Green Practices: Approaches to Investigation
Сand. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof., Department of State and Municipal Government, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia. email@example.com
Assoc. Prof., Department of Information Security, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Assoc. Prof., Institute of Oil and Gas; Yugra State University email@example.com
Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof., Chair of Philosophy, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia. firstname.lastname@example.org
The research was funded by RFBR and Tyumen Region, project No. 20-410-720012.
The climate agenda forces governments to change their political goals and institutional frameworks for socio-economic development. The Russian Federation is also moving towards sustainable development. However, everyday green practices of citizens are not sufficiently studied as part of this process. We define green practices as activities defined as eco-friendly. The article is mainly based on the theory of practices. We focus on analyzing everyday green practices of citizens to identify the number of people involved in these practices, as well as the links between practices, and the most popular practices. We use social network analysis, such as search engine, and map service, and social graph construction. We conclude: 1) green practices can be identified using search queries for the keywords “eco-friendly”, “natural”, “bio”, “eco”, etc. 204 green practices were identified in Tyumen, 68 of them have groups in VKontakte. 2) 131,819 participants of green groups indicated Tyumen as their place of residence. 96,867 participants belong to 15 most influential groups. 3) Green practices are clustered around four most important topics from the users‘ point of view: animals, organic products, green-markets, and separate waste collection. There are strong communications between practices, even if they are from different clusters. 4) The classification of green practices by types of green activity was justified. Analysis of the social graph demonstrates the willingness of citizens to participate in ecofriendly practices, changing the urban environment, and political life. The findings can be used for decision making and development of civil initiatives.
Autio M., Heiskanen E., Heinonen V. (2014) Narratives of “Green” Consumers – the Antihero, the Environmental Hero and the Anarchist. Labirint. Zhurnal sotsial'no-gumanitarnyh issledovaniy [Labyrinth. Journal of Philosophy and Social Sciences]. No. 2: 19–34. (In Russ.)
Balsiger P., Lorenzini J., Sahakian M. (2019) How Do Ordinary Swiss People Represent and Engage with Environmental Issues? Grappling with Cultural Repertoires. Sociological Perspectives. Vol. 62. No. 5: 794–814. DOI: 10.1177/0731121419855986.
Bobylev S.N. (2017) Sustainable Development: Paradigm for the Future. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [World Economy and International Relations]. Vol. 61. No. 3: 107–113. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-3-107-113. (In Russ.)
Bourdieu P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Castells M. (1997) Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Certeau M. de (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Commoner В. (1990) Making Peace with the Planet. New York: Pantheon Books.
Devyatko I.F. (2012) Оnline Research Tools: an Attempt at Cataloging. In: Devyatko I.F., Shashkin A.V., Davydov S.G. Online Research in Russia 3.0. Moscow: OMI RUSSIA: 17–30. (In Russ.)
Ermolaeva Yu.V. (2019) Modernizing Russia’s Waste Management Industry: the Scope of Expert Analysis. Vestnik Instituta soziologii [Bulletin of the Institute of Sociology]. Vol. 10. No. 3: 131–150. DOI: 10.19181/vis.2019.30.3.596. (In Russ.)
Ezhov D.A. (2019) Environmental Protests: Reconstruction of the Problem Field. Vlast’ [The Authority]. Vol. 27. No. 6: 157–160. DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v27i6.6844. (In Russ.)
Gherardi S. (2013) How to Conduct a Practice-based Study: Problems and Methods. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Giddens A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory – Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Giddens A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Huddart Kennedy E., Givens J.E. (2019). Eco-habitus or Eco-powerlessness? Examining Environmental Concern across Social Class. Sociological Perspectives. Vol. 62. No. 5: 646–667. DOI: 10.1177/0731121419836966.
Hui A., Schatzki T., Shove E. (2017) The Nexus of Practices: Connections, Constellations, Practitioners. UK: Routledge.
Ilyin V.I. (2007) Life and Being of the Youth of the Russian Megapolis: Social Structuration of Everyday life in Consumer Society. St. Petersburg: Intersots. (In Russ.)
Karatueva E.N. (2020) Protection and Use of the Environment as the Main Political Trends of our Time. Voprosy politologii [Political Science Issues]. No. 5(57): 1354–1364. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.35775/ PSI.2020.57.5.004.
Levchenko N.V. (2015) Russian Animal Rights Activists: Who are They and How Do They Act? Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 2: 151–155. (In Russ.)
Ortner S. (1984) Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History. Vol. 26. No. 1: 126–166. DOI: 10.1017/S0010417500010811.
Reckwitz A. (2002) Towards a Theory of Social Practices. European Journal of Social Theory. Vol. 5. No. 2: 243–263. DOI: 10.1177/13684310222225432.
chatzki T. (2002) The Site of the Social. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Shove E., Pantzar M., Watson M. (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. United States: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Volkov V.V., Kharkhordin O.V. (2008) Theory of Practice. St. Petersburg: EU v SPb. (In Russ.