Irish Geography
ISSN: 0075-0778 (Print) 1939-4055 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigy20
Sustainable consumption and governance:
reflecting on a research agenda for Ireland
Anna Davies , Frances Fahy , Henrike Rau & Jessica Pape
To cite this article: Anna Davies , Frances Fahy , Henrike Rau & Jessica Pape (2010) Sustainable
consumption and governance: reflecting on a research agenda for Ireland, Irish Geography,
43:1, 59-79, DOI: 10.1080/00750771003732664
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00750771003732664
Published online: 17 May 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 255
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rigy20
Download by: [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL]
Date: 29 February 2016, At: 05:26
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography
Vol. 43, No. 1, March 2010, 5979
Sustainable consumption and governance: reflecting on a research
agenda for Ireland
Anna Daviesa*, Frances Fahyb, Henrike Rauc and Jessica Papeb
a
Department of Geography, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland; bSchool of Geography and
Archaeology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland; cSchool of Political Science and
Sociology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Contemporary consumption represents an archetypal ‘wicked problem’, being
linked to climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion, while also
functioning as a cultural signifier and a driver of economic growth and
innovation. The Janus-faced nature of consumption is an important indicator
of the complexity facing those who aspire to encouraging more sustainable
consumption patterns. This paper argues that there are outstanding, and related,
areas of contention that need further research in order to generate a more
comprehensive and coherent picture of consumption and how it may be made
more sustainable. In essence attention needs to be paid to the practices of
consumption, its governance and also how practices and governance interact.
This paper examines everyday practices and their regulation in two key areas of
consumption in Ireland how we get around (transport) and how we live in our
homes (heating/cooling, lighting, cleaning and eating) to identify current gaps
in social science research. In conclusion a multi-pronged research framework for
approaching these lacunae is outlined.
Keywords: sustainable development; sustainable consumption; production;
governance; environmental policy; Ireland
Introduction
Sustainable consumption has been described by some as the use of goods and
services that meet people’s basic needs and bring a better quality of life while having
only minimal impact on the environment (e.g. Jackson 2006). Undoubtedly the
notion of ‘sustainability’ itself is inherently contestable, and its links with issues of
consumption have triggered significant debates about needs versus wants, quality of
life and degrees of acceptable impact on the environment. In much of the policy
literature, for example, particularly at international and supra-national scales (EU),
sustainable consumption has been allied to sustainable production recognising the
intimate relationship between the two processes. Some have criticised this linking of
consumption and production, arguing that the inclusion of issues of production into
international sustainable consumption debates allows developed countries to shift
attention away from their resource-intensive consumption patterns to more familiar
regulatory arenas. Yet others have welcomed attempts to connect issues of
production with consumption as it draws attention to the global division of labour
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0075-0778 print/ISSN 1939-4055 online
# 2010 Geographical Society of Ireland
DOI: 10.1080/00750771003732664
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
60 A. Davies et al.
and its effects on consumption patterns in rich and poor countries respectively (e.g.
Allen 1993, Clancy 1993).
International policy documents clearly reflect these tensions and debates. The
first global political agreement on sustainable consumption was Chapter 4 of
Agenda 21 at the Rio Earth Summit which stated that ‘action is needed to promote
sustainable consumption and production that will reduce environmental stress and
will meet the basic needs of humanity’ (UNCED 1992). Following on from this, the
2002 WSSD Conference (UNDSD 2002) in Johannesburg indicated a renewed global
policy focus and the agreement to develop a framework of policies on sustainable
production and consumption (SPC). In addition UNEP have been producing regular
reports on SPC since the beginning of the new millennium (see UNEP 2004) and at
the European level the Lisbon Strategy (EC 2000), the Sustainable Development
Strategy (EC 2001) and the 6th Environment Action Programme (EAP) provide
the broad programme for promoting SPC. Indeed in 2004 the EU Environment
Ministers stated that SPC would be a priority for action (EC 2004) and by 2008 the
European Commission had published the ‘Sustainable Consumption and Production
and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan’ (EC 2008) which suggests measures to
improve the environmental performance of products and to increase the demand for
more sustainable goods and production technologies.
To date, much attention to SPC has focused on the supply side, with initiatives
promoting sustainable technologies for energy generation, materials mining and
processing, and product manufacture. This has been accompanied by ecological
modernisation approaches to social and economic policy making and implementation which emphasise the role of ‘clean’ technologies and which promote technology
transfer from richer to poorer nations as a key strategy for addressing global
environmental problems and sustainability challenges. Despite these developments,
consumption continues to rise unsustainably and the impact of (over)consumption
continues to pose major governance challenges for public authorities at all levels,
businesses and society as a whole (EEA 2005).
It is important to note here that governance is evoked in this context because,
although itself the subject of ongoing contestation within the literature (see Kooiman
2003), consumption practices are affected by more than formal structures of
governmental policy. As with other environmental challenges the ways in which
consumption practices are stimulated, supported and transformed also involves
complex interactions between non-state actors and institutions from the private
sector (e.g. manufacturing companies and retailers), civil society (e.g. consumer and
environmental organisations) as well as the actions of societal groups, households
and individuals (see Jordan et al. 2005 and Davies 2008 for further discussion on
environmental governance debates). While improving the sustainability of production processes is undoubtedly important, these measures alone are clearly insufficient
to deal with some of the structural causes and consequences of (over)consumption.
This is exemplified by ‘rebound effects’ which occur when cost savings made through
use of more sustainable products, such as low-energy lightbulbs, are used to purchase
other consumables which themselves create environmental impacts. Thus the energy
and emissions savings gained in one arena are lost in another. Further attention also
needs to be paid to demand management and to the interface between consumption
and production processes. In addition, difficult questions remain regarding how a
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 61
shift towards more sustainable consumption might be measured, encouraged and
governed (Seyfang 2006).
Day-to-day choices made by members of households regarding the purchase and
use of products and services represent a key area in which negotiations over
sustainable practices take place. As a result household consumption, which is defined
by the OECD (2001) as the selection, purchase, use, maintenance, repair and disposal
of any product or services by members of a household, is increasingly being
highlighted as an arena requiring attention (Spangenberg and Lorek 2002, GeyerAllely and Zacarias-Farah 2003, Michaelis and Lorek 2004, Tucker et al. 2005).
While there are clearly complex connections between production processes and
consumption practices, and while individual behaviour is constrained by historical,
social and cultural conditions, the combined impact of households continues to be a
major cause of environmental pressures. Household consumption in the EU grew by
one-third between 1990 and 2002, and research has suggested that it will continue to
grow over the next 25 years unless action is taken (OECD 2001, EEA 2005). It
remains to be seen how the current economic recession will affect these projections.
Although some attempts have been made to advance household consumption
analyses internationally (see Quist et al. 2001, Trentmann 2007), research in this
critical sector of sustainable development is still in its infancy in Ireland, both North
and South. This said, recent social-scientific work by Pender et al. (2007) and Doran
(2007) examines the emergence of embryonic sustainable consumption policy in
Ireland and shows that specific action in progressing sustainable consumption policy
has been very limited to date. These authors also observe that responsibility for
policy on sustainable consumption, general product labelling and environmental
claims remains dispersed across various Government departments, which significantly limits the effectiveness of such policies. Within Ireland the majority of projects
have focused on sites of consumption outside the home such as swimming pools and
shopping centres, or within businesses and local authorities, and on general
calculations of consumption patterns through resource flow analysis or ecological
footprinting (Sustainable Northern Ireland 2007, Lammers et al. 2008, EPA 2009).
There is a need to extend this initial work to examine more broadly the context in
which sustainable household consumption and mobility are enacted. Responding to
this need this paper is divided into two main sections. The first provides a review of
sustainable consumption issues. Initially we examine the tools that have been
developed to indicate trajectories towards (or indeed away from) sustainable
consumption and to provide information to incentivise behavioural change.
Subsequently we focus on the behavioural dynamics of consumption and the links
between consumption behaviour and quality of life. Ultimately, we argue that more
attention needs to be paid to both the practices and governance of consumption where governance is the sum of ways that affairs are managed (Latham 1999) in
particular contexts.
The second main section of this paper provides a sectoral analysis of
consumption practices and governance in Ireland. Here we consider two key areas
of resource-intensive consumption, everyday household practices (how we live) and
mobility issues (how we move around), and identify areas in need of further research.
In conclusion we propose that problem-centred transdisciplinary research that links
consumption, environment and sustainability through innovative methodologies,
62 A. Davies et al.
stakeholder dialogue and reflexive modes of governing could help increase the
sustainability of consumption.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Measuring and managing consumption
Establishing goals and measuring outcomes within the complex arena of sustainable
consumption is fraught with difficulties, which often resemble barriers in other areas
of sustainable development (see Bell and Morse 2003, Wheeler 2004). Defining
appropriate indicators, agreeing benchmarks and setting reasonable targets for
sustainability can be problematic, particularly across scales and in different contexts.
When it comes to measuring consumption, which often has multifaceted drivers and
impacts, there are even more densely woven problems related to aggregation.
Potential indicators of sustainable consumption, for example measures of the level of
waste recycling or the modal split of passenger transport, frequently appear in state
of the environment reports and sustainable development strategies (for example see
EPA 2006). However, there is generally little analysis of how sustainable consumption in toto might be measured or evaluated and whether it can be simply aggregated
from individual indicators, such as recycling or public transport, or whether there are
cumulative or indirect impacts that aggregation cannot capture (Noland and Lem
2002).
A number of sustainability accounting tools, such as Ecological Footprinting and
Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA), have been developed to address the problem of
aggregation. Such tools are central to many attempts to measure the impact of
particular socio-spatial forms (such as communities, cities and even nations) or to
compare the resource intensity of specific products (e.g. plastic or paper cups). The
appropriateness and accuracy of these tools has been subject to intense debate and
criticism (Ayres 2004, McManus and Haughton 2006). Ecological Footprinting, for
example, starts from the assumption that it is possible to objectively know and
quantify what makes consumption unsustainable. However, the precise numeric
values which are the result of footprinting measures conceal the various debates over
what should and should not be measured, how it is measured, and even if it is
measurable (Haberl et al. 2001, Hinton and Goodman forthcoming). The lack of
a uniform approach to footprinting (Wiedman and Minx 2008) leads to variability
in footprint size even for the same place or product, indicating measurement and
comparability problems. LCA techniques and carbon calculators reveal similar
problems (Padgett et al. 2008, Reap et al. 2008).
While proponents of sustainability accounting tools often recognise the limitations of their methodologies in terms of accuracy, they frequently claim that these
mechanisms have a second, equally significant purpose, namely to raise awareness of
impacts (Stoeglehner and Narodoslawsky 2008). Under this second remit, the precise
accuracy of figures is seen as secondary to the communicative role of the tool, that is,
to raise awareness and to instigate a change in people’s behaviour. In other words, the
provision of information through sustainability accounting mechanisms is seen as an
awareness raising tool in itself. Of course the role of information in changing
behaviour has long been debated in the environmental policy world (see Blake 1999,
Owens 2000).
While information is certainly a necessary component of any strategy for moving
towards more sustainable levels of consumption, there is ample evidence that
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 63
behavioural change without attention to wider structural, societal and personal
factors proves problematic (Burgess et al. 2002, Dolan 2002, Hinton and Goodman
forthcoming). In fact, overly simplistic information-attitude-behaviour models that
anticipate a linear path from the provision of information to attitudinal change to
appropriate (and consistent) behaviour patterns have been challenged by recent
theoretical and empirical work on sustainable consumption (see Princen 1999, Ropke
1999, Burgess et al. 2003). For example, Gatersleben and Vlek (1998) argue that any
assumed causal link between attitudes and behavior is mediated by cognitive
processes, including social and cultural norms, beliefs and values, as well as
contextual factors such as the level of technological innovation. Others have focused
on the role of the policy-making environment (Doran 2007).
In the field of environmental psychology, a range of factors has been identified to
directly affect pro-environmental behaviour, including personal moral convictions,
prevailing social norms, attitudes and behavioural controls. Problem awareness
(through information streams), on the other hand, has been shown to only indirectly
influence environmental behaviour (Bamberg 2003, Bamberg and Moser 2007). The
issue of behaviour and behavioural change is addressed in more detail in the next
section.
While accounting tools such as ecological footprinting can be useful for
monitoring changing patterns of consumption, they yield little information about
the underlying reasons why patterns both emerge and evolve. For example, the
presence of rebound effects, arising from increased demand for household
appliances, carbon-intensive travel, foreign holidays and imported foods, highlight
the need for careful analysis of social, political and cultural influences on consumer
behaviour in both developing countries with ‘emerging markets’ and mature market
economies like Ireland. Equally, people’s responses to both fiscal and non-material
incentives for sustainable consumption such as eco-taxes, grants, or information
campaigns based on moral, ethical and emotional appeals deserve greater examination by social scientists. Measuring consumption patterns without attending to the
means and motivations that underpin them is only a partial response to the challenge
of sustainable consumption.
Complexity of consumption behaviour
It is commonly held that progressing sustainable consumption requires improved
understanding of consumer behaviour and attitudes (OECD 2001). However,
understanding consumer behaviour is a complex issue not least because of the
many underlying factors which influence consumption including: economic,
political, socio-technical, sociological and socio-psychological.
Political
It is a commonly articulated policy position that all parts of society must participate
in the sustainability project (EPA 2007b). Participation in sustainable consumption
practices is no exception however, an implementation deficit remains where policy
pronouncements on acceptable behaviour and actual behavioural dynamics are not
yet aligned. This mismatch provides the stimulation for policy interventions from
diverse spheres of governance (including public, private and civil society). One such
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
64 A. Davies et al.
approach to shaping consumption behaviour focuses on information provision,
through sustainability accounting tools, general public awareness campaigns and
eco-labelling of products. The mechanisms within this approach have the advantage
of being advisory rather than coercive and are generally positively received by
intended audiences as long as the information is perceived to be accurate,
comprehensible, comparable and trustworthy. This has led to a proliferation of
campaigns in Ireland over the last decade including Race against Waste (waste
management), Notice Nature (biodiversity) and The Power of One (energy and
climate change). In addition, eco-labelling has been introduced in certain product
sectors, including government-led energy ratings for dishwashers, fridges and freezers
and labelling efforts driven by partnerships between non-governmental associations
and the private sector in areas such as sustainable wood products (see Jordan et al.
2004 and Dingworth 2008; for an overview on the practice of eco-labelling in the
Irish context see Pender et al. 2007). These campaigns, however, have been criticised
for adopting an overly simplistic information deficit model. There is also a difficulty
in discerning direct cause-effect relationships between these campaigns and any
behavioural change (Davies 2003).
Economic
Economic mechanisms have a dichotomous role in consumption debates in terms of
contribution to causing environmental damage and also attempting to mitigate
environmental damage. Economic development has traditionally been associated
with improving productively, reducing product process, increasing personal incomes
in additional to increasing the purchasing power of individuals (UNDP 2008).
However, market-based initiatives are increasingly being used in the environmental
arena.
A key approach to behavioural change is the use of fiscal measures to promote or
penalise unsustainable behaviour. De Young (1993) classifies monetary reinforcement (such as deposit systems for beverage cans or contests for participation in
recycling schemes) and monetary disincentives (including consumption-based taxes)
as positive and coercive motivational techniques that make behaviour more or less
appealing. The role of material (dis)incentives in shaping consumption in particular
has given rise to extensive research (De Young 1993, Karp 1996, Price 2001). Indeed,
economic measures such as taxing, pricing, or direct charges have been proposed as
efficient means of forcing people to shift to more sustainable forms of behaviour
(Linden and Carlsson-Kanyama 2003). A levy on plastic bags has already been
introduced within Ireland. A recent European survey estimates that this has reduced
consumption of plastic bags by 92%, yielding over 12.7 million Euros in 2003 (UNEP
2004). With such evidence in the public domain, it is unsurprising that the levy has
been used by government as a flagship indicator of the efficiency and effectiveness of
using financial measures to create change. Yet while the reduction of plastic bags in
Ireland following the levy may well be startling, it is not clear what environmental
costs have been generated elsewhere as a result, nor is it certain what level of plastic
bag usage is considered sustainable. Equally, it is not obvious that the success in
terms of regulating plastic bag usage will be replicated in other areas, nor that all
taxes or charging mechanisms are so simple to implement effectively. The pay-by-use
waste charging scheme in Ireland, for example, seems to be generating more recycling
Irish Geography 65
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
but levels of waste reduction are not as high as might be expected based on
international evidence. Concerns about socially regressive impacts of the pricing
mechanisms also remain (Davies and O’Callaghan-Platt 2008).
Socio-technical
Recent advances in technology have lead to a proliferation of more efficient products.
It has been argued that such advances can create new markets for consumption;
however at the same time such technological advances have also been heralded for
attempting to mitigate problems with increasing consumption patterns, e.g. development in information technology provides opportunities for substituting long haul
business flights with video conferences.
At the heart of the approaches to behavioural change detailed above is the
assumption that many environmental impacts derive from ‘generalised behaviour
patterns’ (EPA 2007b, p. 5). However, this assumption has been criticised for its
narrow, rationalistic understanding of the causes and consequences of human
actions, attitudes, routines and habits (Shove 2003; Shove et al. 2007) and for
obscuring complex relationships between technological and social innovation (Green
and Vergragt 2002). As Hobson (2003), Shove (2003) and many others argue,
consumption behaviours such as shopping, heating, washing and driving a car are
socio-technical practices that reflect shared social norms, values and goals (for
example, individual freedom, convenience and safety) which often overshadow
environmental concerns. Negative environmental behaviours are often disguised as
‘forms of inconspicuous consumption’ (Hobson 2003, p. 102) that reflect tensions in
modern society between the rejection of wasteful behaviour and the desire for new
things (Arkes and Hutzel 1997, p. 154). While financial considerations may influence
people’s decisions to some degree, they may well not override other socially
embedded desires. The elasticity of demand for some consumer goods as well as
ideologically motivated expectations for freedom of choice or unlimited spatial
mobility all cast doubt over whether people can be persuaded to act in more
environmentally and socially responsible ways, even if they do express environmental
concern (Jackson 2006).1
Sociological and socio-psychological
Socio-psychological drivers for consumption can include a range of factors from
the influences of the social environment to personal motivations (UNEP 2004).
Consumers purchase products as much for their symbolic role as their function and
practical qualities (Jackson 2006) and indeed such products can be perceived as
a measure of success and happiness.
Questions have been raised about the fairness of interventions attempting to
shape behaviour as well as their effectiveness in bringing about meaningful and
lasting behavioural change. Several studies (reviewed in Guagnano et al. 1995) have
suggested that while such fiscal incentives can play a valuable role in initiating
behaviour changes, prolonged transformations in behaviour require intrinsic
motivation, that is, motivation which comes from inside an individual rather than
from any external force. Others have suggested that focusing on individual
consumption behaviour ignores the social nature of consumption and wider
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
66 A. Davies et al.
structural forces that affect people’s choices (Wilhite and Lutzenhiser 1999, Cohen
and Murphy 2001). Yet others have criticised these ‘citizen-as-consumer’ models for
failing to challenge assumptions about the inherent benefits of (over)consumption
and economic growth for individual well-being and quality of life (Gatersleben 2001,
Rugkasa et al. 2007, Woodcock et al. 2007, Fahy and Ó Cinnéide 2008). Indeed
proponents of sustainable development often suggest that the maintenance, and even
improvement, of quality of life for all is essential to its programme (Meister and Japp
1998). This reflects a pragmatic perspective, as measures to promote sustainable
development are unlikely to be widely supported if they are perceived to impinge too
severely on the perceived benefits of comfort, cleanliness and convenience that
modern life has brought to many in developed countries (Bell and Morse 2003).
However, the assumption that direct linkages always exist between increased
consumption, better health and improved quality of life is also being challenged
(Jackson 2005, 2006).2
As regards food consumption (and particularly fast food consumption), alarming
messages about levels of obesity and health concerns in western societies clearly
indicate an inversion of the presumed win-win relationship between consumption and
health. Of course it is not simply eating more poor quality food that is the problem;
there are related issues such as reduced levels of exercise due to increased car usage and
labour-saving appliances. More indirectly, greater consumption of resources can lead
to pressures on systems of supply (e.g. water) or systems of management (e.g. waste),
which in turn can degrade the environment and lead to health fears and a reduced
quality of life for those affected. A key problem here is that it may not be those who
generate most stresses on the environment through consumption who end up being
affected by the consequences of their actions. Inequities can occur across space, at
different scales and through time (Davies 2006). Fairness and equity issues are thus
central to sustainable consumption matters; whether sustainable consumption policies
are seen as (un)just or (un)fair will influence people’s reaction to them now and in the
future. Unmet mobility needs as well as fuel and food poverty continue to concern both
consumers and governments alike (Healey 2004, McDonagh 2006, Shaw 2006,
Molcho et al. 2007, Rau and Hennessy 2009).
Debates about consumption, health and well-being reveal many tensions and
contradictions. Some argue that being able to consume at will permits the
satisfaction of wants and needs which ensures a sense of fulfilment and a good
quality of life. This contrasts with contributions by social scientists that challenge
uncritical assumptions of a positive link between (consumer) choice and fulfilment,
including recent work on the ‘paradox of choice’ (Schwartz 2004). Amongst other
factors the conflation of quality of life with economic standard of living ignores the
non-material qualities that also contribute to a sense of self and social identity. Soper
and Thomas (2006) argue strongly for more attention being given to the benefits of
alternative ways of living and consuming. Similarly Jackson’s (2009) radical agenda
setting discussions in Prosperity without Growth makes a convincing case for
alternative conceptions of positive societal and environmental development.
Especially in times of global economic crises, the challenge is to combine
questions of economic growth with the broader goals of achieving sustainable
development and consumption. Jackson (2009) addresses this question by arguing
that two components will be necessary to change this dilemma, which he calls ‘. . . the
biggest challenge ever faced by human society’ (Jackson 2009, p. 158). First, he
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 67
suggests to ‘fix the economics’ by developing a new type of macro economics which
should place economic activity within ecological limits and at the same time reduce
the structural reliance on consumption growth by finding a different mechanism to
achieve stability. Second, he suggests to ‘shift the social logic of consumerism’ by
providing real, credible alternatives through which people can act more sustainably.
These alternatives should go beyond making basic systems of provision more
sustainable but should rather provide capabilities for people to ‘participate fully in
the life of society, without recourse to unsustainable material accumulation and
unproductive status competition’ (Jackson 2009, p. 158). Acknowledging the
dilemma that ongoing economic growth is unsustainable but that declining economic
growth might lead to political and societal instability, Jackson develops ideas and
concepts on how a ‘ecological macroeconomic model’ incorporating limits of a finite
earth might look like (see Jackson 2009, pp. 121142).
At the same time, particular ways of living (and consuming) are robustly
engraved into structures of society and tend to resist transformation, even when
people recognise them as damaging. The persistent problem of car dependency and
its social and material consequences for Irish society illustrates this. The availability
of funds to engage in consumption remains a central issue. As mentioned above, lack
of access to basic goods and services can create problems for health and well-being
such as food and fuel poverty. In certain circumstances, and the current economic
recession may be a case in point, the inability to purchase goods and services in a
conventional way may stimulate alternative means of consumption and interaction,
for example through Local Economic Trading Schemes (LETS) (Seyfang 2006),
sustainability enterprises (Davies 2009) and demand for more durable commodities
that can be repaired (Hinton and Goodman forthcoming). Here potentially positive
outcomes, from a sustainable consumption perspective, depend on the availability of
alternative mechanisms and products or the motivation of communities to establish
or demand them. On the other hand, mainstream goods which are perceived to be
more sustainable, but which retail at a premium, such as organic fruit and vegetables
or fair trade tea, coffee and chocolate, may find their niche in the market place
squeezed and replaced by budget products of questionable quality and production
methods. Any outcome is likely to be shaped by a combination of both consumption
practices and governance mechanisms.
Situated analysis of sustainable household consumption and mobility
The critical review of areas of contention within sustainable consumption provided
above has outlined some generic issues for consideration. This section argues that
consumption practices and governance mechanisms in Ireland (and elsewhere) are
often context-specific and require in-depth empirical investigation. It provides a
situated sectoral analysis of how we run our homes, what we eat and how we get
around; all areas of high environmental impact in relation to household consumption (OECD 2001, Michaelis and Lorek 2004, Tucker et al. 2005).
How we move around: transport and the unsustainable consumption of distance
Recent debates on the challenges of sustainability have identified carbon-intensive
transport choices and spatial mobility patterns and the unsustainable ‘consumption
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
68 A. Davies et al.
of distance’ as key areas of concern (Whitelegg 1997, Chambers 2002). The
environmental consequences of car-based transport such as GHG emissions, air
and noise pollution, habitat fragmentation and the decimation of green spaces have
been noted both in public discourse and in academic literature (Böhm et al. 2006,
Sloman 2006, EPA 2007a). Moreover, mobility-related issues such as lack of access to
basic services and employment opportunities for people without a car have been
linked to patterns of social exclusion in rural and urban areas (see Hine and Mitchell
2003, Pickup and Guiliano 2005 and Donaghy et al. 2005 for international evidence).
Sustainable consumption debates have hitherto paid little attention to the
‘consumption of distance’ associated with the production and use of goods and
services. Similarly, few contributions to the sustainable consumption debate have
focused on the key role of transport in connecting members of households with sites
of consumption. This seems rather surprising given the centrality of spatial mobility
in world trade relations and its relevance to patterns of consumption in an
increasingly globalised economy. For example, the onset of the recent global
economic recession in 2008 made visible the inseparability of corporeal and virtual
mobility and economic activity, with ‘bad debts’ spreading rapidly across the globe
and international shipping of goods decreasing dramatically within a few days.
Transport and mobility issues thus deserve much greater prominence in sustainable
consumption research.
Transport policy both shapes and reflects people’s views and practices, and public
reactions to transport planning and policy measures can only be properly understood if placed in their wider socio-economic, political and cultural context (Urry
2000, Gartman 2004, Wright and Curtis 2004, Rau 2008). It has been claimed that
recent shifts in EU transport policy are promoting more sustainable transport
options, and the development of a European high speed rail network is held up as an
example of this, although of course such infrastructures are not without environmental impact. This contrasts with a strong focus on car-based mobility which
continues to shape national transport policies in many EU member-states, including
Ireland. This said, the publication in 2009 of Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport
Future - A new transport policy for Ireland 20092020, aimed to integrate key
sustainability goals into Irish transport policy. The measurement and evaluation of
‘smarter’ travel options, however, continues to pose considerable challenges,
including the need to integrate natural-scientific, engineering and social-scientific
research efforts and to adopt multi-method research designs that facilitate the
collection and relational analysis of qualitative and quantitative data.
Irish policy makers, planning practitioners and academic commentators have
highlighted the robust appeal of individualised mobility afforded by the car which
can act as a powerful barrier to sustainable, low-carbon transport and mobility
patterns (McDonald and Nix 2005, Comhar 2007). Recent transport policy decisions
aimed at increasing road safety such as the introduction of the National Car Test
(NCT) and stricter enforcement of road traffic laws revealed the consequences of cardependency for Irish society in general, and vulnerable groups such as car-less
households and the rural elderly in particular (McDonagh 2006, O’ Shea 2009). Car
dependency impacts significantly on people’s health, well-being and quality of life.
Health risks associated with increased car use include obesity due to lack of exercise,
respiratory illnesses caused by traffic-related air pollution, irregular sleep patterns
due to road and air traffic noise as well as injuries and fatalities caused by traffic
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 69
accidents. Research carried out in Galway City has shown that the walkability of
local areas impacts significantly on people’s health and social capital (Leyden 2003).
In addition, the lack of alternatives to the car, in particular in remote rural areas, and
the comparatively marginal role of public transport, walking and cycling in the
modal mix continue to produce significant exclusionary effects. The lack of
alternatives to owning and driving a car impacts most severely on more vulnerable
social groups, including low-income households, young people, the elderly and
people with disabilities, among others (Lohan and Wickham 1999, Wickham 2006,
Rau and Hennessy 2009).
These health and social risks are often seen as acceptable trade-offs for the
benefits of automobility, with the possible exception of road deaths. However, it is
important to note that the shared risks of various carbon-dependent mobility
options often fail to register with the public and that this influences the introduction
and implementation of sustainable transport policies. Recent negative reactions by
members of the public to proposals to restrict traffic in Dublin City Centre and to
introduce a car parking space levy illustrate this. Moreover, it is possible to observe a
strong ‘value-action-gap’ regarding people’s transport choices and mobility habits.
While many people in Ireland acknowledge the need for more sustainable transport
and a reduction in the ‘consumption of distance’, few are willing to avoid trips or
switch to alternatives to the car. This is partly due to structural inadequacies, in
particular in relation to public transport but also concerning the provision of
facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. However, we can also observe considerable
discrepancies between what people describe as appropriate mobility behaviour and
what they actually do that cannot be solely explained by a lack of alternatives. This
matches research findings from other areas of consumption.
Given the centrality of transport and mobility in promoting sustainable
consumption, there is an urgent need for reliable data on people’s mobility habits
in Ireland, their culture-specific views of different modes of transport and the
effectiveness of policy measures and practical solutions aimed at reducing car
dependency. The measurement of mobility trends and modal split patterns and the
evaluation of sustainable transport initiatives to reduce the consumption of distance
in Ireland remains an important task. While large-scale transport and mobility
indicators such as miles travelled per annum, fuel consumption and money raised
through road tolling can yield insights into broader trends, it is also essential to
complement them with qualitative data on people’s transport decisions and mobility
choices. A strong argument can be made for the adoption of case study designs that
focus on the social, cultural, material and political conditions of spatial mobility in a
particular local area and that monitor the effectiveness of policy interventions using
documentary and observational data. These can be complemented with expert
interviews with policy makers to identify possible tensions between policy and
practice. Event-centred and narrative interviews and focus groups can help elicit
information about mobility decisions of individuals, families and groups.
According to Vigar (2002, p. 15), ‘[t]ransport planning that meets the ecological
and social demands [of our time] requires changes in user behaviour, rather than
government merely responding to established user behaviour patterns.’ Proposals for
reducing Ireland’s car dependency include information campaigns and fiscal options.
Recent road safety campaigns on Irish television, the promotion of mobility
management plans for large organisations and the introduction in 2008 of a motor
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
70 A. Davies et al.
taxation system that takes into account CO2 emissions levels represent such policy
initiatives. Recent developments of a bike-sharing scheme in Dublin do, however,
illustrate the possibility for innovative solutions to mobility being developed (see
http://www.dublinbikes.ie).
More recently, virtual mobility options have been discussed as a low-carbon
alternative to corporeal mobility involving cars and planes. The term ‘virtual
mobility’ describes the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to
replace actual physical mobility. However, virtual mobility options such as telework,
e-governance and e-business and technology to facilitate more sustainable corporeal
travel (e.g. car-pooling websites and real-time travel information for public transport
via mobile phone) present many challenges, some of which relate to resilience of
established consumption practices. To date the social, cultural and environmental
impacts of virtual mobility remain poorly understood. In summary the collection of
qualitative evidence is an essential requirement in addressing existing gaps in
knowledge regarding a) the role and significance of different modes of transport in
Irish society, b) people’ views of alternative technologies and infrastructures such as
virtual mobility tools for e-commerce and teleworking and c) reactions by members
of the public to different economic (dis)incentives (e.g. road and parking taxes, bike
schemes).
How we live: heating, cooling, washing, cleaning and eating
According to the OECD (2001), housing accounts for around 25% of total
consumption expenditure in Europe. Energy and water consumption are increasing
due to larger homes being built for fewer people who are using more electrical
appliances. Within the household, space heating (and cooling) is the largest end use
of energy, followed by water heating (Shove 2003). Domestic water consumption has
risen dramatically in many developed countries over the past century, with bathing,
showering and washing clothes accounting for around a third of domestic water
consumption across Europe (EEA 2001). Environmental impacts within the household are exacerbated as the frequency of appliance replacement increases due to
lower durability, declining costs of replacement (vis-à-vis costly and time-consuming
repairs) and rapid fashion changes. While there have been some gains made in terms
of appliance efficiency, this has been cancelled out by the increasing numbers of
appliances being used (Faiers et al. 2007). According to Shove (2003), these patterns
of household consumption can be linked to the transformation of everyday habits
and commonplace understandings of comfort, cleanliness and convenience.
In Ireland the residential sector’s Total Primary Energy Requirement (TPER)
increased by 31% (2% per annum on average) between 1990 and 2004 and accounts
for 25% of Ireland’s Total Final Consumption (TFC) (SEI 2005, p. 2). The residential
sector’s energy-related CO2 emissions represented 27% of the total attributable to
energy in Ireland in 2004, making it the second largest sector after transport (32%).
In 1999/2000 those in the lowest income decile spent on average 10% of their
disposable income on energy while the highest earners spent 2%, raising concerns
about fuel poverty (Healey 2004). Ireland has had a higher average energy
consumption per dwelling than most other EU countries, with electricity use 19%
above and CO2 emissions (climate corrected) 97% above the EU-15 average (SEI
2005, p. 3). Irish homes use around a quarter of all energy used nationally, which is
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 71
even more than industry, and the average home consumes almost 40% more
electricity than it did in 1990. These figures are partially attributable to the increase
in dwelling size since the mid-1990s and the property boom, at least until the
economic downturn in 2008. While some improvements have been made in recent
times regarding insulating newer homes, these statistics illustrate the enormous
challenges for reducing energy consumption in the home.
Similar challenges lie ahead for the arena of domestic water consumption, with
increasing numbers of households using more water consuming technologies more
frequently. Over time comfort requirements have markedly changed. According to
some estimates, only 5% of water consumption is for drinking with the remainder
being relatively equally split between washing and cleaning, showering and bathing,
and using the WC. Estimates for daily water consumption in Ireland vary because of
a paucity of information on levels of water consumption due to low levels of water
metering and the removal of water charges for domestic usage in 1997. The OECD
(2000) have recommended the reintroduction of domestic water charges and the
installation of water meters in new dwellings as key mechanisms for reducing
household water consumption. Similarly, the EU Water Framework Directive, which
will be transposed into Irish law at some point in the future, aims to protect available
water resources and encourage sustainable water use. Although much of the activity
on the Directive in Ireland has to date focused on water quality issues, it is likely that
consideration of more sustainable household water consumption will come to play a
bigger role during implementation (see Lam 1999, Syme et al. 2000, Gilig and Barr
2006).
The OECD (2001) estimates that food consumption constitutes one third of
household’s consumption impact (and between 1035% of household consumption
expenditure) mainly relating to production processes such as emissions from
livestock, over-fishing, food miles and packaging waste (see also Tukker et al.
2005). The Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) defines sustainable food
consumption as a preference for: food with high resource efficiency (e.g. open-ground
cultivation); regional instead of imported food; organically instead of conventionally
produced food; lower amounts of bottled beverages; and meatless or reduced meat
diets based on the specific emissions in CO2 equivalents per food category as a proxy
for the environmental effects of different vegetable and meat categories (Friedl et al.
2006). However, there is still considerable controversy over what makes the food
sector more sustainable both in terms of production methods (e.g. the contrasting
costs and benefits of conventional, organic or genetically modified agriculture) and
consumption practices (e.g. buying local or imported food, purchasing from farmers
markets or supermarkets, buying standard or fair-trade products). Despite this,
concerns about rising food-related emissions and the existence of food poverty
despite (and in some cases as a result of) increasing calorie intake in Europe persist
(Carlsson-Kanyama 1998, Kramer et al. 1998, Faist et al. 2001, OECD 2001, Shaw
2006). In Ireland food consumption has attracted considerable attention of late, with
Molcho et al. (2007) and Friel et al. (2006) examining issues of food poverty and Sage
(2003) and Tovey (2002, 2006) examining the emergence of alternative food networks
(primarily in rural locations). The North/South Ireland Food Consumption Survey
focused on people’s awareness of issues relating to diet and nutrition (Flynn 2001,
Strain 2001). In contrast, interactions between regulation, production and household
food consumption remain under-researched.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
72 A. Davies et al.
Despite some technological improvements in product design in relation to some
household appliances and greater awareness among householders (at least in the area
of energy consumption), environmental impacts of consumption in the home
continue to grow. Alternative approaches to examining the related arenas of
production and consumption, as well as identifying appropriate governing mechanisms are required. Calls to conserve energy and water emanating from policy circles,
for example, often do not connect with the needs, experiences and day-to-day
practices of householders. As Shove (2003) has identified people tend to focus on
meeting needs and desires such as keeping warm (or cool), keeping themselves and
their belongings clean and generally making their lives more manageable. Further
research examining the production-consumption-regulation interface of household
consumption activities is overdue. This research will need to focus on the many
stakeholders that make up complex consumption chains today, from producers and
regulators to the householders themselves.
Conclusion: an agenda for Ireland
Sustainable development, and the integrally related matter of sustainable consumption, has been on the policy agenda for more than 20 years (WCED 1987), yet its
meaning and implications are still far from agreed. The evocation of ‘sustainable’
in the consumption context certainly remains a site of negotiation in governance
arrangements between different actors and interests. Despite this, much work has
been conducted on the supply side of the production of goods: sustainable
technologies for energy generation, materials mining and processing, and product
manufacture have been developed, innovated and diffused in the last decade.
However, consumption continues to rise and consumers have been a notoriously
difficult target for policy makers seeking to induce more sustainable practices, not
least as a result of the political difficulties inherent in constraining how people
should live. This paper has suggested that there are four key reasons for this: a lack of
appropriate data, weak understanding of behavioural dynamics, crude governing
technologies, a lack of integration between production, consumption and regulatory
stakeholders.
While these issues have a global resonance they are particularly stark within an
Irish (both Northern Ireland and the Republic) context and, despite the recent
economic downturn which has affected some components of conspicuous consumption, further research within this geographical context is urgently required. Certainly
in terms of setting an agenda of priority issues and practices the following issues
should be addressed. First, and most fundamentally, detailed, comprehensive and
coherent baseline information about the form of basic consumption patterns is
essential. Currently relevant data, if it is collected at all, is fragmentary. For example,
the 2008 UNEP Global Survey on Sustainable Lifestyles was a voluntary online
survey and hence a self-selecting population. The Greendex 2009 Consumer Choice
and the Environment survey claimed to be a worldwide tracking survey and was
conducted in January 2008 and repeated in January 2009 in order to establish any
changes in behaviour as a result of the economic crisis, but was based on 14 countries
only, and did not include Ireland.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 73
Following on from this consolidation of information collection, more consistent
and comparable mechanisms for continued monitoring of consumption patterns
need to be developed and resourced. Second, an improved understanding of why
people act the way that they do in the particular, and changing, socio-economic and
environmental circumstances within the island of Ireland is also essential. Gathering
such information will require in-depth analysis of particular consumption practices
as they are enacted by different people with diverse lifestyles and living contexts.
Priority areas for Ireland, as identified by the recent OECD Report on Ireland’s
environmental performance (OECD 2009), include water, energy and transport. In
the area of transport, for example, this might involve investigating the role and
significance of different modes of transport in Irish Society. Certainly people’s views
of alternative technologies and infrastructures such as virtual mobility tools for
e-commerce and teleworking would be useful, as would a greater understanding of
reactions by members of the public to different economic instruments (such as road
and parking taxes or bicycle schemes).
Third, while it is increasingly recognised that behaviour has many drivers that
may ebb and flow over time, current policy mechanisms intended to shape behaviour
employed across Ireland have tended to be rigid in application (e.g. waste charging
mechanisms) and insensitive to difference (e.g. general mass media awareness
campaigns). There needs to be more reflection on the impacts of these policy tools
on sustainable consumption and more attention to wider governance processes that
affect how these policies are generated, shaped and implemented. For example, what
alternative tools could be developed and how might they resonate with the people
that are being targeted? Multi-stakeholder practice-oriented scenario building may
be one such approach. Drawing on European-led design-focused research (Quist
et al. 2001) there are possibilities for bringing together actors with various roles in the
consumption process, including supply side actors (from manufacturing, business
and retail) as well as the demand side stakeholders (including consumers and
consumer organisations) with regulators, environmental non-governmental organisations and other relevant contributors (such as researchers, sustainability entrepreneurs, designers and communication consultants) to discuss, develop and evaluate
innovative alternative scenarios for practice-oriented household consumption such
as heating, cooling, washing, lighting and eating.
Fourth, and finally, there is space for work in Ireland that adopts a more holistic,
but still grounded, approach to sustainable consumption; work that integrates rather
than isolates all those involved in production processes, consumption practices and
regulation formation and implementation. In essence this suggestion implies a
particular form of governance, rather than governmental, activity for the realm of
sustainable consumption where actors from a range of governing spheres (public,
private and civil society) as well as across tiers of governing activity (supra-national,
national and local) engage in defining and resolving consumption issues. Of course
such multi-stakeholder interaction will not necessarily develop agreed or comprehensive solutions at the outset. Sustainable consumption will remain a highly
political issue. However, allowing diverse groups of social actors to come together as
part of the research process and directly confront sustainability challenges may
stimulate creative visions about desired future scenarios that move beyond the
territories of discipline, business scope or backyard.
74 A. Davies et al.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on research conducted as part of CONSENSUS: a cross border household
analysis of consumption, environment and sustainability (http://www.consensus.ie), funded by
the EPA STRIVE Programme 20072013 Science, Technology, Research & Innovation for the
Environment (STRIVE) An Environmental Protection Agency Programme 20072013. The
authors would like to thank the EPA and the Advisory Board of CONSENSUS: a cross
border household analysis of consumption, environment and sustainability for their support.
Notes
1. This has also been addressed as the so-called ‘value-action gap’, whereby a considerable
gap can often be observed between people’s attitudes, which are often pro-environmental,
and their everyday behaviours (Doran 2007, p. 33).
2. There are a large number of diverse definitions of quality of life. For example, Cutter (1985)
defines it as ‘an individual’s happiness or satisfaction with life and environment including
needs and desires and other tangible and intangible factors which determine overall wellbeing’. For Kline (2001) quality of life, at a minimum, needs to measure the ability of
citizens to get adequate health care, housing, child care, public safety and education.
References
Allen, P., ed. 1993. Food for the future: conditions and contradictions of sustainability. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Arkes, H.R. and Hutzel, L., 1997. Waste heuristics: the desire not to waste versus the desire for
new things. In: M.H. Bazerman, D.M. Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel and K.A. Wade-Benzoni,
eds. Environmental ethics and behaviour. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press, 154170.
Ayres, R., 2004. On the life cycle metaphor: where ecology and economics diverge. Ecological
Economics, 48 (4), 425438.
Bamberg, S., 2003. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related
behaviours? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1),
2132.
Bamberg, S. and Moser, G., 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new
meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 27 (1), 1425.
Bell, S. and Morse, S., 2003. Measuring sustainability: learning by doing. London: Earthscan.
Blake, J., 1999. Overcoming the ‘valueaction gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between
national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4 (3), 257278.
Böhm, S., Jones, C., Land, C. and Paterson, M., eds. 2006. Against Automobility. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Burgess, J., Bedford, T., Hobson, K., Davies, G. and Harrison, C.M., 2003. (Un) sustainable
consumption. In: M. Leach, F. Berkhout and I. Scoones, eds. Global environmental change:
review and prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 261291.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 1998. Climate change and dietary choices how can emissions of
greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy, 23 (3/4), 277293.
Chambers, L., 2002. Sustainable transport: a background paper prepared for the state
sustainability strategy [online]. Available from: http://www.sustainability.dpc.wa.gov.au/
docs/BGPapers/LanceChambers.pdf [Accessed 9 November 2007].
Clancy, K.L., 1993. Sustainable agriculture and domestic hunger: Rethinking a link between
production and consumption. In: P. Allen, ed. Food for the future: conditions and
contradictions of sustainability. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Cohen, M.J. and Murphy, J., eds. 2001. Exploring sustainable consumption: environmental
policy and social sciences. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Comhar (The National Sustainable Development Partnership), 2007. Towards sustainability in
the National Development Plan 20072013. Dublin: Comhar.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 75
Cutter, S.L., 1985. Rating Places: A Geographer’s View of Quality of Life. Washington, DC:
Association of American Geographers.
Davies, A.R., 2003. Mass-mediated environmental awareness campaigns towards a research
framework. Trinity Papers, 8, 2542.
Davies, A.R., 2006. Environmental justice as subtext or omission: examining discourses of
anti-incineration campaigning in Ireland. Geoforum, 37 (5), 708724.
Davies, A.R., 2008. The geographies of garbage governance: interventions, interactions and
outcomes. London: Routledge.
Davies, A.R., 2009. Does sustainability count? Environmental policy, sustainable development
and the governance of grassroots sustainability enterprise in Ireland. Sustainable Development, 17 (3), 174182.
Davies, A.R. and O’Callaghan-Platt, A., 2008. Does money talk? Waste charging in the
Republic of Ireland: government, governance and performance. Journal of Environmental
Policy and Planning, 10 (3), 117.
De Young, R., 1993. Changing behaviour and making it stick. Environment and Behavior,
25 (4), 485505.
Dingworth, K., 2008. North-South parity in global governance: the affirmative procedures of
the forest stewardship council. Global Governance, 14 (1), 5371.
Dolan, P., 2002. The sustainability of ‘SC’. Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 170181.
Donaghy, K.P., Poppelreuter, S. and Rudinger, G., 2005. Social aspects of sustainable transport:
transatlantic perspectives. London: Ashgate.
Doran, P., 2007. Sustainable consumption & production ‘the art of the state’. Dublin: UCD.
EC, 2000. The Lisbon Strategy. Brussels: EC.
EC, 2001. The European sustainable development strategy. Brussels: EC.
EC, 2004. Sustainable production and consumption in the EU. Brussels: EC.
EC, 2006. The renewed European sustainable development strategy 2006: a Platform for Action.
Brussels: EC.
EC, 2008. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the
sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan. Brussels:
EC.
EEA, 2001. Environmental information [online]. Available from: http://www.environmentagency.tv/nwdmc/being_waterwise_home/index.htm [Accessed 1 January 2008].
EEA, 2005. Household consumption and the environment. EEA Report, 11 (2005), Copenhagen:
EEA.
EPA, 2006. Environment in focus: environmental indicators for Ireland. Dublin: EPA.
EPA, 2007a. The state of climate change [online]. Available from: http://www.epa.ie/
environment/climate/ [Accessed 9 November 2007].
EPA, 2007b. STRIVE programme 20072013 sustainable development and socio-economics.
Dublin: EPA.
EPA, 2007c. STRIVE programme 20072013, programme overview. Dublin: EPA.
EPA, 2009. National waste prevention programme outline workplan 20092012. Dublin: EPA.
Fahy, F. and Ó Cinnéide, M., 2008. The reality of the locality: exploring spatial aspects of
quality of life in Galway City, Ireland. International Journal of Sustainable Development and
Planning, 3 (1), 2944.
Faiers, A., Cook, M. and Neame, C., 2007. Towards a contemporary approach for
understanding consumer behaviour in the context of domestic energy use. Energy Policy,
35 (8), 43814390.
Faist, M., Kytzia, S. and Baccini, P., 2001. The impact of household food consumption on
resource and energy management. Environment and Pollution, 15 (2), 183199.
Flynn, A., 2001. The North/South Ireland Food Consumption Survey Conclusion. Public
Health Nutrition, 4 (5A), 1127.
Friedl, B., Giljum, S., Lorek, S., Jager, J. and Omann, I., 2006. Sustainable food production:
trends and opportunities. Cologne: SERI.
Friel, S., Walsh, O. and McCarthy, D., 2006. The irony of a rich country: issues of financial
access to and availability of healthy food in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 60 (12), 10131019.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
76 A. Davies et al.
Gartman, D., 2004. Three ages of the automobile: the cultural logics of the car. Theory,
Culture and Society, 21 (4/5), 169195.
Gatersleben, B., 2001. Sustainable household consumption and quality of life: the acceptability of sustainable consumption patterns and consumer policy strategies. International
Journal of Environment and Pollution, 15 (2), 200216.
Gatersleben, B. and Vlek, C., 1998. Household consumption, quality of life, and environmental impacts: a psychological perspective and empirical study. In: K.J. Nooman and T.S.
Uiterkamp, eds. Green households? domestic consumers, environment and sustainability.
London: Earthscan, 141183.
Geyer-Allely, E. and Zacarias-Farah, A., 2003. Policies and instruments for promoting
sustainable household consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (8), 923926.
Gilig, A. and Barr, S., 2006. Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from a
study of environmental actions. Ecological Economics, 57 (3), 400414.
Green, K. and Vergragt, P., 2002. Towards sustainable households: a methodology for
developing sustainable technological and social innovations. Futures, 34 (5), 381400.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C. and Dietz, T., 1995. Influences on attitude-behaviour relationships. Environment and Behavior, 27 (5), 699718.
Haberl, H., Erb, K-H. and Krausmann, F., 2001. How to calculate and interpret ecological
footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 19261995. Ecological Economics,
38 (1), 2545.
Healey, J., 2004. Housing, fuel poverty and health: A Pan-European analysis. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Hine, J. and Mitchell, F., 2003. Transport disadvantage and social exclusion: exclusionary
mechanisms in transport in urban Scotland. London: Ashgate.
Hinton, E.D. and M.K. Goodman (forthcoming). Sustainable consumption: developments,
considerations and new directions. In: M. Redclift and G. Woodgate, eds. International
handbook of environmental sociology (2nd edition), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hobson, K., 2003. Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in
questioning household consumption practices. Local Environment, 8 (1), 95112.
Jackson, T., 2005. Live better by consuming less? Is there a ‘double dividend’ in sustainable
consumption? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (12), 1936.
Jackson, T., ed. 2006. Handbook of sustainable consumption. London: Earthscan.
Jackson, T., 2009. Prosperity without growth. London: Sustainable Development Commission.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W., Zito, A.R. and Bruckner, L., 2004. Consumer responsibilitytaking and eco-labelling schemes in Europe. In: M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal and D. Stolle,
eds. Politics, products and markets exploring consumerism past and present. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press, 161180.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W. and Zito, A.R., 2005. The rise of new policy instruments in
comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53 (4),
477496.
Karp, D.G., 1996. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 28 (1), 111133.
Kline, E., 2001. Indicators for sustainable development in urban areas. In: D. Devuyst,
L. Hens and W. De Lannoy, eds. How green is the city? New York: Columbia University
Press, 275298?
Kooiman, J., 2003. Governing as governance. London: Sage.
Kramer, K.J., Moll, H.C., Nonhebel, S. and Wilting, H.C., 1998. Greenhouse gas emissions
related to Dutch food consumption. Energy Policy, 27 (4), 203 216.
Lam, S., 1999. Predicting intentions to conserve water from the theory of planned behaviour,
perceived moral obligation, and perceived water right. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
29 (5), 10581071.
Lammers, A., Moles, R., Walsh, C. and Huijbregts, M., 2008. Ireland’s footprint: a time series
for 19832001. Land Use Policy, 25 (1), 5358.
Latham, R, 1999. Politics in a floating world: toward a critique of global governance. In:
M. Hewson and T. Sinclair, eds. Approaches to global governance theory. New York: State
University of New York Press, 2353.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 77
Leyden, K. (2003) Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable
neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 15461551.
Linden, A. and Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 2003. Environmentally friendly disposal behaviour.
Local Environment, 8 (3), 290301.
Lohan, M. and Wickham, J., 1999. The Transport Rich and the Transport Poor: Car
Dependency and Social Class in Four European Cities. Paper presented at Urbanism and
Suburbanism at the End of the Century Conference, 2627 November, NUI, Maynooth,
Ireland. Available from: http://www.tcd.ie/ERC/pastprojects/carsdownloads/Transport%20
Rich.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2007].
McDonagh, J., 2006. Transport policy instruments and transport-related exclusion in rural
Republic of Ireland. Journal of Transport Geography, 14 (5), 355366.
McDonald, F. and Nix, J., 2005. Chaos at the crossroads. Dublin: Gandon.
McManus, P. and Haughton, G., 2006. Planning with ecological footprints: a sympathetic
critique of theory and practice. Environment and Urbanization, 18 (1), 113127.
Meister, M. and Japp, P., 1998. Sustainable development and the global economy: rhetorical
implications for improving the quality of life. Communication Research, 25 (4), 399421.
Michaelis, L. and Lorek, S., 2004. Consumption and the Environment in Europe trends and
futures, Environmental Project no. 904. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection
Agency.
Molcho, M., Nic Gabhainn, S., Kelly, C., Friel, S. and Kelleher, C., 2007. Food poverty and
health among schoolchildren in Ireland: findings from the Health Behaviour in School-aged
Children (HBSC) study. Public Health Nutrition, 10 (4), 364370.
Noland, R. and Lem, L., 2002. A review of the evidence for induced travel and changes in
transportation and environmental policy in the US and the UK. Transportation Research:
Part D Transport and the Environment, 7 (1), 126.
O’ Shea, E., 2009. Rural ageing and public policy in Ireland. In: J. McDonagh, T. Varley and
S. Shortall, eds. A living countryside? The politics of sustainable development in rural Ireland.
Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 269285.
OECD, 2000. Environmental performance review: Ireland. Paris: OECD.
OECD, 2001. Household food consumption: trends, environmental impacts and policy responses.
Paris: OECD.
OECD, 2009. Ireland’s environmental performance. Paris: OECD.
Owens, S., 2000. Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy.
Environment and Planning A, 32 (7), 11411148.
Padgett, J., Steinemann, A., Clarke, J. and Vandenbergh, M., 2008. A comparison of carbon
calculators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (23), 106115.
Pender, A., Dunne, L. and Convery, F.J., 2007. The use and regulation of environmental claims
as a means for promoting sustainable consumption in Ireland. Final report to the
Environmental Protection Agency under ERTDI Programme 20002006. Wexford: EPA.
Pickup, L. and Guiliano, G., 2005. Transport and social exclusion in Europe and the US. In:
K.P. Donaghy, S. Poppelreuter and G. Rudinger, eds. Social aspects of sustainable transport:
transatlantic perspectives. London: Ashgate, 3849.
Price, J.L., 2001. The landfill directive and the challenge ahead. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 32 (3), 333348.
Princen, T., 1999. Consumption and environment: some conceptual issues. Ecological
Economics, 31 (3), 347363.
Quist, J., Knot, M., Young, W., Green, K. and Vergragt, P., 2001. Strategies towards
sustainable households using stakeholder workshops and scenarios. International Journal of
Sustainable Development, 4 (1), 7589.
Rau, H., 2008. Environmental arguing at a crossroads? Cultural diversity in Irish transport
planning. In: R. Edmondson and H. Rau, eds. Environmental argument and cultural
difference: locations, fractures and deliberations. Oxford: Peter Lang, 95124.
Rau, H. and Hennessy, C., 2009. The road to sustainable transport? rural transport
programmes and policies in Ireland. In: J. McDonagh, T. Varley and S. Shortall, eds. A
living countryside? The politics of sustainable development in rural Ireland. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 361380.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
78 A. Davies et al.
Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., Bras, B., Robins, N. and Roberts, S., 2008. A survey of
unresolved problems in life cycle assessment - Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13 (4), 290300.
Ropke, I., 1999. The dynamics of willingness to consume. Ecological Economics, 28 (3), 399
420.
Rugkasa, J., Shortt, N. and Boydell, L., 2007. The right tool for the task: ‘boundary spanners’
in a partnership approach to tackle fuel poverty in rural Northern Ireland. Health and
Social Care in the Community, 15 (3), 221230.
Sage, C., 2003. Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative’good food’ networks
in south-west Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (1), 4760.
Schwartz, B., 2004. The Paradox of choice: why more is less. New York: HarperCollins.
SEI (Sustainable Energy Ireland), 2005. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the
residential sector: 19902004. Dublin: SEI.
Seyfang, G., 2006. Sustainable consumption, the new economics and community currencies:
developing new institutions for environmental governance. Regional Studies, 40 (7), 781
779.
Shaw, H., 2006. Food deserts: towards the development of a classification. Geografiska
Annalar Series B: Human Geography, 88B (2), 231247.
Shove, E., 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social organization of normality.
Oxford: Berg.
Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M. and Ingram, J., 2007. The design of everyday life. Oxford:
Berg.
Sloman, L., 2006. Car sick: solutions for our car-addicted culture. Foxhole: Green Books.
Soper, K. and Thomas L., 2006. Alternative hedonism and the critique of consumerism.
Working paper 31, Cultures of Consumption [online]. Available from: http://www.consume.
bbk.ac.uk/publications.html#workingpapers [Accessed 21 July 2009].
Spangenberg, J. and Lorek, S., 2002. Environmentally sustainable household consumption:
from aggregate environmental pressures to priority fields of action. Ecological Economics,
43 (23), 127140.
Stoeglehner, G. and Narodoslawsky, M., 2008. Implementing ecological footprinting in
decision making processes. Land Use Policy, 25 (3), 421431.
Strain, J., 2001. The North/South Ireland food consumption survey introduction. Public
Health Nutrition, 4 (5A), 10271028.
Sustainable Northern Ireland, 2007. The sustainable development duty and your district council:
a strategic overview. Belfast: Sustainable Northern Ireland.
Syme, G., Nancarrow, B. and Seligman, C., 2000. The evaluation of information campaigns to
promote voluntary household water conservation. Evaluation Review, 24 (6), 539578.
Tovey, H., 2002. Alternative agriculture movements and rural development cosmologies.
International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 10 (1), 111.
Tovey, H., 2006. New movements in old places? The alternative food movement in rural
Ireland. In: L. Connolly and N. Hourigan, eds. Social movements and Ireland. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 168189.
Trentmann, F., 2007. 4 ½ lessons about consumption: a short overview of the cultures of
consumption research programme [online]. Available from: http://www.consume.bbk.ac.uk
[Accessed 16 June 2009].
Tucker, A., Huppes, G., Geerken, T. and Nielsen, P., 2005. Environmental impact of products
(EIPRO). Draft report of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) and
the European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO). Brussels: IPTS.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), 1992. Agenda 21 Action Plan for the Next Century. Rio de Janeiro: UNCED.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2008. Annual report empowering people
and institutions. New York: UNDP.
UNDSD (United Nations Division of Sustainable Development), 2002. Report of the World
Summit of Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa. New York: United
Nations Division of Sustainable Development.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), 2004. Sustainable consumption and
production in the European Union. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
Downloaded by [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] at 05:26 29 February 2016
Irish Geography 79
Urry, J., 2000. Sociology beyond Societies: mobilities for the 21st Century. London: Routledge.
Vigar, G., 2002. The politics of mobility: transport, the environment and public policy. London:
Spon Press.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our common future
(Brundtland Report). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wheeler, S., 2004. Planning for sustainability. London: Routledge.
Whitelegg, J., 1997. Critical mass: transport, environment and society in the twenty-first century.
London: Pluto Press.
Wickham, J., 2006. Gridlock: Dublin’s transport crisis and the future of the city. Dublin: TASC
at New Island.
Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J., 2008. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In: C. C. Pertsova, ed.
Ecological economics research trends: Chapter 1. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 111.
Wilhite, H. and Lutzenhiser, L., 1999. Social loading and sustainable consumption. Advances
in Consumer Research, 26 (1), 281287.
Woodcock, J., Banister, D., Edwards, P., Prentice, A. and Roberts, I., 2007. Energy and
transport. Lancet, 370 (9592), 10781088.
Wright, C. and Curtis, B., 2004. Reshaping the motor car. Transport Policy, 12 (1), 1122.