520
A. J. Chapman and Y. Shigetomi
Focusing on panel b, a high social inequity score indicates a large, increasing
gap between high and low-income households. Although the majority of household
footprints peak in 2020, social inequity peaks in 2010. This outcome reflects that
the social inequity score is cognizant of both the level of public bads (environmental
burdens) and the balance of consumption between households. Post-2010, social
inequity scores are expected to reduce.
In addition to the base case, Fig. 34.3 includes two scenarios which reflect stakeholder participation in environmentally conscious activities to reduce their footprints. These scenarios are called the ‘active’ and ‘proactive’ scenarios respectively.
The active scenario implies a 2.2% change in activity, while the proactive scenarios
implies 6.3%. Only under a proactive scenario with broad stakeholder participation
in positive environmental behaviors can the level of social inequity be returned to
1995 levels by 2040.
34.4 Discussion
The evaluation methodology proposed in this research, the IOSEF is a useful tool
which can aid policy makers through the multi-dimensional measurement of both
consumption burden and social inequity across demographic cohorts. In addition,
based on the results gained from the Japanese case study, strong evidence can be
gathered with regard to stakeholder behavior and appropriate policy development
to achieve policy goals. Chief among future policy goals is the reduction of environmental footprints which leads to a reduction in public bads and commensurate
amelioration of social inequity. At the national level, the IOSEF is useful in highlighting emerging and priority sustainable development goals (SDGs) which require
redress, and also provide an evidence base for their achievement.
The dual indicators of consumption burden and social inequity provide insights
which are essential to addressing the social inequity which arises from our lifestyles.
Based on the proposed IOSEF, the reduction of each environmental footprint can
reduce the social inequity score, leading to an improvement in social equity outcomes.
Further, engaging with stakeholders to understand and apply their preferences to
future scenarios identifies levels of current consciousness toward desirable futures,
and also helps to stimulate proactive behaviors towards improving future outcomes.
One major finding in this research is that broad stakeholder participation (i.e.
participation across all income levels) toward reducing environmental footprints
has a greater impact than concentrated efforts by fewer stakeholder cohorts. This
finding is far reaching in that it identifies the need for inclusive policies which will
engender broad participation, rather than policies which target single groups for
specific footprint reducing actions.
The approach proposed involves conducting a national survey to identify stakeholder preferences and consumption trends, combined with input-output analysis to
determine past environmental footprints and the underpinnings for social inequity
and consumption burden impacts. This holistic approach allows for the projection
A. J. Chapman and Y. Shigetomi
Focusing on panel b, a high social inequity score indicates a large, increasing
gap between high and low-income households. Although the majority of household
footprints peak in 2020, social inequity peaks in 2010. This outcome reflects that
the social inequity score is cognizant of both the level of public bads (environmental
burdens) and the balance of consumption between households. Post-2010, social
inequity scores are expected to reduce.
In addition to the base case, Fig. 34.3 includes two scenarios which reflect stakeholder participation in environmentally conscious activities to reduce their footprints. These scenarios are called the ‘active’ and ‘proactive’ scenarios respectively.
The active scenario implies a 2.2% change in activity, while the proactive scenarios
implies 6.3%. Only under a proactive scenario with broad stakeholder participation
in positive environmental behaviors can the level of social inequity be returned to
1995 levels by 2040.
34.4 Discussion
The evaluation methodology proposed in this research, the IOSEF is a useful tool
which can aid policy makers through the multi-dimensional measurement of both
consumption burden and social inequity across demographic cohorts. In addition,
based on the results gained from the Japanese case study, strong evidence can be
gathered with regard to stakeholder behavior and appropriate policy development
to achieve policy goals. Chief among future policy goals is the reduction of environmental footprints which leads to a reduction in public bads and commensurate
amelioration of social inequity. At the national level, the IOSEF is useful in highlighting emerging and priority sustainable development goals (SDGs) which require
redress, and also provide an evidence base for their achievement.
The dual indicators of consumption burden and social inequity provide insights
which are essential to addressing the social inequity which arises from our lifestyles.
Based on the proposed IOSEF, the reduction of each environmental footprint can
reduce the social inequity score, leading to an improvement in social equity outcomes.
Further, engaging with stakeholders to understand and apply their preferences to
future scenarios identifies levels of current consciousness toward desirable futures,
and also helps to stimulate proactive behaviors towards improving future outcomes.
One major finding in this research is that broad stakeholder participation (i.e.
participation across all income levels) toward reducing environmental footprints
has a greater impact than concentrated efforts by fewer stakeholder cohorts. This
finding is far reaching in that it identifies the need for inclusive policies which will
engender broad participation, rather than policies which target single groups for
specific footprint reducing actions.
The approach proposed involves conducting a national survey to identify stakeholder preferences and consumption trends, combined with input-output analysis to
determine past environmental footprints and the underpinnings for social inequity
and consumption burden impacts. This holistic approach allows for the projection