Consumer shift towards eco-friendly products and their effect on the economic growth analysis
Abstract
Our paper is focused on developing a platform to discuss the effect of consumer behavioral changes towards eco-friendly commodities and the impact on the production patterns and the overall economy. There have been commissions developed to assess the frameworks for monitoring the evolution of impacting environmental association with consumption trends. The established structures have been designed to give support to a wide variety of policies concerning the efficiency of resources, economic innovation, and growth of economies. The consumption impact on the environment is usually assessed using indicators such as the Consumption and Consumer mark, which complement each other. The Consumer mark is measured by effects on the environment, which are based on the real-life cycle utility assessment of goods bought and consumed for a year.
These findings are in relevance to the results of tracked trends of consumed goods and services chosen to represent. Whereas perspective in the industries producing these commodities helps us in establishing our results, the products producing emissions and using resources, consumption-based view considers all environmental implications by the local consumption. Both perspectives on ecological impact are crucial to the policymakers. The research handles the variability in the consumption phase guided by the consumers, consumption trends, referring to their previous aims. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Keywords: economic growth, environment, resources, products,
Introduction
In recent years, there have been massive investigations by scientists to find the appropriate resources required to enable and support current household consumption. Mainly in the quest to understand man and nature and their interrelationships. (Fischer- Kowalski et al., 2014). The research has been majorly focused on the emissions due to the use of these products, the disposal mechanisms of the products, and tries to reduce the overall impacts and assess trade-off. These analyses have traditionally been kept by the national statistics bureau and the production systems trying to treat the imported goods as if they were local. The emission percentage is different in different countries, due to the various efficiency rates in different economies.
Due to high carbon emissions from these goods, there has been the development of the multi-regional input-output models to be able to keep track of the impacts of consumption on the environment. These calculations have been extended to other pollutant materials and their effect on land, water consumption (Wiedmann et al., 2015). In that article, we shall focus on the environmental impacts of waste on households in terms of water use, greenhouse emissions, and the products consumed by these households. We shall also discuss the impact of the customer preference towards environment-friendly goods on the broader economy.
Method
After reviewing the theories and reviews explaining consumers’ behavior, the report outlines the different approaches that measure the impacts of consumption on the environment and the main factors that influence many consumers to shift towards more environmentally friendly consumption decisions and behaviors. Additionally, the link between behavioral sciences and Life Cycle Assessment, through the creation of scenarios on consumption behavior applied to the Basket of Products (BoPs) is evaluated, combined with the ability to capture the effects in those scenarios. Current gaps in knowledge and related research needs are illustrated in the last section, hinting possible research lines in the future to integrate behavioral economics into assessing the environment. For instance, to get the effects induced by the expenditure of households to structure shifting, relating to Engel’s curve, and also complement and improve further on the approaches in the discussion.
The assessment of the environmental impact as a result of the consumption of products and services is an essential milestone towards hitting the target goal of actual production and consumption. As part of its dedication towards more sustainable production and consumption, a system has developed as an assessment framework to monitor the evolution of environmental impacts associated with the expenditure. The current study expands the initial assessment framework, thereby ensuring a more complete and huge evaluation of the effects, partially and assessing the impact on a variety of environmental impact categories related to other development goals, especially those addressing ecosystems and human health. Determining the environmental impact of consumption is usually linked with the top development goals, and it shows the evaluation of the level of separation of implications of the environment from economic growth and other consumption patterns. However, the assessment of the effects of production and consumption also means understanding the level at which production and consumption impact on other development goals.
The assessment framework intends to support a vast pool of policies, such as those related to a circular economy, efficiency of a resource, and economic innovation. The environmental impact of consumption is determined by adopting two sets of lifecycle-based indicators: Consumption mark and Consumer mark, which complement each other in determining results. The Consumer mark uses the bottom-up approach, aiming to assess the environmental impact of consumption concerning the effects of the products represented. Indeed, the Consumer mark depends on the results of the assessment of the life cycle of many products, which are described, bought, and used by a single individual in one year. The Consumer mark allows evaluation of the environmental impacts along every step of the product’s life cycle which are, extraction of raw materials, production, consumption phase, re-use/recycling, and mechanisms of disposal. The environmental footprint is measured and calculated as a function of the multiplier, which shows the level of intensity of household purchase and the quantity of the goods demand in monetary terms.
Carbon footprint land footprint material footprint water footprint
Households 65 ± 7% 70 ± 11% 51 ± 8% 81 ± 7%
NPISH 1 ± 1% 1 ± 1% 1 ± 1% 1 ± 1% Governments 7 ± 3% 5 ± 3% 7 ± 3% 5 ± 3%
Gross capital formation 24 ± 7% 19 ± 10% 37 ± 9% 10 ± 6%
Changes in inventories 3 ± 2% 5 ± 5% 4 ± 3% 3 ± 2%
In the evaluation of Consumer mark, the consumption capacity of individuals is divided into five different groups (food, housing, mobility, household goods, and commodities, and appliances). In every area, a Basket of representative Products (BoP) has also been developed following the statistics of consumption and the stock of goods. In every BoP, a mock scenario has been accounted for and is being used as a reference in the consumption statistics of an average individual. The developed life cycle assessments follow the protocols of the International Life Cycle Data system (ILCD) requirements, guidelines, and support, to the utmost relevance and possibility, the environmental techniques as published in (Building the Single Market for Green Products, 2013). Periodical consistency checks and model refinements have ensured the quality of the models. To allow for periodic updates, the statistical models have been built with a parametric approach. Therefore, for instance, the structure and amount of consumption could be updated to a more recent reference year using the data collected on apparent consumption. That is the Bucket of product composition and its relative relevance on the available represented products which are taken from the statistical bureau. The baseline models help in identifying the environmental hotspots in the product lifecycle and within the area of consumption of each specific BoP. These findings in hotspot analysis are then used as a medium for the selection of actions towards the reduction of the environmental burden, covering the shift and alteration in consumption patterns, changes in behavior, implementation of economic friendly solutions, or just combining the previous ones. In every one of these actions, there has been the development of a scenario which acts on the baseline model and also simulates the changes associated with the intervention in question. The Life cycle assessment results of every situation are then compared to the baseline results to identify any potential benefits or impacts resulting from the implementation of the tested solution, and also showing the possible trade-offs. Complementary to the Consumer mark is also developed by JRC, the indicator for Consumption mark. It is a top-down approach, aiming to assess the potential impacts on the environment due to consumption, accounting for both local effects and trade-related results. The implications then are assigned to the location of the final consumer. This report focuses on consumer behavior, which affects the phase of product consumption and consumer footprint assessment consumer scenarios, and, more generally, the link between use and environmental impacts in the consumption footprint.
The elasticity of footprints concerning total household expenditure, by footprint.
and consumption category
Carbon footprint Land footprint Material footprint Water footprint
ɛ R2 ɛ R2 ɛ R2 ɛ R2
Total 0.66*** 0.83 0.56*** 0.49 0.54*** 0.85 0.40*** 0.54
Direct impact
Shelter 0.70* 0.08 0.20* 0.07 Mobility 0.80*** 0.83 — — — — — — Indirect impact
Shelter 0.58*** 0.44 0.45** 0.20 0.73*** 0.54 0.75*** 0.60 Food 0.41*** 0.62 0.49*** 0.41 0.29*** 0.46 0.30*** 0.35 Clothing 0.58*** 0.63 0.76*** 0.65 0.63*** 0.62 0.67*** 0.62 Mobility 0.77*** 0.79 0.80*** 0.68 0.76*** 0.81 0.54*** 0.38 Manufactured
products 0.75*** 0.86 0.88*** 0.69 0.75*** 0.87 0.72*** 0.77 Services 0.75*** 0.81 0.91*** 0.69 0.71*** 0.81 0.69*** 0.51
Product utility phase and consumption scenarios in the Consumer mark and also Consumption mark One of the project objectives is to “further develop a life cycle assessment framework, which includes modeling, for assessment of relevant consumption and economic innovation policies.” In the project framework, a dedicated area of research focused on the use phase and the consumption scenarios aiming at the examination of the behavior of consumer types given further refinement of commodity use phase, supporting the definition of scenarios for the Basket of Products (BoP) indicators. Assessing drivers of consumer choices and behaviors is, indeed, a crucial part of the overall assessment framework of the LC-IND2 project. The report addresses the variability in the use phase based on consumers’ real behavior patterns, covering these issues: Methods for including behavior when calculating the environmental impact of household consumption, circumscribing the scope of consumption-based perspective, and its policy implications. Determinants of consumer choices and actions, building on a recent review of leading theories and models explaining consumption and consumer behavior (Polizzi di Sorrentino et al. 2016) · List of pro-environmental practices to be further translated into LCA model parameters, including a literature-based analysis of the determinants of and obstacles to pro-environmental practice. Proposal of specific scenarios for the areas of consumption of the basket of products Identification of possible rebound effects1 due to the household expenditure category shifting (at the macro-scale). Several aspects dealt with in the present report require further research activities beyond the scope of the present study. However, possible future paths of research in these areas are presented (e.g., for capturing the effects induced by expenditure in households structure shifting, based on Engel’s curve, to complement and improve further the approaches discussed herein.
Consumption-based perspective and its policy implications
In a consumption-based view, economics considers the consumption as the ultimate driver of all production activities. Adopting a social and environmental attitude, sustainable consumption is defined as “the use of goods and service, which are in response to the basic human requirements and leading to a more satisfied better quality life, while reducing the use of natural resources and hazardous materials and also the production of waste product emissions and the life cycle of the goods or services, so as not to put the needs of other future generations in jeopardy” (UN, 1994). According to European Commission (2015), “To transit to a more circular economy, where the product value, material value, and there is the maintenance of the resources in the marketplace for as long as possible, and the waste generation is minimized, is a very crucial effort and contribution to promote a more sustainable, low carbon, efficient in resource and a competitive economy. That kind of transition is the opportunity to transform the economy and help in generating new competitive advantages. Acknowledging the critical role of the consumption phase for a circular economy highlights that “the choice of millions of customers can be crucial in supporting or hampering the circular economy.” Since consumption is crucial in the production life area of the life of the product, the development of consumption-based footprint indicators is thus essential for monitoring sustainable consumption and transitioning to a circular economy. Whereas these perspectives help to identify the local sectors, commodity groups, and commodities responsible for the use of resources and emissions, the view based on consumption focuses on the overall impact on the environment brought by domestic consumption. Taking a sustainable consumption-based approach entails extending the production-based perspective’s scope, by accounting for all ecological pressures caused by internal rebound effects are considered even if not quantified.
Most importantly is the practical effect of investing in natural resources and the infrastructure of the environment. A broad perspective between the connections in support and the economic progress was given by the world development report in 1994, which said that no matter the cause, the per capita stocks have a high correlation with the GDP levels. The table below shows the interlink between the connection between the natural and the environmental resources, economic growth, and the importance of the various investment towards an eco-friendly environment and the economy at large.
Consumption, i.e., occurring both domestically (stemming both from the domestic production system and final use of goods and services) and from abroad (embedded into the imported products and services produced in the rest of the world and consumed domestically) (Ivanova et al., 2015; EEA, 2015a). From this perspective, not only the environment-friendly products are improved, and production processes, but also fewer consumption behaviors that relate negatively to the environment are introduced in reducing the overall impact on the environment of goods and services According to this approach, households’ total environmental impact is given by the sum of all emissions and resource uses that homes cause directly, namely by their purchasing and use of good and services (e.g., shelter-related consumption of services or car use), and indirectly, i.e., covering those emissions and resources occurring across different supply chain stages of the consumer goods and services in production. (Hertwich and Ivanova, 2015). In the circular economy context (EC, 2015), what would matter is consumption that allows products to be used for longer, be re-used/refurbished, and new products that contain recycled material, etc.).Internal last use of products, through the existing consumption patterns, determines the structure of both the local production system and imports.
RESULTS.
Discussion
Some imports flow to go directly into the production system (used as intermediates in the production of final goods) and others (final products) that go directly to the final demand, including household consumption. The consumption-based perspective can distinguish the sources of consumed products, i.e., domestic production and imports, shed more light on the extent of internal use, which is driven by the existing consumption patterns and shapes the magnitude and structure of imports and local production system. The resulting policy challenge – as already put forward in the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP-SIP) Action Plan (EC, 2008) – for creating a “virtuous circle.” It could be done by enabling the improvement of products to enhance environmental performance. (e.g., through economic design, process and product innovations, etc.). It also stimulates consumers to make more beneficial consumption choices for the environment. (e.g., by better informing the consumer through product labeling) and to demand environmentally better-performing products. If eco-efficiency and eco-innovation measures (on the supply side) are to be effective, they must be supplemented by substantial changes on the demand side (Scott, 2009; UNEP, 2010).
Consumption is mainly concerned by “a combination of complex and interrelating factors like demographics, income and prices, technology, policies of trade and infrastructure, and also socio-cultural and psychological factors” (EEA, 2010). Thus, a better understanding of consumption’s drivers and patterns is needed for designing effective, sustainable consumption policies. However, as stated in the 7th EAP (Environmental Action Programme), the existing knowledge gaps in adequately understanding both the consumption structure and its drivers and thus consumption-induced environmental impact, require further research to which this project is contributing.
Unfolding consumer’s behavior:
The brief review of leading theories and models Among the main economic methods addressing consumption and consumer behavior are Keynes’ consumption function (Keynes, 1936), followed by – and also stemming from it – Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis (Friedman, 1957) and Duesenberry’s theory of relative consumption expenditure (Duesenberry, 1949). Keynes’ short-term aggregate consumption function is given by equation
C = a + bY,
where a is the autonomous consumption, b is the marginal propensity to consume, and Y is the disposable income. By explaining why income is more volatile than consumption in the long term, Friedman emphasized that the anticipated long-term income drives the propensity to consume. The equation gives permanent consumption
CP = k(r,z)YP,
where cp is permanent consumption, k(r,z) is the long-term average propensity to consume, and YP is permanent income (Meghir, 2004). Furthermore, the standard approach in the growth theory based on our discussion maximizes the value of utility
|
|
¥ e– rtU (C, S)dt
0
Using a more standard theory of optimal control method, we make an optimal path for both the natural and the economic systems by the formation of the Hamiltonian function
L = U (C, SE ) + å l j[-dK j + I j ] + mR[-H (KR , SR ) + f (SR , KRM )] +
j
mE[-G(KW , F (KY , H (KR , SR ), E(SE ))) + g(SE , KEM )] +
x[F (KY , H (KR , SR ), E(SE )) – C – å I j ]
j
The lj represents the shadow value the extra investment in the value of capital
stocks, and
mR, mE
represents the shadow values of the extra natural resource and environmental
Quality stocks in a respective manner. As we can observe, x , the national income multiplier constraint for accounting, gives the reflection of the marginal utility of the additional consumption.
When we use the techniques from the theory of optimal control, we get the following differential equations for the shadow prices of the physical and natural capital stocks:
l = (r + d )l
– (x – m G )F
Y Y
|
|
= (r + d )lW
E Y K
- mEGK
|
|
= (r + d )lR
- HK
[mR
– (x – m
EGY
)FR ]
|
|
= (r + d )lRM – mR fK
|
|
= (r + d )lEM – mE g K
m R = (r – fS + HS )mR – (x – mEGY )FRHS
m E = [r – gS + GY FE E¢(SE )]mE – US – xFE E¢(SE )
Further, individual consumption patterns started being explained not only by current income but also by many other determinants, such as utility maximization, long-term income expectations, and other subjective factors (for a detailed discussion on this topic, see D’Orlando and Sanfilippo, 2010). Duesenberry (1949) took into account other consumption factors than fixed income. Expenditure habit formation (given by the previous peak income level) and the role of social interdependencies in actual consumption pattern formation, which also came into play in explaining the underlying drivers of individual consumption spending.
As far as the social influence on individual consumption tendency is concerned, “the power of any person’s desire to increase their expenditure on consumption is a function of the ratio of their expenditure to some weighted average of the expenditures of the other persons he comes into contact with.” (Duesenberry, 1948). Consumption has been thus increasingly seen as depending not only on the past, current, or future income (for a review of this debate, see D’Orlando and Sanfilippo, 2010), but also on many other individuals (e.g., habit) and social factors (e.g., social status or norms). This emerging strand led to the development of various behavior-based principles, approaches, and models, advanced from different disciplinary strands. As mentioned, D’Orlando and Sanfilippo (2010) provide a comprehensive review of them. A selection of the main contributions from various disciplines to better understanding consumer behavior is briefly presented below. In economics, the extended range of consumption drivers has paved the way for practice centered approaches, aiming to develop more empiric, observation-based foundations of consumer decisions. Many empirical results were incorporated into the macroeconomic models for resolving various deficiencies, such as refining the assumptions on the real-world economic behavior of household consumption (for a detailed discussion, Driscoll and Holden, 2014) and for better grounding the aggregate consumption function. Over time, behavioral economists have used psychology and laboratory experiments developed in the area of experimental economics for explaining the observed economic behaviors of consumers and exploring the social and psychological determinants behind consumption decisions (e.g., habits, routines, conventions, etc.) (D’Orlando and Sanfilippo, 2010; Hosseini, 2003). Tomer (2007) circumscribes the scope of the emerged behavioral economics by defining its specific research methods (e.g., extensive use of survey and experiments) and different research strands (e.g., Carnegie School; Michigan School; psychological and experimental economics; cognitive psychology; behavioral macroeconomics; evolutionary theory). Overall, he describes behavioral economics as “narrow, rigid, intolerant, mechanical, separate and individualistic than mainstream economics” (Tomer, 2007), thus trying to replace the traditional economics perspective.
Developed in Keynes (1936), a detailed presentation of Keynes’s consumption function is provided by S. Guru . Behavioral principles and theories stemming from marketing and behavioral economics led to the multidisciplinary area of “consumer behavior analysis” (Foxall, 2003), aiming at explaining the drivers of actual consumer’s choices and behavior (Di Clemente and Hantula, 2003 for a detailed review of this evolution). For example, the stream of consumer psychology undertakes longitudinal studies. Where applying research on actual consumer behavior in “search for, acquisition and use of, and disposition of goods and services” ⃰ and identification of other indirect variables which consumer behavior is dependent on (e.g., attitude, intention, etc.). Pecha and Milan (2009) show that the recent empirical evidence on consumer’s behavior in behavioral sciences (from different strands, such as behavioral and experimental economics) are deeply rooted into Keynes’ psychological assumptions on individual consumption motives, such as on the role of mental habits, overconfidence, exaggerated optimism, status quo bias, ambiguity aversion, expectations, etc. In parallel, D’Orlando and Sanfilippo (2010) explored the behavioral literature. They found that the new advanced motivation concepts of individual consumer behavior, such as procrastination, cognitive scarcity, abundance, which are all very akin to Keynes’s treatment of “subjective factors.” G.R. Foxall proposed the most comprehensive and systematic model of consumer behavior in his progressively developed Behavioural Perspective Model (BPM) (Foxall, 1990; 1994; 1995; 2003). The model puts into relation consumers’ experience, attitude, and situational influences in a stimulus-response-reward framework (Figure 2), in which consumer behavior is defined as a complex interplay of “structural components of consumer situations” and “affective responses.” While behavior’s contextual setting and rewards (i.e., the “informational reinforcement”) are “structural components,” pleasure and dominance are individual “affective responses” of consumption acts (Foxall and Yani-de-Soriano, 2005). According to Foxall’s BPM, there are also different expected consequences of consumer behavior, namely: i) “hedonic/utilitarian reinforcement” (e.g., purchase’s utility or satisfaction effect); ii) “aversive stimuli” (e.g., price to be paid), and iii) “informational reinforcement” (e.g., social feedback). “Within analyzing consumer behavior, the Behavioural Perspective Model (BPM) interprets the consumption behavior from the intersection of personal learning history and the setting of a consumer, which informs functional and informational consequences responses associated with consumption. The consequences of utility are mediated by the product or service, which shows the relationship to its functional benefits. The consequences of information are social and are mediated by other people, and gives a relationship with the feedback upon consumers’ behavior, such as prestige and social status” ⃰.
Beside widely accepted hedonistic, social, economic, and demographic factors of travel choice, there is a variety of behavioral factors potentially involved in explaining travel-related choices stemming from rational behavioral models due to geographical contextual effects and habits. Through a review of sustainable consumption in the area of mobility, Hertwich and Katzmayr (2003) found that the distances traveled are expected to increase, the kilometers traveled per person being expected to double by 2025. Statistics about transports confirm that transport rates are annually growing for both passengers (about +1.8% between 2013 and 2014) and freight transport (+1.1% between 2013 and 2014) (EC, 2016a). Among the most suitable sustainable consumption measures in the area of mobility, Hertwich and Katzmayr (2003) identified the following: i) reducing mobility demand increase through measures such as city planning; ii) influencing the modal split by, for example, ensuring shifting to public transportation by providing the necessary infrastructure; iii) changing the choice of environmentally friendly or energy-efficient cars by measures such as fuel taxes and differentiated registration fees; iv) increasing the vehicles occupancy rate through establishing public services for mobility centers and car-pooling.
Regarding mobility and housing, several specific drivers of consumption have also been identified, as follows: Mobility: i) Vehicle’s intrinsic attributes: price; fuel consumption; average speed; engine power; load capacity; safety, comfort, style. ii) Individual determinants: attitudes and values (environmental vs. egoistic, car ownership, etc.); preferences (luxury level; specific travel mode); Travel Time Budget and Travel Money Budget ⃰. iii) Contextual factors: passenger transportation system (e.g., public transports and cycling); travel cost. Housing: i) Building-related determinants: number, size, and types of buildings; age structure of building stock occupancy rate. ii) Individual determinants: disposable
Measures
Successive steps for bridging country-level consumption patterns at different levels: example of Food BoP This section presents an illustrative example of the steps needed for capturing country-level consumption patterns. The exercise is related to food consumption; namely, it could apply to BoP food.
National-level analysis of consumption patterns
Step 1. FAO’s Food Balance Sheets (FBS) provide physical data on annual per capita supply of food (kg/year/person) available for use within a country, which allows cross-country and over-time analysis of food consumption (FAOSTAT, 2016) 15. FAO FBS provides data on food supply available for human use in a particular country, with no description of actual consumption patterns breakdown. Also, nutrition data of food supply (kcal/capita/day) by product and state are provided.
— beer (and alcoholic beverages): decreasing consumption in high-level income countries, simultaneous with sharp increase in use in low-level income countries; — vegetables: increasing use, regardless of the income level; — pig meat: decreasing consumption in countries with high income and growing use in countries with low income; — bovine meat: increasing use in high-ranking income countries, simultaneous with decrease/stagnation of consumption in low-level income countries. Step 3. For identifying sound country-level food consumption patterns at product/product group level, additional research is needed – e.g., calculation of expenditure elasticity of specific food items to determine if they are a necessity, normal or inferior goods.
Household-level analysis
A household expenditure survey is a statistical tool for measuring the material welfare of individuals, households, and socio-economic groups. Household Budget Surveys are conducted by all member states of national statistical offices for identifying consumption patterns of private homes, including their food intake habits, by food category (Eurostat, 2003). Currently, data on the average consumption expenditure of individual households are published by the statistics, based on the COICOP categories (Annex 1). A more in-depth analysis can be further carried out for the 3- and 4-digit COICOP categories, e.g., CP011 – Food, and its 4-digit COICOP group, meat. Then, based on Household Budget Surveys17 statistics, the COICOP categories can be further broken down by socio-economic characteristics of private households, such as – household type/demographic composition (e.g., single person, two adults, two adults with dependent children, etc.); – socio-economic group (e.g., workers, unemployed and retired persons, etc.); – number of active persons in a household; – urbanization degree (i.e., cities, towns and suburbs, and rural areas). Other variables of interest are the age and gender of a household reference person or other members.
Individual consumption
As far as personal use is concerned, data from statistics Household Budget Survey can be supplemented by family/own consumption surveys conducted in several countries. In-country A, the Department of Agriculture (ADA) monitors the personal consumption of food and beverages and nutrient intakes in the nation – “What we eat in A.” These surveys can serve as a basis for further exploration of individual consumption patterns, based on characteristics such as income, gender, age, employment status, food choice, product intake frequency, etc. For example, the B’s Family Spending 2015 survey shows that the most significant expenditure categories of country B households in 2014 were transport, fuel, and power, mortgages, and culture and recreation. Detailed results on COICOP01, Food, and non-alcoholic drinks are presented in Annex 3.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, consumption behaviors are we should have a knowledge gap and know what our future needs. The research carried out the region where consumer behavior lies within the framework project, shows that there is a massive success in the use of recycling indicators for supporting policies in the policy development process; from its identification to its monitoring, together with the other areas of application. The uniqueness in the symbols depicts that focus towards assessments of consumption. It gives the importance and the contribution of the use of the evaluation. Where possible, the tokens can be combined by including the other consumption field results- and behavior of the research of consumption. Household expenditures by the category of consumption can also be used as a proxy for the consumption patterns existent and lifestyle drivers. Due to the integration of consumer behaviors into an interplay of mutually interacting factors, consumer behavior analysis needs to be carefully carried out and context-specific. · Consequently, policy measures aiming at sustainable consumption need to be well confined, and targeted determinant-specific policy measures need to be designed. · Empirical regularities (e.g., Engel curve) and further model-based analysis of household spending patterns shifting among various consumption categories can provide essential insights into the consumption-structure changes and their resulting environmental impact in a particular region.
To overcome the limitations in the gaps in the knowledge available currently, the different-scale methods for establishing patterns of consumption developed or reviewed in this working document create a ground for the basis of more research. For example, since the establishment of personal behavior of consumers is context-based and therefore doesn’t apply to the “random citizen” at scale, a complete analysis of the patterns of consumption at differing scales, inclusive of the primary country levels, is required. Moreover, being able to understand consumption patterns entail developing a complete framework which covers the contextual and structural aspects, individual factors which include values, habits, beliefs, and moral norms) and also “constrains of structure”⃰ For this purpose, disciplinary fragmentation should be overcome by deploying otherwise competing and complementary theories.
Models and research methods from various disciplines such as economics, sociology, psychology, and consumer behavior literature, and “bridging the gap between social science and technology economic factors.” They do this research by using a challenge-based approach, which will bring together knowledge and resources through different fields, technologies, and disciplines”. The high levels of environmental pressure brought by consumption differ significantly across and within countries by using the category of consumption, whose context features and patterns of consumption determinants need to be investigated further. Indicators for monitoring the evolution of the environmental impact of consumption are essential guidelines for the transition to a circular economy which is efficient in resources, especially in the critical consumption sectors such as food, housing, and mobility, which account together for almost 80 % of the environmental impacts of consumption. As also recognized in one of the project’s outcomes of the recently completed the research project ). There is still a high indicator disaggregation insufficiency by sectors in the economy, and they are of household consumption. Furthermore, detailed consumption patterns need to be put about their corresponding environmental pressures.
References
The Importance Of Eco-Friendly Environment | Energy Central. (2020). Retrieved 6 February 2020, from https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/importance-eco-friendly-environment
Beltratti, Andrea. 1997. Growth with Natural and Environmental Resources, in Carlo Carraro and Diminico Siniscalco, eds., New Directions in the Economic Theory of the Environment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dasgupta, Partha S., and Geoffrey M. Heal. 1974. The Optimal Depletion of Exhaustible Resources. Review of Economic Studies, Symposium on the Economics of Exhaustible Resources.
Ferraro, Paul J., and R. David Simpson. 2002. The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments, Land Economics 78(3): 339-353.
Hartwick, John M., 1977. Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources. American Economic Review 67(5): 972-974.
Lopez, Ramon. 2000. Trade Reform and Environmental Externalities in General Equilibrium: Analysis for an Archetype Poor Tropical Country. Environment and Development Economics 5(4): 377-404.
Low, Patrick (ed.). 1992. International Trade and the Environment. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Margolis, Michael. 2002. The Impact of Trade on the Environment. Resources for the Future Issues Brief 02-28 (August). Accessed at http://www.rff.org/Johannesburg/Issuebriefs/joburg20.pdf.
Nordhaus, William D., 1993. Rolling the “DICE”: An Optimal Transition Path for Controlling Greenhouse Gases. Resource and Energy Economics 15(1): 27–50