Accelerating sustainable technology adoption through public policy: Communication strategies, public perception, and development outcomes
Main Article Content
Abstract
The adoption of sustainable technology is contingent not only on the technical availability, but also on factors such as policy design, institutional capacity, public trust and communication. This PRISMA-guided critical scoping review synthesizes a range of materials, including peer-reviewed studies, official reports, policy documents and selected discourse material on sustainable technology adoption in development contexts. Sustainable technology is regarded as a distinct socio-technical category covering green, clean and digital technologies solely when they contribute to environmental, social or institutional sustainability. The review identifies policy design dimensions, communication mechanisms and contextual factors that shape adoption. Findings show that effective adoption requires coherent policy mixes, enabling infrastructure, capability-building, safeguards, participatory communication and misinformation management. The present study proposes an integrated policy communication framework for sustainable technology adoption and highlights the need to design adoption for legitimacy, equity and long-term public value.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright
Open Access authors retain the copyrights of their papers, and all open access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
1. International Telecommunication Union, Measuring digital development: facts and figures 2024, ITU, Geneva, 2024.
2. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations E-Government Survey 2024: accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development, United Nations, New York, 2024.
3. World Bank, Digital progress and trends report 2023, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2024.
4. OECD, Digital public infrastructure for digital governments, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 68, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2024.
5. World Bank, Digital public infrastructure and development: a World Bank Group approach, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2025.
6. International Energy Agency, World energy investment 2024, IEA, Paris, 2024.
7. International Energy Agency, Energy technology perspectives 2024, IEA, Paris, 2024.
8. D. Hariyani, P. Hariyani and S. Mishra, Digital technologies for the Sustainable Development Goals, Green Technol. Sustain. 3 (2025) 100202.
9. B. Pini, A. Petroni and B. Bigliardi, Technological innovation and sustainability in public administration: a systematic review and research agenda, Adm. Sci. 16 (2026) 80.
10. E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, 2003.
11. F. D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Q. 13 (1989) 319–340.
12. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis and F. D. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Q. 27 (2003) 425–478.
13. F. W. Geels, Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study, Res. Policy 31 (2002) 1257–1274.
14. J. Markard, R. Raven and B. Truffer, Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects, Res. Policy 41 (2012) 955–967.
15. P. Bryla, S. Chatterjee and B. Ciabiada-Bryla, Consumer adoption of electric vehicles: a systematic literature review, Energies 16 (2023) 205.
16. R. Zaino, V. Ahmed, A. M. Alhammadi and M. Alghoush, Electric vehicle adoption: a comprehensive systematic review of technological, environmental, organizational and policy impacts, World Electr. Veh. J. 15 (2024) 375.
17. M. Tomai, S. V. Ramani and G. Papachristos, How can we design policy better? Frameworks and approaches for sustainability transitions, Sustainability 16 (2024) 690.
18. M. Howlett and I. Mukherjee, Policy design and non-design: towards a spectrum of policy formulation types, Politics Gov. 2 (2014) 57–71.
19. M. Howlett, I. Mukherjee and J. J. Woo, From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research, Policy Polit. 43 (2015) 291–311.
20. M. Howlett, Designing public policies: principles and instruments, 3rd ed., Routledge, London, 2024.
21. K. S. Rogge and K. Reichardt, Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis, Res. Policy 45 (2016) 1620–1635.
22. M. Mazzucato, Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities, Ind. Corp. Change 27 (2018) 803–815.
23. J. Schot and W. E. Steinmueller, Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change, Res. Policy 47 (2018) 1554–1567.
24. D. Parks, Directionality in transformative innovation policy: who is giving directions?, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 43 (2022) 1–13.
25. J. Stilgoe, R. Owen and P. Macnaghten, Developing a framework for responsible innovation, Res. Policy 42 (2013) 1568–1580.
26. OECD, OECD report on public communication: the global context and the way forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021.
27. S. C. Moser, Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 (2010) 31–53.
28. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Communicating science effectively: a research agenda, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2017.
29. M. C. Nisbet and D. A. Scheufele, What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions, Am. J. Bot. 96 (2009) 1767–1778.
30. R. M. Entman, Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm, J. Commun. 43 (1993) 51–58.
31. S. Lewandowsky, U. K. H. Ecker, C. M. Seifert, N. Schwarz and J. Cook, Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing, Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13 (2012) 106–131.
32. S. van der Linden, A. Leiserowitz, S. Rosenthal and E. Maibach, Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change, Glob. Challenges 1 (2017) 1600008.
33. OECD, Good practice principles for public communication responses to mis- and disinformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023.
34. O. Marquet, L. Mojica, M.-B. Fernandez-Nunez and M. Maciejewska, Pathways to 15-minute city adoption: Can our understanding of climate policies' acceptability explain the backlash towards x-minute city programs?, Cities 148 (2024) 104878.
35. Associated Press, FACT FOCUS: Conspiracies misconstrue 15-minute city idea, Associated Press, 3 March 2023.
36. Reuters Fact Check, Fact check: 15-minute city is an urban planning concept that promotes easy access to essential services, Reuters, 30 March 2023.
37. United Nations, Global Digital Compact, United Nations, New York, 2024.
38. United Nations Development Programme, Digital strategy 2022-2025, UNDP, New York, 2022.
39. United Nations Development Programme, UN releases Universal DPI Safeguards Framework to promote safe and inclusive digital public infrastructure, UNDP, 24 September 2024.
40. M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow et al., The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ 372 (2021) n71.
41. A. C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K. K. O'Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Levac et al., PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation, Ann. Intern. Med. 169 (2018) 467–473.
42. H. Arksey and L. O'Malley, Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (2005) 19–32.
43. D. Levac, H. Colquhoun and K. K. O'Brien, Scoping studies: advancing the methodology, Implement. Sci. 5 (2010) 69.
44. International Renewable Energy Agency, World energy transitions outlook 2024, IRENA, Abu Dhabi, 2024.
45. International Energy Agency, World energy outlook 2024, IEA, Paris, 2024.
46. United Nations Development Programme, Accelerating the SDGs through digital public infrastructure, UNDP, New York, 2023.
47. G20 Digital Economy Ministers Meeting, G20 framework for systems of digital public infrastructure, G20 India, 2023.
48. S. Michie, M. M. van Stralen and R. West, The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions, Implement. Sci. 6 (2011) 42.
49. A. O. Chow, B. Dolter, M. Hurlbert and O. Zapata, Electric vehicles do not work in the winter: exploring the role of misperceptions and socio-psychological factors in zero-emission vehicle adoption, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 130 (2025) 104450.