34 Social Equity and Lifestyle Conscious Policy Making …
523
income groups. Considering that there is no one-size-fits-all policy approach, the
proposed IOSEF developed in this study can be used for policy scenario analyses.
The proposed tool will allow policy makers to test various approaches prior to their
implementation in order to improve societal equity and consumption burden allocation outcomes in line with stakeholder preferences and cognizant of lifestyle and
consumption. Finally, although there are some limitations to this study, it demonstrates the evaluation of lifestyle-based social inequity by combining direct and indirect environmental burdens (i.e. footprints) with a large sample survey examining
stakeholder engagement for the first time. The described approach is also able to be
applied internationally, for example utilizing the global MRIO (Lenzen et al. 2013;
Tukker et al. 2013; Dietzenbacher et al. 2013), a consumer expenditure survey and
weighting factors, allowing for an evaluation of and comparison between nations.
References
Boyce J, Zwickl K, Ash M (2016) Measuring environmental inequality. Ecol Econ 124:114–123
Chapman A, Shigetomi Y (2018a) Developing national frameworks for inclusive sustainable
development incorporating lifestyle factor importance. J Cleaner Prod 200:39–47
Chapman A, Shigetomi Y (2018b) Visualizing the shape of society: an analysis of public bads
and burden allocation due to household consumption using an input-output approach. Sci Total
Environ 639:385–396
Dietzenbacher E, Los B, Stehrer R, Timmer M, de Vries G (2013) The construction of world
input-output tables in the wiod project. Econ Syst Res 25(1):71–98
Gill B, Moeller S (2018) GHG emissions and the rural-urban divide. a carbon footprint analysis
based on the german official income and expenditure survey. Ecol Econ 145:160–169
Hertwich EG (2011) The life cycle environmental impacts of consumption. Econ Syst Res 23(1):27–
47
Hubacek K, Baiocchi G, Feng K, Muñoz Castillo R, Sun L, Xue J (2017a) Global carbon inequality.
Energy Ecol Environ 2(6):361–369
Hubacek K, Baiocchi G, Feng K, Patwardhan A (2017b) Poverty eradication in a carbon constrained
world. Nat Commun 8(1):912
Huppes G (2006) Environmental impacts of consumption in the European union. J Ind Ecol
10(3):129–146
Inagaki S (2013) Changes in joint living arrangements with the elderly and future estimates of
poverty levels. Kikan Shakai Hosho Kenkyu 48(4):396–409
Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Geschke A (2013) Building eora: a global multi-region inputoutput database at high country and sector resolution. Econ Syst Res 25(1):20–49
MHLW; Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare (2016) Graphical review of Japanese household:
from comprehensive survey of living conditions
Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input–output analysis
Min J, Rao ND (2018) Estimating uncertainty in household energy footprints. J Indus Ecol
22(6):1307–1317
Mooney G, Stephen J (1997) Vertical equity: weighting outcomes? Or establishing procedures?
Health Policy 39(1):79–87
Shigetomi Y, Nansai K, Shironitta K, Kagawa S (2017) Revisiting Japanese carbon footprint studies.
In: Dejuán Ó, LM Cadarso MÁ (eds) Environmental and economic impacts of decarbonization:
input–output studies on the consequences of the 2015 Paris agreements. Routledge, p 335–350
523
income groups. Considering that there is no one-size-fits-all policy approach, the
proposed IOSEF developed in this study can be used for policy scenario analyses.
The proposed tool will allow policy makers to test various approaches prior to their
implementation in order to improve societal equity and consumption burden allocation outcomes in line with stakeholder preferences and cognizant of lifestyle and
consumption. Finally, although there are some limitations to this study, it demonstrates the evaluation of lifestyle-based social inequity by combining direct and indirect environmental burdens (i.e. footprints) with a large sample survey examining
stakeholder engagement for the first time. The described approach is also able to be
applied internationally, for example utilizing the global MRIO (Lenzen et al. 2013;
Tukker et al. 2013; Dietzenbacher et al. 2013), a consumer expenditure survey and
weighting factors, allowing for an evaluation of and comparison between nations.
References
Boyce J, Zwickl K, Ash M (2016) Measuring environmental inequality. Ecol Econ 124:114–123
Chapman A, Shigetomi Y (2018a) Developing national frameworks for inclusive sustainable
development incorporating lifestyle factor importance. J Cleaner Prod 200:39–47
Chapman A, Shigetomi Y (2018b) Visualizing the shape of society: an analysis of public bads
and burden allocation due to household consumption using an input-output approach. Sci Total
Environ 639:385–396
Dietzenbacher E, Los B, Stehrer R, Timmer M, de Vries G (2013) The construction of world
input-output tables in the wiod project. Econ Syst Res 25(1):71–98
Gill B, Moeller S (2018) GHG emissions and the rural-urban divide. a carbon footprint analysis
based on the german official income and expenditure survey. Ecol Econ 145:160–169
Hertwich EG (2011) The life cycle environmental impacts of consumption. Econ Syst Res 23(1):27–
47
Hubacek K, Baiocchi G, Feng K, Muñoz Castillo R, Sun L, Xue J (2017a) Global carbon inequality.
Energy Ecol Environ 2(6):361–369
Hubacek K, Baiocchi G, Feng K, Patwardhan A (2017b) Poverty eradication in a carbon constrained
world. Nat Commun 8(1):912
Huppes G (2006) Environmental impacts of consumption in the European union. J Ind Ecol
10(3):129–146
Inagaki S (2013) Changes in joint living arrangements with the elderly and future estimates of
poverty levels. Kikan Shakai Hosho Kenkyu 48(4):396–409
Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Geschke A (2013) Building eora: a global multi-region inputoutput database at high country and sector resolution. Econ Syst Res 25(1):20–49
MHLW; Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare (2016) Graphical review of Japanese household:
from comprehensive survey of living conditions
Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input–output analysis
Min J, Rao ND (2018) Estimating uncertainty in household energy footprints. J Indus Ecol
22(6):1307–1317
Mooney G, Stephen J (1997) Vertical equity: weighting outcomes? Or establishing procedures?
Health Policy 39(1):79–87
Shigetomi Y, Nansai K, Shironitta K, Kagawa S (2017) Revisiting Japanese carbon footprint studies.
In: Dejuán Ó, LM Cadarso MÁ (eds) Environmental and economic impacts of decarbonization:
input–output studies on the consequences of the 2015 Paris agreements. Routledge, p 335–350