EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 726 (2026) E3S Web Conf., 726 (2026) 01051 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 726, 2026
The Second International Congress on Environment, Energy, and Materials for Sustainable Development Technology (IC2EM-SDT’26)
Article Number 01051
Number of page(s) 9
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202672601051
Published online 13 July 2026
  1. Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 868–882. https://doi.org/10.1086/426626 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  4. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73352 [Google Scholar]
  6. Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2008). Green consumption: Life-politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 117–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540507086422 [Google Scholar]
  7. De Keyser, A., Verleye, K., Lemon, K. N., Keiningham, T. L., & Klaus, P. (2020). Moving the customer experience field forward: Introducing the touchpoints, context, qualities (TCQ) nomenclature. Journal of Service Research, 23 (4), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520928390 [Google Scholar]
  8. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann. [Google Scholar]
  10. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., & Landay, J. (2010). The design of eco-feedback technology. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1999–2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753629 [Google Scholar]
  11. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multilevel perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31 (8-9), 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hoff, H. (2011). Understanding the nexus. Background paper for the Bonn 2011 Conference: The water, energy and food security nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute. [Google Scholar]
  13. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/208906 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. International Energy Agency. (2020). World energy outlook 2020. IEA. [Google Scholar]
  15. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., …Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 6996. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(34), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  19. Markard, J., Raven, R., &Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41 (6), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (2014). Sustainability marketing research: Past, present and future. Journal of Marketing Management, 30 (1112), 1186–1219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2014.943263 [Google Scholar]
  21. O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear won't do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201 [Google Scholar]
  22. Peattie, K., & Peattie, S. (2009). Social marketing: A pathway to consumption reduction? Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.033 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rasul, G., & Sharma, B. (2016). The nexus approach to water-energy-food security: An option for adaptation to climate change. Climate Policy, 16(6), 682–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ritzer, G. (2010). Enchanting a disenchanted world: Continuity and change in the cathedrals of consumption (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  25. Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1-3), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870496 [Google Scholar]
  26. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282 [Google Scholar]
  27. Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39(4), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39310 [Google Scholar]
  28. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. Earthscan. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sovacool, B. K., Turnheim, B., Martiskainen, M., Brown, D., & Kivimaa, P. (2020). Guides or gatekeepers? Incumbent-oriented transition intermediaries in a low-carbon era. Energy Research & Social Science, 66, 101490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101490 [Google Scholar]
  30. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging proenvironmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjenvp.2008.10.004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Testa, F., Cosic, A., Iraldo, F., & Vaccari, A. (2021). Exploring the role of consumers in circular economy: A systematic review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3706–3719. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2825 [Google Scholar]
  32. Thompson, C. J. (2017). Living the field: A phenomenological account of ethnographic practice. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3), 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx057 [Google Scholar]
  33. Vermeir, I., Weijters, B., De Houwer, J., Geuens, M., Slabbinck, H., Spruyt, A., & Verbeke, W. (2020). Environmentally sustainable food consumption: A review and research agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01603 [Google Scholar]
  34. Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090 [Google Scholar]
  35. White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Whitmarsh, L. (2009). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.