Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate

Abstract

Abstract:The article assesses the material footprints of households living on a minimum amount of social benefits in Finland and discusses the consequences in terms of ecological and social sustainability. The data were collected using interviews and a questionnaire on the consumption patterns of 18 single households. The results are compared to a study on households with varying income levels, to average consumption patterns and to decent minimum reference budgets. The low-income households have lower material footprints than average and most of the material footprints are below the socially sustainable level of consumption, which is based on decent minimum reference budgets. However, the amount of resources used by most of the households studied here is still at least double that required for ecological sustainability. The simultaneous existence of both deprivation and overconsumption requires measures from both politicians and companies to make consumption sustainable. For example, both adequate housing and economic mobility need to be addressed. Measures to improve the social sustainability of low-income households should target reducing the material footprints of more affluent households. Furthermore, OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2012, 4 1427 the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.

Eight Tons of Material Footprint—Suggestion for a Resource Cap for Household Consumption in Finland

“…The calculation data used for this paper is mostly the same as in two Finnish research projects on the material footprint of households, "FIN-MIPS Household" [33] and "Basic income MIPS" [29].…”

“…The intention was to apply the increasingly popular footprint metaphor for comprehensively illustrating and communicating resource use and material flows. The term material footprint has mostly been used to describe the life-cycle-wide resource use of products, services, activities, and households on micro level (e.g., [27,29]). …”

The Distribution of Material Footprints in Germany

“…Designing the corresponding policies necessitates data on the amount of biomass, minerals, and fossil fuels used to produce commodities for final consumption and hinges on evidence on how households' material footprints react to incentives, in particular prices. While existing literature provides estimates for countries' material footprints (Muñoz et al, 2009;Schoer et al, 2012;Arto et al, 2012;Bruckner et al, 2012;Wiebe et al, 2012;Kovanda and Weinzettel, 2013;Schaffartzik et al, 2014;Wiedmann et al, 2014;Giljum et al, 2015;Wiedmann et al, 2015;Ivanova et al, 2015;Wenzlik et al, 2015;Giljum et al, 2016) 2 , evidence on the heterogeneity of households' MF within a country is scarce and, furthermore, either focused on exotic materials such as neodymium (Shigetomi et al, 2015(Shigetomi et al, , 2016 or based on very small samples (Kotakorpi et al, 2008;Lettenmeier et al, 2012). 3 This study makes two contributions to a better understanding of households' material footprints.…”

Institutionalization of Sustainable Development in Decision-Making and Everyday Life Practices: A Critical View on the Finnish Case

“…From the point of view of an individual person, however, the standard level of consumption does not mean excessive consumption, and the level of consumption enabled by basic income support certainly does not by any means seem excessive. Normal consumption receives culturally positive meanings, because it enables individuals to participate in and be a part of society [34]. To most people, it signifies wellbeing, not the overuse of natural resources.…”

“…In Finland, the standard level of consumption means that individuals consume significantly more natural resources than that which the Earth produces [34]. Even the standard of living of those living on basic income support in Finland is ecologically unsustainable [35].…”