Lutzenhiseri aAarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences, Denmark bYale University, School of Law, United States cU.S National Research Council, Board on Environmental Cha
Trang 1j o ur na l h o me p a g e :w w w e l s e v i e r c o m / l o c a t e / e r s s
Short communication
B.K Sovacoola,∗, S.E Ryanb, P.C Sternc, K Jandad, G Rochline, D Sprengf,
M.J Pasqualettig, H Wilhiteh, L Lutzenhiseri
aAarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences, Denmark
bYale University, School of Law, United States
cU.S National Research Council, Board on Environmental Change and Society, United States
dOxford University, Environmental Change Institute, United Kingdom
eUniversity of California Berkeley, Energy Resources Group, United States
fSwiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Centre for Energy Policy and Economics, Switzerland
gArizona State University, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, United States
hUniversity of Oslo, Centre for Development and the Environment, Norway
iPortland State University, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 December 2014
Received in revised form
15 December 2014
Accepted 15 December 2014
Keywords:
Energy studies
Interdisciplinarity
Transdisciplinary research
a b s t r a c t
Thisarticlereflectsonthestateoftheenergystudiesfield,anditproposesrecommendationsfor bet-terintegratingsocialscienceintoenergyresearch.Realizingafutureenergysystemthatislow-carbon, safe,andreliablewillrequirefullerandmoremeaningfulcollaborationbetweenthephysicalandsocial sciences
©2014ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved
1 Introduction
Withtheoneyearanniversaryofthis journalimminent,we
wantedtotakea momenttoreflect onthestateoftheenergy
studies field, and to propose some suggestions for integrating
socialscienceintoenergyresearch.Foritisalltoocommonfor
energyresearcherstogenerallyundervaluesocialscience
discov-eries,ignorepossibleinterdisciplinaryawareness,andmarginalize
diverseperspectives[1,2].Inthisarticle,wearguethatsecuringour
energyfuturewillrequirethatthispatternchanges.Wemustalter
infrastructureandtechnologyandsupportsocialchangeifweare
toachieveafutureenergysystemthatenhanceshumanwell-being
andissustainableandjust[3].Suchanenergyfuturecanberealized
onlybyintegratinginsightsfromthephysicalandsocialsciences
[4,5].Energyadvocates,theclimatechangecommunity,andrelated
∗ Corresponding author Tel.: +45 3032 4303.
E-mail addresses:BenjaminSo@auhe.au.dk (B.K Sovacool), sarah.ryan@yale.edu
(S.E Ryan), PStern@nas.edu (P.C Stern), katy.janda@ouce.ox.ac.uk
(K Janda), grochlin@berkeley.edu (G Rochlin), dspreng@ethz.ch (D Spreng),
pasqualetti@asu.edu (M.J Pasqualetti), h.l.wilhite@sum.uio.no (H Wilhite),
llutz@pdx.edu (L Lutzenhiser).
policymakersneedtorecognizethatenergyproduction, consump-tion,andpolicyarebothsocialandtechnicaldomains[6–8] Belatedly,eventheU.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE) acknowl-edgesthatenergydemandissignificantlyshapedbyindividual, community, and organizational choice alongside technical per-formance[9].ThePresident’sCouncilofAdvisorsonScienceand Technologysuggeststhatweneed“amultidisciplinarysocial sci-enceresearchprogramthatwillprovidecriticalinformationand supportforpolicydevelopmentthatadvancesdiffusionof inno-vativeenergytechnologies”[10].Energyprogramsthatintegrate socialsciencecanenableustocomprehendbetterthesourcesand dynamicsofenergyproblemsanddevelopfeasibleandacceptable solutionstothem
Nonetheless, a series of biases continue tohandicap energy studies[11].Researchersoftenpromotetechnologicalsolutionsto energyproblemswhileignoringthesocial processesthat deter-minetheiracceptanceanduse,shapetheriskstheycanpresent, andofferopportunitiesforachievingenergypolicygoalswith exist-ingtechnology[12].Thereliabilityofenergymodelsisoftenlow becausetheyareoverlysensitivetocostassumptionsandignore othermajordriversofenergypolicyandbehaviorsuchassocial equity, politics,and unforeseentechnologicaladvances[13–15] Further,nationalandlocalenergyinstitutionsinmanycountries http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.12.005
2214-6296/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Trang 2Fig 1 Four types of energy and climate research.
lack significantsocial scienceexpertise outside economics,and
althoughtheymayassertthat theyunderstandwhatsocial
sci-enceoffers,theyoftenactasifexpertiseinotherfieldsissuperior
to,orobviatestheneedforsocialscience[16].Lastly,whilesome
energyresearchhasboth usefulnessandenhancesfundamental
understanding,beinglocatedinwhathasbeencalled“Pasteur’s
quadrant,”[17]muchofitdoesnot(Fig.1)
2 Recappingthreeshortcomingsofenergyresearch
Astheinauguralvolumepublishedoneyearagointhis
jour-nalnoted,theseshortcomingsareclearlyevidentin theenergy
researchliterature[1].Torecap,areviewofthousandsofarticles
inleading energyjournals—Energy Policy, Electricity Journal,and
patterns
The first is that social dimensions are under-examined. The
humanelementsof energysystemsandtheirconsequences are
frequentlyneglected.Instead,mostarticlesinvestigate
“state-of-the-art”innovationssuchassmallmodularreactors,hydrogenfuel
cells,oroffshorewindturbines.Thatis,moreattentionispaidto
thehardwarethantothehumansoftwarebehindit.Amongthe
socialphenomenathatgounder-researchedarethefactors
under-lyingdemandforenergyservicesandtheacquisitionanduseof
technology;perceptionsandjudgmentsaboutenergyrisks;energy
attitudes;persuasionand communicationaboutenergychoices;
energy decision-making processes in individuals, organizations,
andcommunities;andenergyethics
The secondpattern is a disciplinary chauvinism which treats
mostsocialscienceassecondaryand peripheral.AsFig.2
illus-trates,physicalscience,engineering,economics(aspecialcasethat
cutsacrosstechnicalandsocialscience),andstatisticsaccounted
forthedisciplinarytrainingof67percentofauthorswithinthe
sample;bycontrast,therestofthesocialsciences,arts,and
human-itiesasawholeaccountedforlessthan20percent,withalmostall
ofthoseaffiliationsinlaw,business,andpublicpolicy.Sociology,
geography,history,psychology,communication,andphilosophy,
amongothers,constitutedlessthan0.7percent,together,of
disci-plinarytraining.Referencestonon-economicsocialsciencesand
humanities journals,containing articleson topics suchas
con-sumer behavior and social impediments to policies,comprised
lessthan4.3percentofthemorethan90,000citationsacrossthe
sample.Thistechnicalfocusoftheliteraturebluntsourabilityto
understandtheenergyconsumer’ssideofenergyissues[18] More-over,itcancreateblindspotsaboutthedistributionofpotential risksandrewards,andlessenourabilitytodeterminethe effective-nessofvariouspolicies,programs,andtechnologicalinnovations [19].Anotherresultisapreponderanceofquantitative perspec-tives,mappingageneraltendencytoproposetechnicalsolutions
tosocialproblems
Thethirdpatternisoneofhomogenous perspectives.Fig.2 indi-catesthat published researchersare overwhelmingly male and tendtohalefromWestern,affluentinstitutionsandcountries.This imbalanceisreflectedinapreponderanceofstudiesofproblems facingtheindustrializedworldandrelativeneglectofsuch prob-lemsasenergypoverty,inequitableaccesstoenergyservices[20], andthegenderedaspectsofenergyusesuchasthehealthimpacts arisingfromtheindoorairpollutionassociatedwithbiomass cook-stoves[21]
3 Revealingthevalueofsocialscience Thesethreetrendsareunfortunate,tosaytheleast,giventhat social scientists canhelp solveone of theperennialchallenges
ofappliedenergyresearch:thedisconnectbetweentechnological solutionsandconsumeradoptionofnewtechnologies.Fordecades, studiesofconsumerchoicehavedemonstratedbarrierstoadoption
ofmoreefficient,cost-savinghouseholdappliances,forinstance.In
1983,MeierandWhittierreportedthatmorethanhalfof refrigera-torpurchasers,inalargenationalsample,refusedtopay$60more foramodelthatwouldreducetheirenergyusagebygreaterthan 25%annually;instead,mostboughtamodelidenticalinallrespects exceptitsenergyusage[22].Thesimplemathematicsrequiredto calculatethelong-termcostsavingsofthe$60investmentisnot onlywithinthecapacityoftheaverageconsumer,itisabaseline assumptionofmostrationalchoicemodels.Further,while$60was notatriflingamountthreedecadesago,itlikelyaddedlessthan
10percenttothecostoftherefrigeratorandfellshortofcost pro-hibitiveforallbutafewofthepurchasers.Thisscenariobegstwo questions:Whatnon-economicbarriersthwartedearlyadoption
ofeconomicallyandenvironmentallyefficienttechnologies? Fur-thermore,whatinterventionscouldhelptoremovethosebarriers? Sincethen,araftofsocialsciencestudieshasexplainedwhy consumers rationally decline to adopt a diverse array of more efficient technologies These reasons range from a lack of ter-minologicalclarity(i.e.,the“bargain”wasnotclearbecausethe
Trang 3Fig 2 Disciplinary, gender, methodological, and geographic trends in energy studies research, 1999–2013.
newtechnologywasnotexplainedwell)toadistrustofcorporate
orgovernmentclaims(i.e.,efficiencyclaimsseemedself-serving
andunsupportedbyscience)todefaultpurchasinghabits.What
ultimately compelledmost refrigeratorbuyers topaymore for
energyefficientappliances,asarecentstudyillustrates,were
socio-behavioralinnovationssuchasEnergyStarlabeling[23].Low-tech,
high-contextinterventionssuchasefficiencylabelsleveragethe
researchofanthropologists,communicationscientists, and
psy-chologists.TheeleganceoftheEnergyStarlabelbeliesthecomplex
socio-behavioralworkofstudyingconsumerdecisionmaking,and
developingpersuasivetechnologiescapableofuniting
individual-isticcostconsiderationsandcommunalmoralframes
Additionally,alineofthinkingknownasthe“JevonsParadox”
arguesthatsomeenergy efficiencyeffortsyieldssavings which
liberatesresourcesforpeopletoemployelsewhere,oftenin
activ-itiesthatconsumemorenetenergy[24].Energyefficiencyhasa
potential“reboundeffect,”oneostensibly thatspecialistsin the
behavioralsciences,ratherthephysicalortechnicalsciences,are
wellprimedtoaddress
Thisworkonbehaviorisworthagreatdealtoappliedenergy
researchers.Simplistically,onecouldequatethevalueofsocial
sci-encetotheaggregatevalueofenergyandhouseholdcostsavings
garneredviaEnergyStarlabelsandsimilarbehavioristic
innova-tions.Morebroadly,thepotentialcontributionofthesocialsciences
isarguablyequaltotheimpactofreboundeffectsorthevalueof
mostnewenergytechnologies,particularlythosethatare
counter-intuitiveordifficult-to-understand.Thatis,withoutsocialscientific
partnerstotranslatetherelativeadvantageofsuchinnovations
forindividualandorganizationaldecision-makers,theirvalueis
evidentonlytoanarrowcommunityofscientistsandinnovators
Further,withoutpre-designsocial scienceinput,appliedenergy
researchers can only guess at the human behaviors that drive
currentdecision-makingandwillinformselection,adoption,and
continueduseofnewtechnologies.Suchguessworkdetractsfrom
efficientandeffectiveresearchanddesign
4 Thewayforward
Thequestioniswhetherandhowenergyresearchcandrawfrom
thedepthsofdifferentdisciplinesandlearnmorefromtheones
thathavebeenundervaluedtodate.Integratingsocialsciencein energyresearchwillrequirethatwepursuethree recommenda-tionssynergistically
To begintomitigate disciplinarybias,energy ministriesand statistical agencies should compile and analyze data onsocial phenomena relatedtoenergyissues Thisisnot entirelyanew idea; in thelate 1970s and early 1980s many energy agencies
“discovered”thevalueofsocialscience,butthediscoveryseems
tohavebeenforgotten[25,26].TheAmericanAcademyofArts& SciencesrecentlyrecommendedthattheU.S.EnergyInformation Administration,aunitoftheDOE,“collectandorganize[behavioral] datausefulforsocialscience”andcreatea“socialscienceadvisory group”[27].Theyalsosuggestedthatlocalutilitycommissioners and energy plannersrequireenergy companiestoutilizesocial scienceresearchwhendevelopingnewtechnologies,andthat pro-gramevaluationsbegintoincludedeterminationsofbehavioral andregulatorybarriersalongsidetraditionaleconomicand techni-calones.Indeed,legislationsubmittedtotheU.S.Congresswould havecreatedaformalsub-divisionoftheDOEonthebehavioral aspectsofenergy,buttheideahasnotprogressedveryfar[28].On theothersideoftheAtlantic,theDepartmentofEnergyandClimate ChangeintheUnitedKingdomhasa“CustomerInsightTeam”that explorescapacitybuildingforalteringthebehaviorofconsumers andorganizations,butitisanexceptionratherthanthenorm
Toencourageinterdisciplinarydepth,moreofenergyresearch should be problem-centered, not just technology-centered One waytofosterinterdisciplinaryenergy-orientedscholarship
is through problem-focused programs in funding and educa-tion Though it has its faults, the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy(ARPA-E)intheUnitedStatesorganizesits pro-grams around energy problems and “disruptive technologies” [29].Inuniversities,thiscouldentailspecialinterdisciplinary pro-gramsonenergyorclimatechange,somewhatanalogoustothe problem-focusedprogramsthatuniversitieshavelongmaintained
Trang 4exam-ples include the Energy and Resources Group at University of
California—Berkeley,theBusinessBasedTechnologyDevelopment
program at Aarhus University, the Natural and Social Science
InterfaceatETHZurich,andtheSciencePolicyResearchUnitatthe
UniversityofSussex.Well-conceivedinitiativeswouldemphasize
socialscienceapproachesatundergraduateandgraduatelevels,
and inthecurriculum,focused onsuchmajorenergy problems
as efficient and sustainable consumption, risk management,
publicdecisionmaking,andthedesignoftechnologiesforpublic
acceptanceanduse
Allthesefocirequiresocialscienceintegratedwithother
sci-ences [30].Such transdisciplinary projects do notalways mesh
withacademiccredentialingandrewardsystems,though.Nearly
alluniversitiesseemtowanttoencourageinterdisciplinarywork
butthenorganizeandre-enforcedisciplinarystructureswithinthe
university.A primarycauseofdisciplinary intractabilityin
uni-versitiesissystemsofpromotionandtenurethatrelyheavilyon
validationprovidedbypublicationindisciplinaryjournals
(moni-toredbyjournaleditorsasdisciplinarygatekeepers)andreviewsby
refereesfromdisciplinarydepartments.Universitiescanovercome
disciplinaryhegemonybycreditingcollaborationacrosssilosand
rewardingcross-disciplinarywork,particularlyonproblemslike
climatechange,whichdonotrespectdisciplines
Instressingthatsocialscienceisessentialinpointingtheway
toenergysystemswhichrespondtohumanandsocietalneeds,we
donotpretendthatthetaskiseasy.Ifdecisionmakerswantadvice
fromnaturalsciencetheyusuallygetthesameanswerfromany
competentnaturalscientist.However,iftheyseekadviceon
eco-nomic,societal,politicalorpsychologicalquestionstheyhavetobe
watchfulwhichexperttheyconsult.Mainstreameconomistsand
ecologicaleconomists,forexample,cangivedifferent,often
oppo-siteadvice.Inthepast,policymakersregularlychosetheadvice
of classical economicsover otherdisciplines, placingtoomuch
faithin“rationalactor”theoriesofbehavior,tothedetrimentof
otherdisciplinessuchasanthropology,sociology,orhistory [5]
Andwhilealleconomistsmayclaimtobesocialscientiststoday,
notallsocialscientistswouldagreetothatgeneralclaim.There
isadifferencebetweentryingtofindtheeconomicvalueof
envi-ronmentalservicesandvaluingtheenvironmentforotherreasons
Inorderforpolicymakersnottobehopelesslyovertaxedbysuch
disagreement,everypieceofadvicefromsocialsciencemayhave
toincludeaself-declarationonhowitfitsintoacolorfulandat
timesdisjointedbodyofknowledge.Socialsciencedisciplinestend
tohavedifferentemphasesandtogetthebestunderstandingone
needsinterdisciplinarity
Noraretechnicalscientistsandengineerstheonlyonesthat
needtoreachout.Socialscienceresearchcompletelydivorcedfrom
soundphysicalscience,engineering,orlifesciencecanbejustas
incompleteandineffectiveasphysicsorchemistryworkdivorced
fromitssociologicaloreconomic implications.Energyproblems
requirethatsocialscientistsengagewiththephysicalsciencesas
wellasthereverse
Toencourageabreadthofperspectives,energyresearchmust
encompassdiversetypesofresearchersandviewpoints,including
thosefrombeyondtheacademy,andbeyondtheUnitedStatesand
Europe.Suchinclusivitycanenhancetherobustnessofresearch
byincorporatingacademicknowledgeaboutsocialstructures,
sys-tems of cultural meaning, and processes of change,as well as
observationsbypeopleclosesttothephenomenainquestion,even
iftheirobservationalmethodsdonotfollowrigorousscientific
pro-tocols[31].Asoneexample,attemptstoaddresstheproblemof
aciddeposition(“acidrain”)didnotreally progressuntil scien-tists(notablybiologists,physicists,chemists,andengineers)began
tocollaboratewitheconomists,legalscholars,politicalscientists, sociologists,andcitizens’groups[32,33].Anotherexample,from outside energy studies,comesfrom health, and themovement towardEvidenceBasedPractice,orEBP.EBPharnessessocial sci-enceinquirymethodsanddiscoveriesacrossthesocialsciences (organizationaldesign,instrumentvalidation,interpersonal com-munication)toimprovehealthoutcomes[34].Themovementhas influencedmanyaspectsofthehealthsciences,fromcurriculum designandclinicalpracticetoscholarship[35]
Journaleditorscanmotivatebreadthontheirown,too.Todate toomuchofenergyrelatedsocialscienceispublishedinless well-knownandless“prestigious”journals.Thisneedstochange,and somepeer-reviewedjournals,suchasEnergy Research & Social
comparativeresearch,intheiraimsandscope
5 Conclusion
In sum, the time has come to remake energy studies and research.Itshouldintentionally,systematically,andinstitutionally
bemoreproblemoriented,interdisciplinary,sociallyinclusive,and heterogeneous.Narrow,disciplinarystudiesstillhaveaplace,of course,inenergyresearch.Butif,asmathematicianNorbertWeiner onceobserved,“changecomesmostofallfromtheunvisited no-man’slandbetweenthedisciplines”[36],thenweurgentlyneedto explorethespacesthatnowexistbetweenthesocialsciencesand energystudies
Acknowledgments Exceptascited,thisarticledoesnotnecessarilyrepresentthe viewsoftheU.S.NationalResearchCouncil.Theauthors appreci-ategenerousfeedbackfromProfessorTomDietzatMichiganState Universitywhichhasbeenhelpfulinrevisingtheargumentsraised
inthisarticle.Wewereinitiallyreluctanttosubmitthispieceto
audi-ence.However,oneenvironmentalstudiesjournalinitiallyrejected
itfornotbeingnovelenoughandanotherthreeinthemainstream
oftheenergystudiesfieldrefusedtosenditoutforreviewonthe groundsthatitdidnotfittheiraimsandscope.Thisisnotatypical
ofthefateofarticlesgroundedin,orarguingfor,an interdisci-plinaryperspective onenergyand environmental research.We hopethatpublishingitherewillultimatelypromotethetypeof cross-disciplinarydialogthatmayeventuallyconvincethesetypes
ofjournals,andtheirreaders,ofthevalueofintegrativesocial sci-enceenergyresearch
References
[1] Sovacool BK What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy schol-arship and proposing a social science research agenda Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;1:1–29.
[2] Moezzi M, Janda KB From “if only‘” to “social potential” in schemes to reduce building energy use Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;1(March):30–40.
[3] Pasqualetti MJ, Brown MA Ancient discipline, modern concern: geographers
in the field of energy and society Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;1(March):122–33.
[4] Rochlin GI Energy research and the contributions of the social sciences: a retrospective examination Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;3(September):178–85.
[5] Ryan SE, Hebdon C, Dafoe J Energy research and the contributions of the social sciences: a contemporary examination Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;3(September):186–97.
[6] Sovacool BK Energy studies need social science Nature 2014;511(July (7511)):529–30.
[7] Wallenborn G, Wilhite H Rethinking embodied knowledge and household con-sumption Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;1(March):56–64.
[8] Lutzenhiser L Through the energy efficiency looking glass Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;1(March):141–51.
Trang 5[9] United States Department of Energy Report of the first quadrennial technology
review U.S., Department of Energy: Washington, DC; 2011 p 125.
[10] President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report to the
Pres-ident on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies through an
Integrated Federal Energy Policy Washington, D.C.: Executive Office.
[11] D’Agostino AL, Sovacool BK, Trott K, Ramos CR, Saleem S, Ong Y What’s the
state of energy studies research? A content analysis of three leading journals
from 1999–2008 Energy 2011;36(January (1)):508–19.
[12] Biggart NW, Lutzenhiser L Economic sociology and the social problem of
energy inefficiency Am Behav Sci 2006;50(8):1070–86.
[13] Gilbert A, Sovacool BK Shale gas: better modeling for the energy mix Nature
2014;515(November):98.
[14] Taylor PG, Upham P, McDowall W, Christopherson D Energy model, boundary
object and societal lens: 35 years of the MARKAL model in the UK Energy Res
Soc Sci 2014;4(December):32–41.
[15] Jefferson M Closing the gap between energy research and modelling, the
social sciences, and modern realities Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;4(December):
42–52.
[16] Berkhout F, Harris M, et al Developing a strategy for social science research
on energy Final Report Brighton: Environment and Energy Programme, SPRU
(Science & Technology Policy Research) University of Sussex; 2003.
[17] Stokes DE Pasteur’s quadrant – basic science and technological innovation.
Brookings Institution Press; 1997.
[18] Stern PC Individual and household interactions with energy systems: toward
integrated understanding Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;1:41–8.
[19] Stern PC Blind spots in energy analysis: what economics doesn’t say about
energy use J Policy Anal Manage 1986;5:200–27.
[20] Birol F Energy economics: a place for energy poverty on the agenda? Energy J
2007;28(3):1–6.
[21] Ryan S Rethinking gender and identity in energy studies Energy Res Soc Sci
2014;1:96–105.
[22] Meier A, Whittier J Consumer discount rates implied by purchases of energy-efficient refrigerators Energy 1983;8(12):957–62.
[23] Ward DO, Clark CD, Jensen KL, Yen ST, Russell CS Factors influencing willingness-to-pay for the energy star label Energy Policy 2011;39(3):1450–8.
[24] Alcott B Jevons’ paradox Ecol Econ 2005;54(July (1)):9–21.
[25] Nader L, Milleron N Dimensions of the ‘people problem’ in energy research and ‘the’ factual basis of dispersed energy futures Energy 1979;4:953–67.
[26] National Research Council In: Stern PC, Aronson E, editors Energy use: the human dimension New York, NY: W.H Freeman and Company; 1984.
[27] American Academy of Arts & Sciences Beyond technology: strengthening energy policy through social science Cambridge, MA: AAA&S; 2011.
[28] Alcott H, Mullainathan S Behavior and energy policy Science 2010;327(March):1204–5.
[29] Sovacool BK Replacing tedium with transformation: why the U.S department
of energy needs to change the way it conducts long-term R&D Energy Policy 2008;36(March (3)):923–8.
[30] Spreng D Transdisciplinary energy research – reflecting the context Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;1(March):65–73.
[31] National Research Council In: Stern PC, Fineberg HV, editors Understand-ing risk: informing decisions in a democratic society Washington: National Academy Press; 1996.
[32] Newell WH A theory of interdisciplinary studies Issues Integr Stud 2001;19:1–25.
[33] Repko AF Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory London: Sage; 2011.
[34] Glasgow RE, Emmons KM How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed Annu Rev Public Health 2007;28: 413–33.
[35] Brownson RC, et al Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice Annu Rev Public Health 2009;30:175–201.
[36] Yatchew A Economics of energy, big ideas for the non-economist Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;1(March):74–82.