In this article, we present a case study investigating the socio-psychological aspects of grassroots participation in a Transition Town Movement (TTM) community initiative. We analyzed the first Italian Transition initiative: Monteveglio (Bologna), the central hub of the Italian TTM and a key link with the global Transition Network. A qualitative methodology was used to collect and analyze the data consisting of interviews with key informants and ethnographic notes. The results provide further evidence supporting the role of social representations, shared social identities, and collective efficacy beliefs in promoting, sustaining, and shaping activists’ commitment. The movement seems to have great potential to inspire and engage citizens to tackle climate change at a community level. Grassroots engagement of local communities working together provides the vision and the material starting point for a viable pathway for the changes required. Attempting to ensure their future political relevance, the TTM adherents are striving to disseminate and materially consolidate inherently political and prefigurative movement frames – primarily community resilience and re-localization – within community socio-economic and political frameworks. However, cooperation with politics is perceived by most adherents as a frustrating and dissatisfying experience, and an attempted co-optation of the Transition initiative by institutions. It highlights a tension between the open and non-confrontational approach of the movement towards institutions and their practical experience. Corresponding to this tension, activists have to cope with conflicts, contradictions, and ambivalence of social representations about community action for sustainability, which threaten the sense of collective purpose, group cohesion and ultimately its survival.

This article examines the contents of the representations of sustainable energy in Italy from 2009 to 2011. In particular it explores the representations of energy, energy systems, and users. The article's starting point was the assumption that critical points may change the relationship between communities and the represented issues, and that new representations may be dialogically elaborated following relevant societal events. Political debates and newspaper articles dealing with sustainable energy were subjected to content analyses. Results show that the representations bear witness to the prevalence of economic and strategic approaches and a view of citizens whereby, even when involved in decentralized systems, they are required to stay passive. Alternative contents seem not to challenge the hegemonic view of energy. A clear trend toward sustainability is lacking, suggesting the absence of a continuing motivation to look at energy taking into account the civic growth of the population.

This paper provides a systematic overview of the psychosocial contribution to decarbonization studies and critically discusses current trends. Following the PRISMA protocol, we reviewed 404 articles informing how socio-psychological processes affect decarbonization, and vice versa, and highlighting research gaps and biases. Contrary to criticisms about methodological individualism and reductionism of socio-psychological research on sustainability, the review illustrates that the field is equally attentive to psychosocial processes operating at different levels, including the individual (e.g., attitudes, stress, environmental concerns), community (e.g., collective identity, justice, sense of place), and socio-cultural levels (e.g., social norms, values, memory). However, evidence shows some problematic trends in the literature: (i) A bias toward specific agents and geographies, which overlooks mesoscale actors (e.g., media, unions, NGOs) and developing and eastern countries; (ii) instrumental and normative views of transitions, which coincide with a prevailing focus on cognitive processes and a selective bias toward technologies, policies, places, and natural resources conceived as instrumental to decarbonization. This also emphasizes how biophysical processes, people–nature relationships, and the role of emotions in understanding the psychology of agents and decarbonization processes are almost absent; (iii) a research gaze normatively oriented toward the future, which risks neglecting continuity–discontinuity dynamics and the timing and pace of transitions.