Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
This chapter addresses the resource consumption and GHG emissions associated with household activities and household types. Over the course of 6 weeks 16 participating households were asked to provide data regarding their activities in the fields of housing, mobility, nutrition, waste, goods and appliances, tourism and recreation. This extensive survey enabled the authors to calculate the households Material and Carbon Footprint, representing the environmental pressure for certain household types and lifestyles. It was found that even households with similar soziodemographics differ highly in their overall impact as well as the shares attributed to the different fields especially for nutrition, housing and mobility. Two workshops were conducted where households were asked to identify possible short-, mid- and long time strategies for reducing their environmental impact (road mapping). Although not all households participated, it had become clear that many external factors prevent households from adapting their behaviour most notably in the field of mobility. However, the road mapping process also showed a high affinity of the volunteers towards lifestyle changes. Regarding the set of methods used in the study, the authors conclude that the approach is promising, but future research is necessary: amongst other potential improvements it would certainly be helpful to not only analyze the resulting environmental impact of households but also the circumstances that lead to the household’s specific social practises and routines.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Bringezu, S., & Bleischwitz, R. (2009). Sustainable resource management: global trends, visions and policies. Greenleaf Publishing.
Buhl, J. (2014). Revisiting rebound effects from material resource use. indications for Germany considering social heterogeneity. Resources, 3(1), 106–122. doi: 10.3390/resources3010106.
Buhl, J., & Acosta, J. (2015). Work less, do less?: Working time reductions and rebound effects. Sustainability Science,. doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0322-8.
Ciroth, A. (2007). ICT for environment in life cycle applications openLCA—A new open source software for life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(4), 209–210. CrossRef
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Mayer, A., Bringezu, S., et al. (2011). Methodology and indicators of economy-wide material flow accounting: state of the art and reliability across sources. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(6), 855–876. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00366.x. CrossRef
Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., & Fahey, D. W., et al., (2007). Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Chapter 2. Climate Change 2007. The Physical Science Basis.
Groezinger, R., Verbree, R., Hicks, C., & Ritola, M. (2013). Scenarios for sustainable lifestyles (pp. 41–46). Pathways toward a positive future, Ökom: Ökologisches Wirtschaften, Munich.
Hasselkuß, M. (2013). Transformation towards sustainable consumption: Changing consumption patterns through meaning in social practices. Paper for Presentation. Zurich.
Hedemann, J., & König, U. (2007). Technical documentation of the ecoinvent database. Final report ecoinvent data v2. 0, No. 4. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
ISO. (1997). Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Framework (Vol. 14040). ISO.
Kotakorpi, E., Lähteenoja, S., & Lettenmeier, M. (2008). Household MIPS - Natural resource consumption of Finnish households and its reduction. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/38369.
Kuijer, L., & De Jong, A. M. (2011). Practice theory and human-centered design: A sustainable bathing example. Nordes, (4).
Lettenmeier, M., & Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie (Eds.). (2009). Resource productivity in 7 steps: how to develop eco-innovative products and services and improve their material footprint. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Inst. for Climate, Environment and Energy.
Liedtke, C., Baedeker, C., Hasselkuß, M., Rohn, H., & Grinewitschus, V. (2015). User-integrated innovation in Sustainable LivingLabs: An experimental infrastructure for researching and developing sustainable product service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 106–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.070. CrossRef
Schmidt-Bleek, F. (2009). The earth: Natural resources and human intervention. Haus Pub.
Schmidt-Bleek, F. (2013). Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch?: MIPS—das Maß für ökologisches Wirtschaften. Springer.
Walker, G. (2015). Beyond individual responsibility: Social practice, capabilities and the right to environmentally sustainable ways of living. In Y. Strengers & C. Maller (Eds.), Social practices. Beyond behaviour change. Routledge: Intervention and Sustainability.
Ward, K., & Neumann, F. (2012). Consumer in 2050: The Rise of the EM Middle Class. Global Economics, Oct: HSBC Global Research.
Watson, D., Acosta Fernández, J., Wittmer, D., Gravgård Pedersen, O., & European Environment Agency. (2012). Environmental pressures from European consumption and production a study in integrated environmental and economic analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Accessed November 9, 2015 from http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2800/70634.
- Material and Carbon Footprint of Household Activities
- Chapter 20
in-adhesives, MKVS, Hellmich GmbH/© Hellmich GmbH, Zühlke/© Zühlke