514
A. J. Chapman and Y. Shigetomi
34.1 Introduction
Inequitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of economic activity leads to
environmental inequalities. This issue is a growing concern, linked to several factors
including but not limited to disparate economic means, participation opportunities,
and geographic factors (Boyce et al. 2016). In order to measure these inequalities, the
methodology of consumption-based accounting is a recognized approach to quantify upstream environmental burdens of household consumption (Wiedmann 2009).
Using household consumption as a proxy for our lifestyles, we can measure both
the direct loads (i.e. gasoline combustion for private vehicles) and indirect loads
(i.e. food production induced land use changes) utilizing domestic and international
supply chains.
The impact of household consumption of lifestyle induced environmental burdens
has been researched extensively in the past (Shigetomi et al. 2017; Hertwich 2011),
and it has been shown that household footprint variance is not always proportional to
household income (Gill and Moeller 2018). At the same time, it has been uncovered
that the disparity between household footprints rapidly increases in line with income
increases, suggesting this as a reason for the emergence of environmental inequality
(Hubacek et al. 2017). Supporting this assertion, it was found that some 34% of
global emissions were induced by just 10% of the population, represented by affluent
households (Hubacek et al. 2017).
In order to reduce the inequalities emerging between households, recognition
of environmental issues and the enacting of countermeasures is essential for householders. To date, precedential literature has largely overlooked these important socioenvironmental issues. Studies have identified that stakeholders have varying priorities
for both lifestyle and the environment, for example, some may choose to prioritize
climate change mitigation, while others may feel that air quality is most important.
Age also plays a role, with younger generations identifying income increase as more
important than addressing environmental issues, while older stakeholders may have
the opposite view due to their individual savings or social welfare status (Chapman
and Shigetomi 2018). This societal variations in preference toward environmental,
social and economic issues is due to a number of social complexities and is expected
to impact upon stakeholders preferred abatement measures at the national and individual level. It is necessary to develop a holistic approach to identify emerging social
inequities (i.e. the disparity between generation and allocation of public bads) considering objective and subjective criteria, cognizant of both disparities in environmental
burden allocation and the preferences and priorities of stakeholders.
This research seeks to bridge this gap by defining social equity outcomes due
to household consumption considering environmental footprints and stakeholder
preferences and priorities toward individual footprint related environmental loads.
Building on the precedential Energy Policy Sustainability Evaluation Framework
(EPSEF) and its application to the visualization of the shape of society and social
inequities (Chapman and Shigetomi 2018). Building on past trends of negative environmental impacts (referred to as public bads) including carbon, water, waste, air
A. J. Chapman and Y. Shigetomi
34.1 Introduction
Inequitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of economic activity leads to
environmental inequalities. This issue is a growing concern, linked to several factors
including but not limited to disparate economic means, participation opportunities,
and geographic factors (Boyce et al. 2016). In order to measure these inequalities, the
methodology of consumption-based accounting is a recognized approach to quantify upstream environmental burdens of household consumption (Wiedmann 2009).
Using household consumption as a proxy for our lifestyles, we can measure both
the direct loads (i.e. gasoline combustion for private vehicles) and indirect loads
(i.e. food production induced land use changes) utilizing domestic and international
supply chains.
The impact of household consumption of lifestyle induced environmental burdens
has been researched extensively in the past (Shigetomi et al. 2017; Hertwich 2011),
and it has been shown that household footprint variance is not always proportional to
household income (Gill and Moeller 2018). At the same time, it has been uncovered
that the disparity between household footprints rapidly increases in line with income
increases, suggesting this as a reason for the emergence of environmental inequality
(Hubacek et al. 2017). Supporting this assertion, it was found that some 34% of
global emissions were induced by just 10% of the population, represented by affluent
households (Hubacek et al. 2017).
In order to reduce the inequalities emerging between households, recognition
of environmental issues and the enacting of countermeasures is essential for householders. To date, precedential literature has largely overlooked these important socioenvironmental issues. Studies have identified that stakeholders have varying priorities
for both lifestyle and the environment, for example, some may choose to prioritize
climate change mitigation, while others may feel that air quality is most important.
Age also plays a role, with younger generations identifying income increase as more
important than addressing environmental issues, while older stakeholders may have
the opposite view due to their individual savings or social welfare status (Chapman
and Shigetomi 2018). This societal variations in preference toward environmental,
social and economic issues is due to a number of social complexities and is expected
to impact upon stakeholders preferred abatement measures at the national and individual level. It is necessary to develop a holistic approach to identify emerging social
inequities (i.e. the disparity between generation and allocation of public bads) considering objective and subjective criteria, cognizant of both disparities in environmental
burden allocation and the preferences and priorities of stakeholders.
This research seeks to bridge this gap by defining social equity outcomes due
to household consumption considering environmental footprints and stakeholder
preferences and priorities toward individual footprint related environmental loads.
Building on the precedential Energy Policy Sustainability Evaluation Framework
(EPSEF) and its application to the visualization of the shape of society and social
inequities (Chapman and Shigetomi 2018). Building on past trends of negative environmental impacts (referred to as public bads) including carbon, water, waste, air