Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Consumption

By D. Ivanova, Konstantin Stadler, Kjartan Steen‐Olsen, Richard Wood, Gibran Vita, Arnold Tukker, Edgar G. Hertwich. 2016

741 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Economics and Econometrics, Environmental Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9ab030fee2b1bdbc775d9ec947c1d7aa7d504e9e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Economics and Econometrics

In Environmental Engineering

Citations in the corpus

The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to sustainability (2020, background): “Our footprints focus on household consumption and thus exclude government consumption and investment, which contribute to roughly 32% of the EU’s total CF (Ivanova et al., 2016).”
Entropy-based Chinese city-level MRIO table framework (2021, background): “Some studies explore consumption heterogeneity by disaggregating final demands using household survey data at the subnational level, but this approach fails to capture heterogeneity in industrial structures (Ivanova et al., 2016; Minx et al., 2013).”
Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives (2017, background): “For example, some studies include carbon, water, and ecological land footprints of households [107,108], consumption and production [85,109], international trade [110], transportation [111], and nations [112,113].”
Mitigating climate change via food consumption and food waste: A systematic map of behavioral interventions (2020, background): “Indeed, household consumption in general puts extensive pressure on the environment, accounting for approximately 60% of global GHG emissions and 50e80% of total resource use (Ivanova et al., 2016).”
Carbon footprints of 13 000 cities (2018, background): “Other studies have reported that income is a useful predictor of an individual’s CF, explaining at least 50% of the variation in footprint (Ivanova et al 2015, Steen-Olsen et al 2016, Weisz and Steinberger 2010), and furthermore even at high levels of income there is no clear evidence that…”
Mapping the carbon footprint of EU regions (2017, methodology): “EXIOBASE’s household accounts include all household consumption except the one registered as governmental spending or investment, e.g. health and social work services, road infrastructure (Ivanova et al 2015).”
Household time use, carbon footprints, and urban form: a review of the potential contributions of everyday living to the 1.5 °C climate target (2018, background): “From a consumption-based footprint perspective, globally more than 65% of carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement production can be attributed to household consumption [6,7].”
EXIOBASE 3: Developing a Time Series of Detailed Environmentally Extended Multi‐Regional Input‐Output Tables (2018, positive): “As a consequence, consumption in one country causes environmental impacts in multiple other countries in multifaced ways rendering territorial resource extraction and emissions monitoring insufficient for the evaluation of environmental impacts driven by final consumption (Davis et al. 2011; Ivanova”
Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals (2018, background): “Besides, infrastructure capital, such as roads enabling transport, are not considered in household expenditures (Ivanova et al., 2016) and are also expected to be proportionally more used by higher income groups.”
Mapping the Sustainable Development Goals Relationships (2020, background): “This is due to the fact that most of the environmental effects can be attributed both directly and indirectly (via the supply chains) to the consumption by households [24].”
Low carbon lifestyles: A framework to structure consumption strategies and options to reduce carbon footprints (2016, background): “…redirection of household expenditure from categories with the highest GHG intensities (e.g. mobility) to less GHG intensive consumption categories (e.g. cultural and recreation activities or education) also falls under the broader category of direct reduction (Ivanova et al., 2016; Jackson, 2011).”
Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options (2020, background): “port and housing as they are highly relevant in terms of consumption-based GHG emissions [3, 46], energy [47] and other resource use [3] with some of the highest potential for consumption intervention [30, 48].”