Practice: Taking Social Practices Seriously. Acad. Manag. Ann.
2012
,6,
285–336. [CrossRef]
72.
Von Krogh, G.; Haefliger, S.; Spaeth, S.; Wallin, M.W. Carrots and rainbows: Motivation and social practice
in open source software development. MIS Q. 2012,36, 649–676. [CrossRef]
73.
Hargreaves, T.; Longhurst, N.; Seyfang, G. Up, down, round and round: Connecting regimes and practices
in innovation for sustainability. Environ. Plan. A 2013,45, 402–420. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 16 of 19
74.
Peters, L.D.; Pressey, A.D.; Vanharanta, M.; Johnston, W.J. Constructivism and critical realism as alternative
approaches to the study of business networks: Convergences and divergences in theory and in research
practice. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2013,42, 336–346. [CrossRef]
75.
Akaka, M.A.; Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. The complexity of context: A service ecosystems approach for
international marketing. J. Int. Mark. 2013,21, 1–20. [CrossRef]
76.
Halkier, B.; Katz-Gerro, T.; Martens, L. Applying practice theory to the study of consumption: Theoretical
and methodological considerations. J. Consum. Cult. 2011. [CrossRef]
77.
Vargo, S.L.; Wieland, H.; Akaka, M.A. Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems
perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015,44, 63–72. [CrossRef]
78.
Mylan, J.; Holmes, H.; Paddock, J. Re-introducing consumption to the “circular economy”: A sociotechnical
analysis of domestic food provisioning. Sustainability 2016,8, 794. [CrossRef]
79.
Geels, F.W. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective.
Res. Policy 2010,39, 495–510. [CrossRef]
80.
Jørgensen, U. Mapping and navigating transitions—The multi-level perspective compared with arenas of
development. Res. Policy 2012,41, 996–1010. [CrossRef]
81.
Wallenborn, G.; Wilhite, H. Rethinking embodied knowledge and household consumption. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 2014,1, 56–64. [CrossRef]
82.
Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research;
Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975.
83.
Southerton, D. Habits, routines and temporalities of consumption: From individual behaviours to the
reproduction of everyday practices. Time Soc. 2013,22, 335–355. [CrossRef]
84.
Moloney, S.; Strengers, Y. “Going Green”?: The Limitations of Behaviour Change Programmes as a Policy
Response to Escalating Resource Consumption. Environ. Policy Gov. 2014,24, 94–107. [CrossRef]
85.
Doyle, R.; Davies, A.R. Towards sustainable household consumption: Exploring a practice oriented,
participatory backcasting approach for sustainable home heating practices in Ireland. J. Clean. Prod.
2013
,48,
260–271. [CrossRef]
86.
Sweeney, J.C.; Kresling, J.; Webb, D.; Soutar, G.N.; Mazzarol, T. Energy saving behaviours: Development of a
practice-based model. Energy Policy 2013,61, 371–381. [CrossRef]
87.
Barr, S.; Prillwitz, J. A smarter choice? exploring the behaviour change agenda for environmentally
sustainable mobility. Environ. Plan. C 2014,32, 1–19. [CrossRef]
88.
Vlasova, L.; Gram-Hanssen, K. Incorporating inhabitants everyday practices into domestic retrofits.
Build. Res. Inf. 2014,42, 512–524. [CrossRef]
89.
Powells, G.; Bulkeley, H.; Bell, S.; Judson, E. Peak electricity demand and the flexibility of everyday life.
Geoforum 2014,55, 43–52. [CrossRef]
90.
Meah, A. Still blaming the consumer? Geographies of responsibility in domestic food safety practices.
Crit. Public Health 2014,24, 88–103. [CrossRef]
91.
Beverland, M.B. Sustainable Eating: Mainstreaming Plant-Based Diets in Developed Economies. J. Macromark.
2014,34, 369–382. [CrossRef]
92.
Pennycook, A.; Otsuji, E. Metrolingualism: Language in the City, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
93.
Liedtke, C.; Baedeker, C.; Hasselkuß, M.; Rohn, H.; Grinewitschus, V. User-integrated innovation in
Sustainable LivingLabs: An experimental infrastructure for researching and developing sustainable product
service systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,97, 106–116. [CrossRef]
94.
Piscicelli, L.; Cooper, T.; Fisher, T. The role of values in collaborative consumption: Insights from a
product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,97, 21–29. [CrossRef]
95.
Martin, D.M.; Schouten, J.W. Consumption-driven market emergence. J. Consum. Res.
2014
,40, 855–870.
[CrossRef]
96.
Goulden, M.; Bedwell, B.; Rennick-Egglestone, S.; Rodden, T.; Spence, A. Smart grids, smart users? The role
of the user in demand side management. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014,2, 21–29. [CrossRef]
97.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.; Galliers, R.D.; Henfridsson, O.; Newell, S.; Vidgen, R. The sociomateriality of
information systems: Current status, future directions. MIS Q. 2014,38, 809–830. [CrossRef]
98.
Barrett, M.; Davidson, E. Service innovation in the digital age: Key contributions and future directions.
MIS Q. 2015,39, 135–154. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 17 of 19
99.
Shove, E. Putting practice into policy: Reconfiguring questions of consumption and climate change.
Contemp. Soc. Sci. 2014,9, 415–429. [CrossRef]
100.
Stephenson, J.; Barton, B.; Carrington, G.; Doering, A.; Ford, R.; Hopkins, D.; Lawson, R.; McCarthy, A.;
Rees, D.; Scott, M.; et al. The energy cultures framework: Exploring the role of norms, practices and material
culture in shaping energy behaviour in New Zealand. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015,7, 117–123. [CrossRef]
101.
Bueger, C. Pathways to practice: Praxiography and international politics. Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev.
2014
,6, 383–406.
[CrossRef]
102. Bueger, C.; Gadinger, F. International Practice Theory: New Perspectives; Palgrave: Basingstoke, UK, 2014.
103. Bueger, C.; Gadinger, F. The Play of International Practice. Int. Stud. Q. 2015,59, 449–460. [CrossRef]
104.
Wilson, C.; Crane, L.; Chryssochoidis, G. Why do homeowners renovate energy efficiently? Contrasting
perspectives and implications for policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015,7, 12–22. [CrossRef]
105.
Walker, G. The dynamics of energy demand: Change, rhythm and synchronicity. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
2014
,1,
49–55. [CrossRef]
106.
Kemmis, S.; Wilkinson, J.; Edwards-Groves, C.; Hardy, I.; Grootenboer, P.; Bristol, L. Changing Practices,
Changing Education; Springer: Singapore, 2014.
107.
Sorrell, S. Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2015,47, 74–82. [CrossRef]
108.
Christensen, T.H.; Rommes, E. Don’t blame the youth: The social-institutional and material embeddedness
of young people’s energy-intensive use of information and communication technology. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
2019,49, 82–90. [CrossRef]
109.
Hansen, A.R. ‘Sticky’ energy practices: The impact of childhood and early adulthood experience on later
energy consumption practices. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018,46, 125–139. [CrossRef]
110.
Hansen, A.R.; Gram-Hanssen, K.; Knudsen, H.N. How building design and technologies influence
heat-related habits. Build. Res. Inf. 2018,46, 83–98. [CrossRef]
111.
Hansen, M.; Hauge, B. Prosumers and smart grid technologies in Denmark: Developing user competences
in smart grid households. Energy Effic. 2017,10, 1215–1234. [CrossRef]
112.
Sonnberger, M.; Gross, M. Rebound Effects in Practice: An Invitation to Consider Rebound from a Practice
Theory Perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2018,154, 14–21. [CrossRef]
113.
Hampton, S.; Adams, R. Behavioural economics vs social practice theory: Perspectives from inside the
United Kingdom government. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018,46, 214–224. [CrossRef]
114.
Hess, A.-K.; Samuel, R.; Burger, P. Informing a social practice theory framework with social-psychological
factors for analyzing routinized energy consumption: A multivariate analysis of three practices. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 2018,46, 183–193. [CrossRef]
115. Cooper, A.C.G. Building physics into the social: Enhancing the policy impact of energy studies and energy
social science research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017,26, 80–86. [CrossRef]
116.
Pothitou, M.; Hanna, R.F.; Chalvatzis, K.J. ICT entertainment appliances’ impact on domestic electricity
consumption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017,69, 843–853. [CrossRef]
117.
Horne, C.; Kennedy, E.H. The power of social norms for reducing and shifting electricity use. Energy Policy
2017,107, 43–52. [CrossRef]
118.
Morley, J.; Widdicks, K.; Hazas, M. Digitalisation, energy and data demand: The impact of Internet traffic on
overall and peak electricity consumption. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018,38, 128–137. [CrossRef]
119.
Hobman, E.V.; Stenner, K.; Frederiks, E.R. Exploring everyday energy usage practices in Australian
households: A qualitative analysis. Energies 2017,10, 1332. [CrossRef]
120.
Wolff, A.; Weber, I.; Gill, B.; Schubert, J.; Schneider, M. Tackling the interplay of occupants’ heating practices
and building physics: Insights from a German mixed methods study. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
2017
,32, 65–75.
[CrossRef]
121.
Foulds, C.; Powell, J.; Seyfang, G. How moving home influences appliance ownership: A Passivhaus case
study. Energy Effic. 2016,9, 455–472. [CrossRef]
122. Winter, T. Active cooling and low carbon comfort. J. Archit. 2016,21, 418–432. [CrossRef]
123.
Rinkinen, J.; Jalas, M. Moving home: Houses, new occupants and the formation of heating practices.
Build. Res. Inf. 2017,45, 293–302. [CrossRef]
124.
Strengers, Y.; Maller, C. Adapting to “extreme” weather: Mobile practice memories of keeping warm and
cool as a climate change adaptation strategy. Environ. Plan. A 2017,49, 1432–1450. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 18 of 19
125.
Strengers, Y.; Pink, S.; Nicholls, L. Smart energy futures and social practice imaginaries: Forecasting scenarios
for pet care in Australian homes. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019,48, 108–115. [CrossRef]
126.
Madsen, L.V.; Gram-Hanssen, K. Understanding comfort and senses in social practice theory: Insights from
a Danish field study. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017,29, 86–94. [CrossRef]
127.
Gordon, R.; Butler, K.; Cooper, P.; Waitt, G.; Magee, C. Look before you LIEEP: Practicalities of using
ecological systems social marketing to improve thermal comfort. J. Soc. Mark. 2018,8, 99–119. [CrossRef]
128.
Madsen, L.V. Materialities shape practices and notions of comfort in everyday life. Build. Res. Inf.
2018
,46,
71–82. [CrossRef]
129.
Galassi, V.; Madlener, R. Shall I open the window? Policy implications of thermal-comfort adjustment
practices in residential buildings. Energy Policy 2018,119, 518–527. [CrossRef]
130.
Svenson, F.; Mäschig, F.; Meier, A. Contrasting brand community support for sustainable smartphone
practices of charging and managing battery power. In Proceedings of the MKWI 2018-Multikonferenz
Wirtschaftsinformatik, Lüneburg, Germany, 6–9 March 2018; pp. 1183–1194.
131.
Reyes-Menendez, A.; Saura, J.R.; Alvarez-Alonso, C. Understanding #WorldEnvironmentDay User Opinions
in Twitter: A Topic-Based Sentiment Analysis Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 2537.
132.
Corsini, F.; Gusmerotti, N.M.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Exploring waste prevention behaviour through empirical
research. Waste Manag. 2018,79, 132–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
133.
Camilleri, J.; Neuhofer, B. Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing economy. Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017,29, 2322–2340. [CrossRef]
134.
Huber, A. Theorising the dynamics of collaborative consumption practices: A comparison of peer-to-peer
accommodation and cohousing. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit 2017,23, 53–69. [CrossRef]
135.
Fraanje, W.; Spaargaren, G. What future for collaborative consumption? A practice theoretical account.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019,208, 499–508. [CrossRef]
136.
El Bilali, H. Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability transitions.
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, in press. [CrossRef]
137.
Pullman, M.; Rainey, K. Minimizing food waste at Google: Creating production innovation and purchasing
practices. In Organizing Supply Chain Processes for Sustainable Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry; Cagliano, R.,
Caniato, F.F.A., Worley, C.G., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2016; pp. 127–152.
138.
Sousa-Zomer, T.T.; Miguel, P.A.C. Exploring the consumption side of sustainable product-service systems
(PSS): An empirical study and insights for PSS sustainable design. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol.
2016
,15,
74–81. [CrossRef]
139.
Pettersen, I.N. Fostering absolute reductions in resource use: The potential role and feasibility of
practice-oriented design. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,132, 252–265. [CrossRef]
140.
Wieser, H.; Tröger, N. Exploring the inner loops of the circular economy: Replacement, repair, and reuse of
mobile phones in Austria. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,172, 3042–3055. [CrossRef]
141.
Benamar, L.; Balagué, C.; Ghassany, M. The Identification and Influence of Social Roles in a Social Media
Product Community. J. Comput.-Med. Commun. 2017,22, 337–362. [CrossRef]
142.
Corsini, F.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. Analysing smartness in European cities: A factor analysis based on resource
efficiency, transportation and ICT. Int. J. Glob. Environ. 2016,15, 235–254. [CrossRef]
143.
Appio, F.P.; Lima, M.; Paroutis, S. Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation Ecosystems, Technological
Advancements, and Societal Challenges. Technol. Forecast Soc. Chang. 2019. [CrossRef]
144.
Mora, L.; Deakin, M.; Reid, A.; Angelidou, M. How to Overcome the Dichotomous Nature of Smart City
Research: Proposed Methodology and Results of a Pilot Study. J. Urban Technol. 2018. [CrossRef]
145.
Mora, L.; Deakin, M.; Reid, A. Strategic Principles for Smart City Development: A Multiple Case Study
Analysis of European Best Practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, in press. [CrossRef]
146.
Yildiz, O.; Rommel, J.; Debor, S.; Holstenkamp, L.; Mey, F.; Muller, J.R.; Radtke, J.; Rognli, J. Renewable
energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary
research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015,6, 59–73. [CrossRef]
147.
Smale, R.; van Vliet, B.; Spaargaren, G. When social practices meet smart grids: Flexibility, grid management,
and domestic consumption in The Netherlands. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017,34, 132–140. [CrossRef]
148. Moezzi, M. Grid Dependencies and Change Capacities: People and Demand Response Under Renewables.
In Complex Systems and Social Practices in Energy Transitions; Labanca, N., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2017; pp. 283–303.

Sustainability 2019,11, 341 19 of 19
149.
DellaValle, N.; Bisello, A.; Balest, J. In search of behavioural and social levers for effective social housing
retrofit programs. Energy Build. 2018,172, 517–524. [CrossRef]
150.
Mela, H.; Peltomaa, J.; Salo, M.; Hildén, M. Framing smart meter feedback in relation to practice theory.
Sustainability 2018,10, 3553. [CrossRef]
151.
Corsini, F.; Certomà, C.; Dyer, M.; Frey, M. Participatory energy: Research, imaginaries and practices on
people’ contribute to energy systems in the smart city. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2019
, in press. [CrossRef]
152.
Koirala, B.P.; Koliou, E.; Friege, J.; Hakvoort, R.A.; Herder, P.M. Energetic communities for community
energy: A review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2016,56, 722–744. [CrossRef]
153.
Herráez, B.; Bustamante, D.; Saura, J.R. Information classification on social networks. Content analysis of
e-commerce companies on Twitter. Revista Espacios 2017,38, 16.
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).