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

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 h...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Satu Lähteenoja, Kristiina Aalto, Senja Laakso, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Michael Lettenmeier
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2012-06-01
Series:Sustainability
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/7/1426
id doaj-cddcb51bfa2d4f8b9ba7dde9c841f560
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cddcb51bfa2d4f8b9ba7dde9c841f5602020-11-25T01:18:11ZengMDPI AGSustainability2071-10502012-06-01471426144710.3390/su4071426Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability DebateSatu LähteenojaKristiina AaltoSenja LaaksoTuuli HirvilammiMichael LettenmeierThe 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, the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/7/1426consumptionhouseholdsocial sustainabilityincomesufficiencyecological sustainabilitynatural resourcesMIPSmaterial footprintecological backpack
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Satu Lähteenoja
Kristiina Aalto
Senja Laakso
Tuuli Hirvilammi
Michael Lettenmeier
spellingShingle Satu Lähteenoja
Kristiina Aalto
Senja Laakso
Tuuli Hirvilammi
Michael Lettenmeier
Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
Sustainability
consumption
household
social sustainability
income
sufficiency
ecological sustainability
natural resources
MIPS
material footprint
ecological backpack
author_facet Satu Lähteenoja
Kristiina Aalto
Senja Laakso
Tuuli Hirvilammi
Michael Lettenmeier
author_sort Satu Lähteenoja
title Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
title_short Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
title_full Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
title_fullStr Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
title_full_unstemmed Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
title_sort material footprint of low-income households in finland—consequences for the sustainability debate
publisher MDPI AG
series Sustainability
issn 2071-1050
publishDate 2012-06-01
description 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, the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.
topic consumption
household
social sustainability
income
sufficiency
ecological sustainability
natural resources
MIPS
material footprint
ecological backpack
url http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/7/1426
work_keys_str_mv AT satulahteenoja materialfootprintoflowincomehouseholdsinfinlandconsequencesforthesustainabilitydebate
AT kristiinaaalto materialfootprintoflowincomehouseholdsinfinlandconsequencesforthesustainabilitydebate
AT senjalaakso materialfootprintoflowincomehouseholdsinfinlandconsequencesforthesustainabilitydebate
AT tuulihirvilammi materialfootprintoflowincomehouseholdsinfinlandconsequencesforthesustainabilitydebate
AT michaellettenmeier materialfootprintoflowincomehouseholdsinfinlandconsequencesforthesustainabilitydebate
_version_ 1725143255743463424