Much of the debate on sustainability is predicated on the belief that environmental demands lead to the production of sustainable technologies that induce environmental benefits. This fails to account for the influential ways technologies are used in practice, and the interactions between users and technologies that shape their environmental effects. This article uses the example of how cars and their drivers together accomplish the practice of driving through their interactions with each other, and explores the implications this has for generating environmental outcomes. We draw on a body of literature that argues how together, users and technologies participate in carrying out practices that actively shape outcomes, and we show how and why this applies to sustainability. The article presents the case of the Toyota Prius, analyzing Toyota’s intent in designing a sustainable car and contrasting it with the perspectives of thirty-eight of its drivers. We find that the possibility for fuel and carbon reduction is coproduced and is a result of complex interactions between technology, drivers, and driving practice.
AggeriF.ElmquistM.PohlH.. 2009. “Managing Learning in the Automotive Industry: The race for Hybridisation.”International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management9 (2): 123–47.
2.
AjzenI.1991. “The Theory of Planned Behaviour.”Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes50 (2): 179–211.
3.
AjzenI.FishbeinM.. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
AkrichM.1992. “The De-scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by BijkerM.Law, 205-224J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
AndersonC.AndersonJ.. 2010. Electric and Hybrid Cars: A History. 2nd ed. North Carolina: McFarland and Company Publishers.
6.
BambergS.2003. “How Does Environmental Concern Influence Specific Environmentally Related Behaviors? A New Answer to an Old Question.”Journal of Environmental Psychology23 (1): 21–32.
7.
BijkerW.1992. “The Social Construction of Fluorescent Lighting, or How an Artifact was Invented in its Diffusion Stage.” In Shaping Technology /Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by BijkerM.LawJ.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
BijkerW.1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
BullM.2004. “Automobility and the Power of Sound.”Theory Culture Society21(4-5): 243–259.
10.
DantT.2004. “The Driver-Car.”Theory Culture Society21 (2): 61–79.
11.
DijkM.2011. “Technological Frames of Car Engines.”Technology in Society33 (1-2): 165–80.
12.
EliasN.1995. “Technization and Civilization.”Theory Culture Society12 (3): 7–42.
13.
FaberN.JornaR.EngelenV. J.. 2005. “The Sustainability of “Sustainability”: A Study into the Conceptual Foundations of the Notion of “Sustainability”.”Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management7 (1): 1–33.
14.
GjoenH.HardM.. 2002. “Cultural Politics in Action: Developing user Scripts in Relation to the Electric Vehicle.”Science, Technology, and Human Values27 (2): 262–81.
15.
HeffnerR.KuraniK.TurrentineT.. 2007a. “Symbolism in California’s Early Market for Hybrid Electric Vehicles.”Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment12 (6): 396–413.
16.
HeffnerR.2007b. “Symbolism and the Adoption of Fuel-Cell Vehicles.”World Electric Vehicle Association Journal1:24–31.
17.
International Energy Agency. 2007a. World Energy Outlook: Summary and Conclusions. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org(accessed July 25, 2008).
KahnM. E.2007. “Do Greens Drive Hummers or Hybrids? Environmental Ideology as a Determinant of Consumer Choice and the Aggregate Ecological Footprint.”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management54 (2): 129–45.
KirschA. D.1997. “The Electric Car and the Burden of History: Studies in Automotive Systems Rivalry in America, 1890-1996.”Business and Economic History26 (2): 304–10.
22.
LatourB.1992. “Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artefacts.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by BijkerW.LawJ., 205–24. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
MillerD.2001. “Driven Societies.” In Car Cultures, edited by MillerD., 187–215. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
25.
MillerD.2010. Stuff. Cambridge: Polity Press.
26.
NonakaI.PeltokorpiV.. 2006. “Knowledge-based view of Radical Innovation: Toyota Prius case.” In Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change: A Research Handbook, edited by HageJ.MeeusM., 88–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
OudshoornN.PinchT.. 2003. How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
28.
OzakiR.SevastyanovaK.. 2011. “Going Hybrid: An Analysis of Consumer Purchase Motivation.”Energy Policy39 (5): 2217–2227.
29.
ReckwitzA.2002. “Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing.”European Journal of Social Theory5(2): 243–63.
30.
SchatzkiT.2001. “Introduction: Practice Theory.” In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by SchatzkiT.Knorr-CetinaK.SavignyE., 1–14. London, England: Routledge.
31.
ShellerM.2004. “Automotive Emotions: Feeling the Car.”Theory Culture Society21(4/5): 221–42.
ShoveE.PantzarM.. 2005. “Consumers, Producers and Practices: Understanding the Invention and Reinvention of Nordic Walking.”Journal of Consumer Culture5 (1): 43–64.
34.
SlaterD.1997. Consumer Culture and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
35.
SorensenT. K.2004. “Cultural Politics of Technology: Combining Critical and Constructive Interventions?”Science, Technology, and Human Values29 (4): 184–90.
36.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL.. 1999. “A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism.”Research in Human Ecology6 (2): 81–97.
WoolgarS.1991. “Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials.” In Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by LawJ., 57–99. London, England: Routledge.
