188
Sweden and Norway and attributed this mainly to the use of district heating in
Sweden and the use of low carbon intensity electricity for heating in Norway.
Household size is generally found to be an important determinant of household
carbon emissions (see Fig. 9.2a ), as households with more people tend to benefi t
from economies of scale (Dey et al. 2003 ; Baiocchi et al. 2010 ; Jones and Kammen
2011 ; Weber and Matthews 2008 ; Tukker et al. 2010 ; Gough et al. 2011 ). As Tukker
et al. ( 2010 ) explain, this is because people sharing a dwelling also share energy
using appliances and cohabitants tend to require less living space than single occupants: this reduces the energy required for heating and cooling. Buchs and Schnepf
( 2013 ) note that economies of scale are less important for transport and indirect
emissions, and Gough et al. ( 2011 ), in their analysis of different UK household
types, found that younger single person households tend to emit relatively high
amounts due to transport and personal services.
Gough et al. ( 2011 ) found statistically signifi cant differences between the emissions of UK households according to employment status, with the working households exhibiting higher emissions when income and composition are controlled for,
and the unemployed and unoccupied having lower emissions. The explanation
Gough puts forward is that work-rich households tend to have higher emissions due
to commuting and tend to substitute purchased goods and services for ‘household
production’. Buchs and Schnepf ( 2013 ) added to this by noting that workless households tend to have higher emissions due to home energy use.
Urban locations are generally more effi cient in terms of direct emissions than
rural locations (Wier et al. 2001 ; Jones and Kammen 2011 ; Buchs and Schnepf
2013 ; Baiocchi et al. 2010 ; Glaeser and Kahn 2010 ; Tukker et al. 2010 ). One reason
for this is that urban transportation distances tend to be shorter with greater availability of public transport options. Another reason is that urban dwellings tend to be
smaller and therefore more effi cient to heat (Tukker et al. 2010 ; Wier et al. 2001 ;
Baiocchi et al. 2010 ). Also the ‘heat island effect’ lowers energy required for space
heating in urban locations
8 ( EPA 201 4). However, as Baiocchi et al. ( 2010 ) point out,
the general rule of urban households requiring less direct energy and hence having
lower carbon footprints is, in some instances, counterbalanced by the fact that
poorer rural households living in rural locations may not be able to afford a car or
long recreational trips by aeroplane.
Households dwelling in extreme climates generally incur higher carbon emissions due to energy use for space heating and/or air conditioning (Tukker et al.
2010 ); however this effect is moderated by other factors, such as the type of energy
supply and housing construction. For example, Kerkhof et al. ( 2009 ) attributed the
higher household carbon emissions for space heating in the UK and the Netherlands
than in Sweden and Norway to use of natural gas in the fi rst two countries, district
heating in Sweden and low carbon-intensity electricity in Norway. The carbon
intensity of the electricity supply also effects household carbon footprints even if it
is only used for powering lights, appliances and gadgets and not for heating, as
intensities vary widely: for example, electricity from geothermal sources in Iceland
8 This can reverse in hot climates, with urban locations needing more cooling.
A. Druckman and T. Jackson
Sweden and Norway and attributed this mainly to the use of district heating in
Sweden and the use of low carbon intensity electricity for heating in Norway.
Household size is generally found to be an important determinant of household
carbon emissions (see Fig. 9.2a ), as households with more people tend to benefi t
from economies of scale (Dey et al. 2003 ; Baiocchi et al. 2010 ; Jones and Kammen
2011 ; Weber and Matthews 2008 ; Tukker et al. 2010 ; Gough et al. 2011 ). As Tukker
et al. ( 2010 ) explain, this is because people sharing a dwelling also share energy
using appliances and cohabitants tend to require less living space than single occupants: this reduces the energy required for heating and cooling. Buchs and Schnepf
( 2013 ) note that economies of scale are less important for transport and indirect
emissions, and Gough et al. ( 2011 ), in their analysis of different UK household
types, found that younger single person households tend to emit relatively high
amounts due to transport and personal services.
Gough et al. ( 2011 ) found statistically signifi cant differences between the emissions of UK households according to employment status, with the working households exhibiting higher emissions when income and composition are controlled for,
and the unemployed and unoccupied having lower emissions. The explanation
Gough puts forward is that work-rich households tend to have higher emissions due
to commuting and tend to substitute purchased goods and services for ‘household
production’. Buchs and Schnepf ( 2013 ) added to this by noting that workless households tend to have higher emissions due to home energy use.
Urban locations are generally more effi cient in terms of direct emissions than
rural locations (Wier et al. 2001 ; Jones and Kammen 2011 ; Buchs and Schnepf
2013 ; Baiocchi et al. 2010 ; Glaeser and Kahn 2010 ; Tukker et al. 2010 ). One reason
for this is that urban transportation distances tend to be shorter with greater availability of public transport options. Another reason is that urban dwellings tend to be
smaller and therefore more effi cient to heat (Tukker et al. 2010 ; Wier et al. 2001 ;
Baiocchi et al. 2010 ). Also the ‘heat island effect’ lowers energy required for space
heating in urban locations
8 ( EPA 201 4). However, as Baiocchi et al. ( 2010 ) point out,
the general rule of urban households requiring less direct energy and hence having
lower carbon footprints is, in some instances, counterbalanced by the fact that
poorer rural households living in rural locations may not be able to afford a car or
long recreational trips by aeroplane.
Households dwelling in extreme climates generally incur higher carbon emissions due to energy use for space heating and/or air conditioning (Tukker et al.
2010 ); however this effect is moderated by other factors, such as the type of energy
supply and housing construction. For example, Kerkhof et al. ( 2009 ) attributed the
higher household carbon emissions for space heating in the UK and the Netherlands
than in Sweden and Norway to use of natural gas in the fi rst two countries, district
heating in Sweden and low carbon-intensity electricity in Norway. The carbon
intensity of the electricity supply also effects household carbon footprints even if it
is only used for powering lights, appliances and gadgets and not for heating, as
intensities vary widely: for example, electricity from geothermal sources in Iceland
8 This can reverse in hot climates, with urban locations needing more cooling.
A. Druckman and T. Jackson