Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 a Chuang Frank of governance mobility the sustainable in worldviews of role The www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1916936117 worldview sustainability sustainable holistic for on significance decisions wider governance. individual a - have of the and bedrock mobility that sustain- the conclude in form We stakeholders views engagement. of and characteristics planning peo- the ability British which identify with identification, help associated party can political are investi- and styles to com- sociodemographics cultural ple’s mobility analysis and these regression sustainable systematic how perform assess gate a we people Moreover, have how debates. worldviews on the impact find- prehensive that The incentives. show external individual- and ings and speed, hier- security; freedom, embraces conviction; and ism order, inner , by privileges driven archy and environ- friendliness, control, mental demand transport people’s favors the underlies Egalitarianism elucidating that decision-making. hypotheses, rationality our or confirms survey mobil- cultural 11 the of in analysis issues statistical atti- ity Our social mobility. and sustainable worldviews to the tudes between con- correlations hypotheses construct the we or cerning Second, worldviews Britain. three Great in the extract of to ways analysis mobil- factor use sustainable we to First, and ity. attitudes hierarchy, people’s worldviews—egalitarianism, to three —relate how (N survey study Attitudes Social to British cogni- utilize the We sustainable to and change. to Theory worldviews global Cultural transition with of dealing a in since crucial is transport the mobility in apply rationality we and Here, tion the our life? perceive modify of and we behavior, ways our do rationalize how world, natural However, between and 2019) . social interaction 30, physical September viable review and a for (received human for 2020 2, aims January approved development and Sustainable Norway, Oslo, Oslo, of University Underdal, Arild by Edited and Kingdom; United 6BT, Kingdom WC1E United London 9JT, London, LS2 College Leeds University Policy, Public and Engineering n epehv itntnes entoso odqaiyo life, of good of definitions needs, distinct have differ- people because is ent This (6–8). decision-making sustainabil- and into assessments integrated “soft,” ity be , to scientific have objective judgments “hard,” to subjective addition in is, of that postnormal (5): of situations strategy a requires in issues sustainability those rary and poor the of economies inaccessibility. regional the or and urban damage fields hinder may and green use pricing car of road deter a high- degradation to implementing policy cause motor and heritage, may a cultural of traffic building demolition divert example, to and For way social, (2–4). of environmental, battlefield domains economic, a political sustain- the frequently across other is conflicts many mobility value and Like issues, policy sustain- countries. on development to many high able transition and in people needed A agendas million urgently (1). political been 1.2 accidents has mobility than road able more in annually and energy-related killed emissions global gas of one-quarter greenhouse con- approximately it a to Currently, places societies. tributes and sector environment transport our on the burden However, huge . daily our underpin T atetCnr o dacdSailAayi,Uiest olg odn odnW1 B,Uie Kingdom; United 6BT, WC1E London London, College University Analysis, Spatial Advanced for Centre Bartlett drsigtepolmo utial oiiyo contempo- or mobility sustainable of problem the Addressing dcto,jb,gos n ierneo evcsthat services of range wide a access and to and goods, interaction jobs, social fulfill , to us enables ransport | utial mobility sustainable a,b,1 dManley Ed , | a,c | cognition n rhrPetersen Arthur and , | governance 1,120) = b doi:10.1073/pnas.1916936117/-/DCSupplemental at online supporting contains article This 1 under distributed BY).y is (CC article access open This Submission.y Direct PNAS a is article This .y performed competing A.P. paper. no y the declare and wrote authors A.P. E.M., The and F.C., E.M., F.C., ; and designed data; analyzed F.C. E.M. research; and F.C. contributions: Author ns ial,truhitgaigClua hoywt policy with adher- Theory worldview Cultural of integrating grouping attitudes through our these Finally, to that, ents. according sustain- Following relationships compared to investigated. the attitudes are are social Then, mobility British (15). and able worldviews survey British the the (BSA) between and Attitudes parsi- worldviews) a Social provides for (which worldviews Theory model different Cultural monious using of gen- Britain prevalence Great in the solutions in governance measure possible we urban the Here, and are eral? planning environ- mobility What urban sustainable issues? to to attitudes transport this their can and on How mental ? impact inter- natural an the some the have perceive and answer people social do the to how between attempt action example, We For questions. mobility. key sustainable of ernance sustainability societal and 14). behavior 13, of pro- 9, his/her a root (8, has on the worldview Worldviews the influence at one’s Therefore, lying found utilized. life, 12). models, (11, been good mental behavior and human often the visions To has and people’s life. shape “worldviews” needs of develop of define quality , notion and interpret good people orientations, realize how to value of present order value complex in to ques- analyze needs central how a involves Hence, development and gen- (10). sustainable future needs” of of own tion ability their the meet compromising to erations without needs present the “meet the Brundtland to the of is Moreover, development sustainable 9). that (8, states future Report the of expectations and owo orsodnemyb drse.Eal [email protected] Email: addressed. be may correspondence whom To oa n ntttoa areshne h transformations the societies. and hinder cities better achieve barriers to needed institutional our behav- and what doing, identifying ioral so for framework In a envi- dimensions. demonstrates economic, study political the and of terms social, in ronmental, debates mobility people’s British distinct to across attitudes of results hierar- our issues. (egalitarianism, people individualism), mobility and worldviews chy, sustainable how three use- assess study exploring be and Through perceive to to life proved worldviews of and worldviews ways use of needs interpret We notion define people the ful. how and life, quality of good orientations, good value the ideas realize value complex to to develop analyze order is reality, To in task life. needs critical of future a and policy-making, present sustainability In Significance hssuyam ourvlterl fwrdiw ntegov- the in worldviews of role the unravel to aims study This c colo egah,Uiest fLeeds, of University , of School b eateto cec,Technology, Science, of Department raieCmosAtiuinLcne4.0 License Attribution Commons Creative . y https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/ NSLts Articles Latest PNAS | f9 of 1

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE studies, we argue for the need to adopt an approach of “clumsy A solutions,” which are solutions that appeal for combinations of different worldviews, as an effective governance framework for sustainable mobility or development in general. Worldviews and Sustainability The term worldview is widely used in the social . It is also related to in and in philosophy or the natural sciences. A worldview is the fundamental cogni- Fatalism Cultural Hierarchy tive orientation of a person or group regarding the world and life—how people make sense of human and physical nature (6, 8, 9, 16, 17). It encompasses a of values and beliefs, which “influences such things as how we see ourselves as individuals, how we interpret our role in society, how we deal with social issues, and what we regard as ” (18). In the , Worldview Cultural Theory (16, 17, 19–24) is a particular influential body Social of of theoretical and empirical discourses on worldviews. It is a Relations Nature social theory pioneered by Mary Douglas, a British social anthro- pologist generally considered a follower of Emile´ Durkheim. Yet, the theory’s influence has spanned a multitude of disci- plines and impactfully been formulated in “ thinking” terms. The theory postulates that a worldview is a combina- tion of , social relations, and a myth of nature (17). Here, cultural bias refers to shared values and beliefs, and social relations refer to social organizational forms, while Individualism Egalitarianism a myth of nature (17, 25–28) is a perspective on the natural world. As illustrated in Fig. 1A, the three elements are justifying and reinforcing each other, generating four socially viable world- Grid + views or ways of life: egalitarianism, hierarchy, individualism, B and fatalism. According to the theory, all societies or individuals can be clas- sified into the four worldviews by the two dimensions of social relations: group (social integration) and grid (social regulation) as depicted in Fig. 1B. The group dimension specifies how strong group boundaries are or the extent to which individuals’ behav- ior is constrained by group determination. The grid dimension defines how strong binding prescriptions are or the extent to Fatalism Hierarchy which individuals’ behavior is constrained by status or role differ- Nature Capricious Nature Perverse/Tolerant entiation. Each worldview represents the way that its adherents organize, perceive, and justify social relations, constructing a bias about the interaction between the social and the natural Group - Group + worlds and guiding their thought and action (29). It is a that shapes the adherents’ , attitudes, values, and preferences. As social and political life demands organiza- tion and mobilization of bias (20), the theory also maintains that people’s political attitudes and preferences are derived from the worldviews, which are referred to as political (17, 22, 23). In an egalitarian social setting, actors’ incorporation within their social units is strong, whereas subordination to binding pre- Individualism Egalitarianism scriptions is weak (high group, low grid). The actors have tight Nature Benign Nature Ephemeral connections but tend to reject excess social stratification as they that it would bring about corruption and inequality. To Grid - satisfy their to transform society in an egalitarian direc- tion, their myth of nature has to justify a view that nature is Fig. 1. Worldviews or cultural : four ways of life, political cultures, or ephemeral and fragile—nature is like a ball on top of a mound, rationalities. (A) A worldview is a combination of cultural bias, social rela- tions, and a myth of nature. (B) Typology of social relations (group and grid) and a slight interference in it would lead to catastrophic con- and of nature (adapted with permission from ref. 26). sequences (17). Natural or any other resources should not be exploited relentlessly in order to preserve intra- and intergen- erational equity. Therefore, environmental concern is rooted in ment is responsible for managing the boundary line between the an egalitarian culture (20). normal and abnormal states of nature (17). By contrast, a hierarchical culture is characterized by strong In an individualist social setting, both group boundaries and social incorporation and prescriptions (high group, high grid). binding prescriptions are condemned and should be negotiated Actors in this context adopt a way of life estab- (low group, low grid). Individual freedom is a high priority in lished by authority and role differentiation. Social conformity, this culture, and actors here are self-seeking and self-reliant (17). order, security, government, expert , and regula- They endorse , entrepreneurship, and free markets tions are respected. This culture generally holds nature to be to fulfill their individual success. They often embrace a view that perverse/tolerant—nature is portrayed as a ball that can roll nature is robust to manmade turmoil and thus, benign, just as a within limits and come back to the center safely, and govern- ball can always return to equilibrium however far it is pushed

2 of 9 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1916936117 Chuang et al. Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 hage al. et Chuang nier r rn oacp hsclue aty individual- Lastly, culture. this accept to transport sys- prone or guidance city are Traffic Traditional engineers orderly, predictable. cities. cities and keep in to controllable, chaos preferred safe, as are cause technocracy problematic and not rules, does be tems, it not For as should problems. long expansion transport infrastructural with favor into general dealing them, by in cities for hierarchists transform strategies endorsed contrast, to supply-side By is desire equitable. transport their more satisfies of this Urban means because examples. them diverse good and promoting necessary. discussion, convic- is policy education, inner use as through car behavior such transport or tion, egali- change mobility to (39), for prefer believe demand-side Grin demand They they as sustainable, the noted and and problems reducing livable Hoppe As that more transport cities as framed. urban make To well been see issues. as to have in tend 38) life mobility tarians (2, of about Hendriks ways narratives by different some of Theory, terms Cultural on Built Mobility Sustainable and Worldviews among differs sustainability of definition preferences the worldviews. and sum, In risks 37). of dis- 22, of ranking (20, People different 37). have (20, concern worldviews of tinct object and the selective with is varying of perception biased, dis- ways risk their individuals’ may support or which organizations’ To life, war, . individual of and defend; threat markets to rupt more wish perceive they individualists that norms and social such that undermine in hier- may dangerous more poor; behavior deviance the social exploiting of like acts deem just they archists is that nature in insulting greater that view as believe egalitarians hazards environmental (37), cultural and support As technological empirical individualism. with always and indicate is hierarchy theorists egalitarianism that than mean risk-averse consequences not more does social this and However, (20). environmental highlight to disastrous tends Alliance) potentially Clamshell antinuclear the the of and Friends environmental (e.g., Earth a one and egalitarian more that a demands whereas argue conservation, make economic to prepared and between is Club) States compromises Sierra the United (e.g., one the compare hierarchical more in (20) environmental Wildavsky groups American of and environmental study Douglas case hierarchy their example, do in For than perception individualism. dangers stronger environmental and and entails technological research egalitarianism of empirical that accompanying proposed its and have theory inves- and The for what useful (37). be why” “who to unraveling proved through theory perceptions The risk few. tigating modeling a but sustainability name global to and (34), (36) attitudes (35), users’ management car risk (33), power water nuclear for pol- climate support energy (32), perceived renewable sustainability icy (31), (29), of (30), policy range for risks change wide change used climate a been including on has views issues, It opposing (17). to the nature seeks analyzing physical and It and individuals human and development. between sustainable between dualisms and the overcome life, pro- political human practices, social cesses, together brings that (21) (17). cognition go unknown would or ball the that random where nature so predict of is cannot myth you world a that adopts capricious—the often as life nature of their sees way for use This no (29). decisions of them is about participation to political circum- choice or these others little with in Cooperation have life. be excessively might actors poor and The very units stances. the social or context their Prisoners fatalist from regulated. a alienated in or Actors isolated grid). are high group, that (low prescriptions belief the by economic support prosperity. rationalized and social growth and to is limits the worldview break can innovations This (17). away utrlTer rmtsa dao cultural/institutional of idea an promotes Theory Cultural strong but incorporation social low features fatalism Lastly, 6,o yh fntr 3,4) ic utrlba n social and bias cultural Since 47). the (45, (34, relations through nature social of example, 42–44), myths for (31, or bias using level: 46), cultural circum- estimated individual (political) large-scale of the also lens for at are suitable data worldviews be survey Therefore, not (41). may ethnographic stances in-depth thus, on organizational rely and to the studies needs at to this grid) However, is (41). and approaches level (group earliest the relations of social arrived One measure we ways. various how in performed explain we domi- section, was this result. society of this at the remainder hierarchists. here, and the individualists adherents shown by In worldview followed As egalitarians of society. by nated types British three the the in of our proportions on mated Based parties. of (N political range analysis , factor and whole gender, pub- environment, a education, of the covers health, transport, barometer it welfare, important policy, as an such public topics, As inform over. to or opinions sample lic 18 representative aged a since produce adults Research to in Social of designed The for conducted is survey (15). Centre survey The National 2016 1983. government the BSA by annual the Britain large-scale, Great on a out is carried sus- BSA to was attitudes social mobility and worldviews tainable British the of analysis Our we Worldviews now of mea- Measurement which be categorized, 40). be to 36, to to. need turn (31, need will worldviews individuals analysis hypotheses, and policy sured, our from testing it Before attitudes excluded environmental frequently fatalism understanding that and in concluded inconsequential research previous was because mainly ysis, congestion because disorder. concern urban symbolizes this with that positively hierarchy individualists Also, correlate opportunities. should to and about problem concern valuable their intolerant the endangers with an positively congestion, correlate traffic should it freedom, 3. rules. traffic to transport positively obedience of and correlate social means with should linked hierarchy concerns mobility security, with and order, mity, 2. Hypothesis ball the by of valley. earlier the dilemmas in illustrated the rolling as between tech- development lines how urban on boundary sustainable highly the hinge manages culture because hierarchical nocracy them a with of correlation attitudes Hier- ambiguous the issues. an these have to should related archy contrary, negatively the On be pollution, cars. should low-carbon air individualism to proen- switch of to of willingness perception approval the the the and use, policies, environment, car transport reducing natural for vironmental the support positively the to as correlate pertaining such should concerns it mobility conviction, with inner by driven signifies action and control, demand embodies sustainability, ronmental 1. Hypothesis regarding associated hypotheses mobility. these some sustainable developed and we external Theory narratives,” by Cultural “mobility driven to Whether mainly eliminated. According is freedom be transport incentives. their are should sustainable this fulfill to use to switch to barrier they car is any by and Automobility supply. travel, incurred of concern. of terms serious costs in a environmental problems not or transport external define to The tend also ists esrn h olvesdfie yClua hoycnbe can Theory Cultural by defined worldviews the Measuring anal- our in fatalism include not did we that noted be should It seaiains lcstems au nenvi- on value most the places egalitarianism As eas irrhclcluepiiee confor- privileges culture hierarchical a Because ic niiuls mrcscmeiinand competition embraces individualism Since ftedtst i.2dpcsoresti- our depicts 2 Fig. dataset, the of 120) 1, = NSLts Articles Latest PNAS | f9 of 3

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE (agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, dis- agree strongly, respectively), while only the third survey item was rated on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from one to four (definitely should be, probably should be, probably should not be, definitely should not be, respectively). For ease of interpre- tation, all of their directions were reversed before our analysis (e.g., one for disagree strongly and five for agree strongly). The proportions of the three types of worldview adherents in Great Britain were estimated using factor analysis, a dimen- sion reduction technique for scientific research. It can extract the underlying factors, or latent constructs, of a set of observed variables so that researchers can better interpret their data or justify a theory. It is usually used to reduce information or a dataset to a more manageable number of dimensions, or fac- tors, through identifying variables that correlate highly with each other within a group but badly with variables outside that group. The results in Table 1 identified three worldview or political cul- tural dimensions. Each dimension, or factor, was associated with three items with factor loadings that were greater than 0.50 (i.e., with significance). A factor loading is conceptually a survey item’s contribution to a factor. The higher the loading, the more the fac- Fig. 2. Estimated configuration of worldview adherents in Great Britain tor is accounted for by that item. A rule of thumb suggests that (adults aged 18 or over). a loading (absolute value) ≥ 0.50 is considered practically sig- nificant (48). Furthermore, no item loaded at 0.32 or higher on two or more factors: that is, no cross-loading was found, which relations are the core of the theory, we preferred to choose one means that the three factors (latent constructs) are sufficiently between the two. As the BSA survey is not primarily intended distinct. While there are no strict thresholds for determining a for capturing notions of social relations or network structure, cross-loading, a rule of thumb suggests that an item with more we finally determined to measure the British worldviews by than one loading (absolute value) ≥ 0.32 is deemed a cross- analyzing (political) cultural at the individual level. loading, which indicates potential nonseparation of factors (49). Political cultures, which embody preferences for policies and Our factor loadings meet the criteria for significance and separa- institutions, are “the social filter enabling people who possess tion. Further reliability checks of the model are in Materials and only inches of facts to generate miles of preferences” (22). In Methods and SI Appendix, Table S3. other words, after people opt for a particular institutional set- The first dimension was composed of the notions concern- ting, their attitudes and behaviors can be inferred by that choice ing redistribution of income, legal equality, and elimination of (31). Accordingly, we identified nine BSA survey items that par- income differences, which represent the egalitarian cause of allel the political cultures defined by Cultural Theory as listed in equality. Thus, this group was labeled as egalitarianism. The sec- Table 1. Each response related to the level of agreement with ond dimension was characterized by the ideas about obedience to a proposed statement. Originally, eight of the nine items were authority, respect for traditional British values, and of rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from one to five media, which portray the hierarchical in social conformity.

Table 1. Factor loadings of survey items on worldviews Factor (proposed worldview)

Survey item Egalitarianism Hierarchy Individualism 1. Government should redistribute income from the better-off to those who are less well-off. 0.73* –0.13 2. There is one for the rich and one for the poor. 0.64* 3. Government should reduce income differences between the rich and the poor. 0.60* –0.15 4. Schools should teach children to obey authority. 0.70* 5. Young people today do not have enough respect for traditional British values. 0.60* 0.10 6. Censorship of films and magazines is necessary to uphold moral standards. 0.54* 7. Government should not spend more on unemployment benefits. –0.10 0.79* 8. If welfare benefits were not so generous, people would learn to stand on their own two feet. 0.30 0.62* 9. Cutting welfare benefits would not damage too many people’s lives. –0.13 0.61*

N = 1,120. The third item was rated on a four-point scale, while the others were rated on a five-point scale. Factors were rotated with the oblique (Direct Oblimin) method with Kaiser normalization. Only factor loadings with absolute values no smaller than 0.10 are reported. The direction of the ninth survey question was reversed. The original statement was as follows: cutting welfare benefits would damage too many people’s lives. *The factor loadings of practical significance.

4 of 9 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1916936117 Chuang et al. Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 niomna ocr cruesol;Hptei 1) Hypothesis only; users (car concern Environmental 3) (Hypothesis flexibility and order Urban al .Creain ewe olve atrsoe n oilattdst utial mobility sustainable to attitudes social and scores factor worldview between Correlations 2. Table planning sustainability in engagement. stakeholders and the identifying policy for S1 of useful Table be characteristics would Appendix, information (SI This identified Party details). and has Conservative education, higher the of a with level had lower themselves who a indi- males but that income younger household and with Parties; associated Green was of vidualism or level National, lower Liberal Labour, Scottish a the Democrats, not had with who themselves identified people and household education with that associated lower Parties; Green was a and hierarchy National, had Scottish Labour, who parties, the non-Conservative including with people themselves identified with egalitarian- and income that associated tendencies was as showed ism results identification score Our sociodemographics/party factor predictors. and worldview the outcome each sociode- the with and as performed factors Linear were examined. worldview regressions were identification three party rela- the mographics/political the Furthermore, hierarchists, between the 2). egalitarians, (Fig. of tionships derived adherents, proportions were high- worldview the individualists, his/her and procedure, of had this that types Using worldview three score. a cat- of factor was adherent est technique individual an each used egal- as Then, widely egorized constructs. for with a latent scores estimating calculated (50), for factor were method individual’s regression individualism Thurstone’s an and analysis, hierarchy, itarianism, our In zero. h mutItae ycrt eprdc h mato lmt hne 1 o-abncr ettm u a,Iwudb iln obyacrwt lower with car a buy to willing be would help I to car, reduce a use to al. buy car willing et I am Chuang my time within I Next reducing drive travel: car: should in car Low-carbon People Reduce point 11) limit: 10) change. no speed cities? climate Obey and is of 8) towns There impact roads. in do: the the congestion problem: reduce on traffic others Fumes causes cycle help is Unless 5) to it to you environment. 6) me car for CO if the for by problem cities? even dangerous to travel a and like, too I serious harmful towns is How they amount more drive It problem: the who in are as danger: Congestion People cars traffic much Bike 9) incentive: whose from as 7) limit. price people same. speed cars Road fumes than the the 4) their exhaust roads do taxes. use the are others higher use unless to pay you to environment should allowed for the less users be problem 6: car pay should and environment, should a 4 the People environment serious to of use: the 1 How sake for car issues the better 1) For Allow are vary: tax: 2) could that car cars. sizes cars Higher sample their 3) the environment. use 2016, the they BSA to the much damage of how design reduce the of should 9: Because everyone only. and users 8, Sign car 5, for issues were 2) 11 and 10 issues while participants, 2) (Hypothesis security and order, Conformity, 1) (Hypothesis policy and concern Environmental Issue scores Factor factor. a to on degree (similar high the scores scores representing standardized individual indicator are composite an combination It a which items). linear as cultural to a used political BSA is be nine score can (the factor variables observed A of computed. were views individualism. describe as group ideas this labeled self-seeking, those was and Since competition of benefits. norm individualist welfare the self- in benefits, cut unemployment and on reliance, restraint consisted regarding dimension third items The the hierarchy. of as it labeled we Hence, ero’ orlto sdntdby denoted is correlation Pearson’s world- three the for scores factor his/her individual, each For 1 o-abncar Low-carbon 11) travel car Reduce 10) problem Congestion 9) )Bk danger Bike 8) limit speed Obey 7) do others Unless 6) problem Fumes 5) incentive price Road 4) tax car Higher 3) use car Allow 2) use car Reduce 1) 2 msin.Ti ih ea riaycrwt mle rmr fcetegn ravhceta uso lcrco lentv fuels. alternative or electric on runs that vehicle a or engine efficient more or smaller a with car ordinary an be might This emissions. n ,2;3 su 7: issue 3) 1,120; = ***P r. n 4;ad4 sus1 n 11: and 10 issues 4) and 548; = z crs ihama of mean a with scores) < .0 totie) **P (two-tailed); 0.001 ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ gltraimHeacyIndividualism Hierarchy Egalitarianism n < 4.Ise r sflos )Rdc a s:Frtesk fteenvironment, the of sake the For use: car Reduce 1) follows. as are Issues 840. = –0.02 –0.01 –0.25*** .1(w-ald;*P (two-tailed); 0.01 0.08 0.15*** 0.11** .9*–0.05 0.10** –0.08 0.09** 0.11** 0.26*** 0.15*** htheacy oprdwt h te w utrs hudtake should cultures, two other the with compared hierarchy, (i.e., that and nonsignificant 1 than were issues smaller regarding 5 correlations all its these were and of magnitudes individualism, of its all those but For individualism, 1. with of consistent Hypothesis those were of directions obviously hierarchy’s issues issues, two the environmental revealed on use. views individualism car opposing and allow There- . and 2) egalitarianism reverse a travel, issue fore, road showed with car individualism 4) contrary, negatively reduce tax, the and On car 10) car higher problem, low-carbon 3) fumes 11) use, 5) car incentive, reduce price 1) issues agree with for itively five and before strongly reversed disagree very were ease for one For directions a strongly). (e.g., respectively). their not analysis all, of problem, to our at all serious one were problem interpretation, a from a 9) of problem, not ranging and problem, serious scale 5 serious very five- Likert-type (issues (a four-point a items four a on 2 strongly, on rated other disagree rated disagree, the were disagree, while items strongly, nor (agree respectively), 11 (Hypoth- five agree to congestion the neither one from traffic agree, of ranging about scale 9 Likert-type concern 2); point Originally, (Hypothesis the security 3). is and issues esis order, 9 cars; conformity, low-carbon issue to to and relate switch 10, 8 to pol- to of 5, willingness air 6 approval to the of the and perception 1 use, the lution, car Issues policies, reducing/allowing transport users. for includ- proenvironmental car 1), support (Hypothesis the to concerns environmental ing dedicated to relate were while 11 participants, and two survey all last The Each to statement. 2. asked the a were Table with statements in agreement nine to of shown first level as attitudes the worldviews revealed concerning three response cor- Pearson’s the items their with investigated survey relations and issues BSA mobility 11 sustainable identified We to Mobility Attitudes Sustainable Social and Worldviews between Relationships r speitdb yohss1 gltraimcreae pos- correlated egalitarianism 1, Hypothesis by predicted As Sign ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ < .5(w-ald.Ise o9wr o l survey all for were 9 to 1 Issues (two-tailed). 0.05 –0.08* –0.11** –0.08* –0.23*** 0.07* 0.15*** 0.26*** 0.18*** 0.17*** P r ≥ .Ti ofimdoridea our confirmed This 0.05). NSLts Articles Latest PNAS Sign ⊕

⊕ ⊕

–0.13*** –0.13*** –0.08** –0.09* –0.26*** –0.12** –0.01 –0.02 0.08** 0.16*** 0.25*** n | r 572; = f9 of 5

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE a middle or ambiguous position in the face of mobility issues converted proportionally to a 10-point scale ranging from 1 concerning the environment. (low) to 10 (high). The results shown in Fig. 3 paralleled the The results of issues 6) unless others do, 7) obey speed limit, findings in Table 2. Again, tendencies existed that egalitarians and 8) bike danger aligned with Hypothesis 2, showing that revealed greater concern for the environment: issues 1 to 5, hierarchy attached the greatest importance to them. From a per- 10, and 11; that hierarchists placed more value on the issues spective of Cultural Theory, the hierarchical worldview deemed about conformity, order, and security: issues 6 to 8; and that that cycling was dangerous because it was generally believed individualists as well as hierarchists attached greater impor- to be an uncommon transport mode. Finally, as predicted by tance to congestion: issue 9. For all of the issues except issues Hypothesis 3, individualism and hierarchy were both positively 4 and 5, at least one group mean was significantly different related to issue 9) congestion problem because it is a danger from the others. to freedom of travel and to urban order. Although some val- Issues 3 and 4 are both in relation to proenvironmental trans- ues in Table 2 are small, this is not uncommon for cultural port policy. Issue 3, imposing higher car taxes, belongs to push variables such as worldviews. The point is that worldviews can policy instruments (penalties), whereas issue 4, implementing a account for a wide range of cognitive or value orientations con- road price incentive, belongs to pull policy instruments (rewards) cerning sustainable mobility and therefore, have a systematic and (51, 52). However, compared with issue 3, which showed a comprehensive impact on mobility debates across the economic, highly significant difference in the group means (P < 0.001) (SI environmental, social, and political domains. This confirms the Appendix, Table S2), the group means for issue 4 had no statisti- idea that worldviews are a critical factor in holistically changing cally significant difference (P = 0.067) (SI Appendix, Table S2). human behavior toward sustainability (8, 9, 13, 14). From a psychological perspective, pull policy measures generally elicit less reluctance than do push ones (52). From a viewpoint Comparison of Social Attitudes by Worldviews of Cultural Theory, the polarization among different ways of life We also investigated the differences in the means of the three can be reduced as a result of the external incentives induced by worldview groups’ attitudes to sustainable mobility. For each the pull (or rewarding) policy measure. These effects were so group, the means for the scores of the selected 11 mobil- much so that even individualists could not be statistically sig- ity issues were calculated. Then, for each issue, we conducted nificantly differentiated from egalitarians in terms of the mean an ANOVA to examine whether significant differences could be attitude to the measure. found between group means. Welch’s F statistic was used in the Regarding issue 5, the differences between the group means analysis. If the F test was significant (at P < 0.05), pairwise com- were nonsignificant (P = 0.159) (SI Appendix, Table S2). This parison (post hoc) tests were carried out to identify the group implies that fumes were not just a problem to one partic- means that differed significantly (at P < 0.05). Further details ular way of life; instead, they were perceived as hazardous are in Materials and Methods and SI Appendix, Table S2. almost equally by the three groups of worldview adherents. The comparison of the British social attitudes is depicted From an egalitarian perspective, fumes are anthropogenic harm in Fig. 3. For easier visualization and interpretation, the dif- to the environment and should be eliminated; for hierarchists, ferent scales (of 5 or 4 points) used in the BSA were all air pollution is highlighted by the government and therefore,

Fig. 3. Mean scores of social attitudes to sustainable mobility. Issues 1 to 9 were for all survey participants, while issues 10 and 11 were for car users only. Originally, issues 5 and 9 were rated on a four-point scale, while the others were rated on a five-point scale. The statistical significances of differences in means are reported in SI Appendix, Table S2. Because of the design of the BSA 2016, the sample sizes could vary: 1) issues 1 to 4 and 6: n = 572 (egalitarian = 242, hierarchist = 123, individualist = 207); 2) issues 5, 8, and 9: n = 1,120 (egalitarian = 458, hierarchist = 253, individualist = 409); 3) issue 7: n = 548 (egalitarian = 216, hierarchist = 130, individualist = 202); and 4) issues 10 and 11: n = 840 (egalitarian = 305, hierarchist = 187, individualist = 348).

6 of 9 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1916936117 Chuang et al. Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 hage al. et Chuang construction. fixed. been numerous the have and to could failures city, due communication the demolished Many of were barrier buildings be psychological traditional to proved and IRR soon physical monofunctionality The its a transport. but 1971, public over- in as that opened entrapped was approach such solution they solutions problem–single but alternative single funding, looked a project in the city to the automobil- contributed in and beliefs policy ity and consensual culture, hierarchists held policy of They coalition city’s volume strong individualists. the increasing a by by the predominated endorsed was support was which project to proposed This (IRR) engineer traffic. city Road Birmingham of its II, Ring and War Inner cars, World of the After growth two rapid . while in a of success, witnessed full great was the a other on was the cities—one 38) European (2, postwar Hendriks major of studies sustainability parative of that development functions the of variety in a policies. perform illustrating can 4, framework Fig. clumsiness governance perti- in “clumsy” (58). with summarized a solutions worldviews on is (61–65), clumsy studies based rival of policy actually notion or nent ele- the are systems) to integrating preferable (belief Through that is premises realize Clumsiness different 58–60). we (29, after others responded gance and the called heard by (or be to solutions should no ratio- voices clumsy rationalities)—all multiple propose are plural involving theorists to) worldview, cultural belong liter- particular nalities, issues (which sustainability one problems” all “wicked of ally address To goal satisfactory. the longer approach optimizing 57). solution problem–single (24, to solu- single deaf “elegant the development, adopt the beliefs, sustainable which of tions,” of their and face dialogue solving, the the values in and like However, opposing selection often problem life, is Because for communication of (individualism). a strategies pickax ways with diverse a and distinct Holyman with (hierar- have the Pioneer briefcase they as a the with worldviews and Bureaucrat chy), three the the (egalitarianism), halo of heroes the the of all (17). for decisions their accounting Theory—suggesting in from Cultural worldviews req- benefit in would other—the out policy-makers each life set that of on condition ways depend policy, variety The ultimately, or sustainable. uisite system truly but urban or with viable an compete be from not dropped will is if mobility cultures However, the incentives. of external any and norm speed, individualist privi- the freedom, and embraces security; cultural and hierarchical order, conformity, life the action leges conviction; of and inner way friendliness, by egalitarian environmental sustainable guided the for control, study, essential demand 56). our are favors by 29, styles suggested (17, cultural As energy the mobility. of creative all their Similarly, through tech- and and economic authority, advance nological to order, environmental help individualists enforce and and to contracts; cohesion, help social hierarchists equality, any ; promote that Egalitarians cor- to sustainable. to suggest societies other help make each and not on the spots rely while blind do to their , need rect In also we own. they its rivals, that on are survive worldviews can highlight or superior to is worldview need for we How- ever, mobility. heuristic sustainable the regarding decision-making rationality—as individual worldviews—cultural and the bias, unravels complex study cognition, the This in 53–55). navigate (22, they uncer- world when with judgments deal make to rules and heuristic tainties of number limited a use People Discussion freedom and health travel. personal of jeopardizes angle, exhaust individualist an the from breathing and issue; social serious a considered h au ftefaeokcnb lcdtdb h com- the by elucidated be can framework the of value The portrayed (57) Brunner Christian by metaphor French A ouin,o otrprdg hfsnee oaheeabetter a role. significant achieve a to have needed should inclusive worldviews shifts future, conceive common deliberations, foster public or inform solutions, to is worldviews. world our it the of cooperation of Whether and and dynamics competition movements the complex in The egalitarian rooted 17). are of (8, followers and equality individualists, the for of appeals as success time, differentia- the after mirror social to time legitimize members to the as hierarchists as tion, serving for potentially ranks are exploited, lower they and the powerless history, actors most human fatalist the Throughout that fatal- usually ignored. as suggest the be simplicity not out of always does laid sake should this the not but for earlier, have mobility mentioned we sustainable it to that least, attitudes mention ist not wider to but a worthwhile Last have also is governance. worldviews sustainability Combined solutions, for mobility. clumsy to significance of sustainable potential idea to the the attitudes have have with boundary social and We across the nature envision. physical map transcend we and that fact human future in life between the worldviews of to quality that good present demonstrated define our we how link reflects and turn, in which world, arena. all policy of three-cornered actors the policy joined until worldviews emerge the not of did accessible, city sustainable, the and made livable, which solutions, sug- clumsy As the together. here, coexist gested to efficient Altstadtring the zones, and pedestrian city transport, a colorful public world vitality, the cultural showed allowed and that opened Olympic Ulti- policy-learning the regime. solution mately, a problem–multiple multiple a through on planning based continuously loop city’s policy refined the the , were of deliberative proposals all this to between Owing negotiation actors. and communication M tate the planners town and launch architects critical the to of 1968 group in a climate, invited a mayor such city In initiatives. more and and project more this inspiring opposing fiercely in, egali- popped the heritage, organizations city’s cultural tarian of enthusiastic preserve The conception to the However, particularly city. Road. motivating Altstadtring revived plans, were a construction new world individualists about the and show to hierarchists keen was Games, olvesebd u wrns ftesca n natural and social the of awareness our embody Worldviews Olympic 1972 the by stimulated Munich, hand, other the On oriented learning Organize policy- Organize communication i.4. Fig. Monitor & fix fix & Monitor processes failures Individualism lmysltosfrgvrigssanbedevelopment. sustainable governing for solutions Clumsy nhe ou saplc rkrt facili- to broker policy a as Forum unchner ¨ Clumsy Solutions Clumsy Frame problems & & Frame problems Predict policy side side policy Predict Hierarchy solutions effects NSLts Articles Latest PNAS Egalitarianism dniyplc actorsIdentify policy actors & coalitions & actors systems of policy Specify beliefSpecify coalitions & | f9 of 7

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE Materials and Methods The checking of each factor’s reliability, or intragroup consistency, is doc- The dataset that supports our findings is the BSA 2016 (15). It is designed to umented in SI Appendix, Table S3. The reliability statistic (Cronbach’s α) yield a representative sample of adults aged 18 or over in Great Britain. It for each group was between 0.65 and 0.76. The item-to-total correlations covers public attitudes across the economic, environmental, social, and polit- were all greater than or equal to 0.40. While there are no strict thresholds ical domains. The survey is conducted by both the face-to-face interview and for these measures, rules of thumb suggest that an α ≥ 0.60 is considered self-completion (the latter is usually for particularly sensitive questions). The acceptable (48) and that an item-to-total correlation ≥ 0.30 is deemed ade- original sample size of the BSA 2016 is 2,942. The survey has several versions quate (66). Our factor model meets these criteria. Furthermore, each α value of the questionnaire, and each respondent was asked a randomly selected could not be improved by deleting any item in its own group. Therefore, the version. Not all of the versions include the cultural bias items required for survey items within each group can be considered to reliably measure the our analysis. After excluding the entries lacking cultural bias or sociodemo- same latent construct. graphics, the total number of the individuals that we analyzed is 1,120. After the reliability checks, each individual in the data was categorized Since no nonrandom association between question selection and respon- as an egalitarian, hierarchist, or individualist according to his/her highest dents was identified, we can conclude that no selection bias is introduced worldview factor score. All factor scores were calculated with Thurstone’s at this stage. regression method (50). After categorizing the individuals, the group means The analytical tool that we used to conduct this study is IBM SPSS Statis- of their attitude scores for each sustainable mobility issue were compared. tics 26. The proportions of the three types of worldview adherents in the ANOVA was used to examine whether significant differences could be found British society were estimated using factor analysis, a method that can help between group means (SI Appendix, Table S2 has details). Welch’s F statistics group similar variables into dimensions or factors. The choice of the number were used in our analysis to ensure that the results were robust even if of dimensions can be suggested by factor eigenvalues. A factor’s eigenvalue the assumption of homogeneity of variance in ANOVA was violated. For represents the amount of variance in the original variables accounted for those cases in which F tests were significant (at P < 0.05), post hoc tests by the factor. The initial exaction of our data revealed that the eigenvalues were conducted to identify the group means that differed significantly (at of two factors were larger than 1.0 (individualism = 3.14, hierarchy = 1.77, P < 0.05). Our post hoc tests used the Games–Howell procedure, which is and egalitarianism = 0.95). However, the three-factor solution was selected customarily available in standard statistical packages. because it revealed no cross-loadings as is explained earlier. The three fac- Data Availability. The dataset supporting the findings of this study is the tors jointly explained 65.11% of the total variance in the original variables. British Social Attitudes survey 2016, which is available at the UK Data Ser- Moreover, the factors in our analysis were rotated using the oblique (Direct (https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8252-1 or https://beta.ukdataservice. Oblimin) method as it can make clearer the factor structure without needing ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=8252). to assume that they are orthogonal (i.e., independent). The rotated results are given earlier in Table 1, which shows that three factors are identified; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful each of them was contributed mainly by three survey items and labeled as and constructive feedback. This research was supported in part by the Alan a worldview. Turing Institute.

1. United Nations, Mobilizing sustainable transport for development. https:// 22. A. Wildavsky, Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2375Mobilizing%20Sustainable% preference formation. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 81, 3–22 (1987). 20Transport.pdf. Accessed 26 September 2018. 23. M. Schwarz, M. Thompson, Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and 2. F. Hendriks, Public Policy and Political Institutions: The Role of Culture in Traffic Policy Social Choice (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1990). (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 1999). 24. M. Douglas, Four cultures: The of a parsimonious model. Geojournal 47, 3. F. W. Geels. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi- 411–415 (1999). level perspective into transport studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 471–482 (2012). 25. C. S. Holling, “Myths of ecological stability: Resilience and the problem of failure” 4. R. Hickman, D. Banister, Transport, Climate Change and the City (Routledge, London, in Studies on Crisis Management, C. F. Smart. W. T. Stanbury, Eds. (Butterworth, UK, 2014). Montreal, Canada, 1978), pp. 97–109. 5. S. O. Funtowicz, J. R. Ravetz, Science for the post-normal age. 25, 739–755 26. M. Thompson, The cultural construction of nature and the natural destruction of (1993). culture. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/2426/1/WP-84-092.pdf. Accessed 6 November 6. H. J. M. de Vries, A. C. Petersen, Conceptualizing sustainable development: An assess- 2018. ment connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecol. 27. C. S. Holling, “The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local and global Econ. 68, 1006–1019 (2009). change” in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark, R. E. Munn, Eds. 7. A. C. Petersen, A. Cath, M. Hage, E. Kunseler, J. P. van der Sluijs, Post-normal science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1986), pp. 292–320. in practice at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Sci. Technol. Hum. 28. P. Timmerman, “Mythology and surprise in the sustainable development of Values 36, 362–388 (2011). the biosphere” in Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, W. C. Clark, 8. H. J. M. de Vries, Sustainability Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, R. E. Munn, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1986), pp. 2012). 435–454. 9. N. D. van Egmond, H. J. M. de Vries, Sustainability: The search for the integral 29. M. Verweij et al., Clumsy solutions for a complex world: The case of climate change. worldview. Futures 43, 853–867 (2011). Public Adm. 84, 817–843 (2006). 10. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford 30. D. M. Kahan et al., The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on University Press, Oxford, UK, 1987). perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 732–735 (2012). 11. P. M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization 31. R. Ellis, F. Thompson, Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. Am. Pol. (Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY, 1990). Sci. Rev. 91, 885–897 (1997). 12. D. Bohm, Thought as a System (Routledge, London, UK, 1992). 32. J. West, I. Bailey, M. Winter, Renewable energy policy and public perceptions 13. A. de Witt, Exploring worldviews and their relationships to sustainable lifestyles: of renewable energy: A cultural theory approach. Energy Policy, 38, 5739–5748 Towards a new conceptual and methodological approach. Ecol. Econ. 84, 74–83 (2010). (2012). 33. E. Peters, P. Slovic, The role of and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the 14. E. Laininen, “Transforming our worldview towards a sustainable future” in Sustain- perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26, 1427–1453 ability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education, J. W. Cook, Ed. (Palgrave (1996). Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland, 2019), pp. 161–200. 34. L. Steg, I. Sievers, Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. 15. NatCen Social Research, Data from “British Social Attitudes survey, 2016.” UK Environ. Behav. 32, 250–269 (2000). Data Service. https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=8252. 35. J. Koehler, S. Rayner, J. Katuva, P. Thomson, R. , A cultural theory of drink- Accessed 10 October 2018. ing water risks, values and institutional change. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 268–277 16. M. Douglas, Natural : Explorations in Cosmology (Barrie & Rockliff, London, (2018). UK, 1970). 36. J. Rotmans and H. J. M. de Vries, Eds. Perspectives on Global Change: The TARGETS 17. M. Thompson, R. Ellis, A. Wildavsky, Cultural Theory (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, Approach (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997). 1990). 37. A. Wildavsky, K. Dake, Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? 18. C. Park, M. Allaby, Oxford Dictionary of Environment and Conservation (Oxford Daedalus 119, 41–60 (1990). University Press, Oxford, UK, ed. 3, 2017). 38. F. Hendriks, “Cars and culture in Munich and Birmingham: The case for cultural plural- 19. M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the of Pollution and ism” in Politics, Policy, and Culture, D. J. Coyle, R. Ellis, Eds. (Westview Press, Boulder, (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, UK, 1966). CO, 1994), pp. 51–69. 20. M. Douglas, A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Tech- 39. R. Hoppe, J. Grin, “Pollution through traffic and transport: The praxis of cultural nical and Environmental Dangers (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, in parliamentarian technology assessment” in Cultural Theory as Political 1982). Science, M. Thompson, G. Grendstad, P. Selle, Eds. (Routledge, London, UK, 1999), pp. 21. M. Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY, 1986). 154–169.

8 of 9 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1916936117 Chuang et al. Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 3 .Tesy .Khea,Jdmn ne netit:Huitc n biases. and Heuristics uncertainty: under Judgment Kahneman, D. Tversky, A. 53. perspective. psychological A transportation: Sustainable Steg, L. behavioural from 52. contribution The policy: transport Sustainable Tertoolen, G. Steg, L. 51. Thurstone, rec- L. Four L. analysis: factor 50. exploratory in practices Best Osborne, W. J. Costello, B. A. Anderson, E. 49. R. Babin, J. B. Black, C. W. Hair, F. J. energy- for preferences 48. and concern risk Environmental Vlek, C. the Steg, Applying L. values: Poortinga, W. and beliefs of 47. comparisons Cultural Kim, M.-S. Liu, M. Chai, S.-K. 46. France. in risk of theory cultural the Testing Marris, C. Bonnefous, S. Brenot, risk. of J. construction social 43. the and Culture nature: of Myths Dake, K. 42. Rayner, S. Gross, L. J. 41. Nevada of images how of hypotheses Testing models: “Stigma Jenkins-Smith, C. H. 40. 4 .D oe,G og aigsneo lmt hne o tr rmsshape frames approach. survey story A How Europe. of change: map cultural climate political of A Grendstad, sense G. Making 45. Song, G. Jones, D. M. 44. hage al. et Chuang rmr Traits Primary 1413 (1974). 1124–1131 185, (2007). scientists. analysis. your from (2005). most the getting for ommendations 2018). 8, ed. MA, Boston, measures. saving Survey. Values World the to approach grid-group (1999). 463–475 Anal. (1992). 21–37 ON: ANL/DIS/TM-17 Organization and Rep. Decision 1994). (Tech. University, Laboratory, Mexico them” New National and to Division Argonne Sciences attached Information AHC29503%%56, are TRN: values DE95004985; and acquired are cognition. 2–3 (1998). 729–739 18, ulcMnyManag. Money Public oiia Psychol. Political Clmi nvriyPes e ok Y 1985). NY, York, New Press, University (Columbia Uiest fCiaoPes hcg,I,1935). IL, Chicago, Press, Chicago of (University h etr fMn:Mlil-atrAayi o h slto of the for Analysis Multiple-Factor Mind: of Vectors The nio.Behav. Environ. esrn utr:APrdg o h nlsso Social of Analysis the for Paradigm A Culture: Measuring 4–7 (2014). 447–476 35, 36 (1999). 63–69 19, 5–7 (2002). 455–478 34, utvraeDt Analysis Data Multivariate eif Values Beliefs rc.Ass.Rs Eval. Res. Assess. Pract. 9–0 (2009). 193–208 1, AS Res. IATSS .Sc Issues Soc. J. GeoJournal (Cengage, 58–66 31, Science 7 10, Risk 48, 47, 6 .Field, A. 66. 5 .Ny .Vrej es ntttosfrwce rbes o ognrt clumsy generate to How problems: wicked for institutions continu- Messy Verweij, system M. Ney, Belief S. Ripberger, 65. T. J. Gupta, K. Silva, L. C. Jenkins-Smith, failure. C. communications H. the Fixing 64. Kahan, M. D. 63. in analysis” of policy role for the Tool and theory: cultural change “Applied policy Hoppe, of R. framework 62. coalition advocacy An Sabatier, A. P. 61. 0 .Topo,M .Bc,Cpn ihcag:Ubnrslec,ssanblt,adapt- sustainability, resilience, Urban change: with Coping Beck, B. M. Thompson, science M. in ignorance 60. of construction social The knowledge: Uncomfortable Rayner, S. clumsiness. and 59. change climate theory, Cultural Thompson, M. 58. culture. Pr of S. model 57. pluralistic urban A in choice Review: route Schwartz, bounded of B. model heuristic 56. A Cheng, T. Orr, W. S. Manley, J. E. in 55. transport” of risks the of “Management Adams, J. 54. K d ,2017). 5, ed. UK, specify to theory change. solutions? cultural of Using sources coalitions: and advocacy coalitions, (2014). policy systems, in belief change and ity Eds. 289–308. Sidney, pp. S. 2007), M. Miller, FL, J. Raton, G. Boca Fischer, Press, F. (CRC Methods, and Politics, Theory, Analysis: Policy therein. learning policy-oriented 2018. November 6 Accessed with-change.pdf. blt n ahdpnec.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ dependence. uploads/system/uploads/attachment path and ability discourses. policy environmental and (2003). 5107–5112 Risques? (1991). the Dordrecht, (Springer, Eds. areas. Peterson, M. Sandin, P. 239–264. pp. Hillerbrand, 2012), Netherlands, R. Roeser, S. etre, ˆ rnp e.CEeg Technol. Emerg. C Res. Transp. icvrn ttsisUigIMSS Statistics SPSS IBM Using Statistics Discovering SE,Prs rne 1989). France, Paris, (SFEN, Nucl nio.Pa.CGvr.Policy Govern. C Plan. Environ. ar,Smoim tSoci et Symbolisme eaire, ´ oiySci. Policy cn Soc. Econ. 9–0 (2015). 195–209 56, data/file/396355/15-1-future-of-cities-coping- et ´ 6919 (2015). 1679–1696 33, :CnainMnaeo osinedes ou Mentale Contagion e: ´ 2–6 (1988). 129–168 21, 0–2 (2012). 107–125 41, Nature NSLts Articles Latest PNAS otm.Sociol. Contemp. oiySu.J. Stud. Policy SG ulctos London, Publications, (SAGE 9–9 (2010). 296–297 463, adoko ikTheory Risk of Handbook adoko Public of Handbook cn o.Wkly. Pol. Econ. 484–508 42, 764–766 20, | f9 of 9 38, ,

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE