Exploring the relationship between environmental ...



Critical Review of Data for Environmental Impacts of Household Activities: Executive Summary Report

A research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by The Centre for Business Relationships Accountability, Sustainability and Society.

June 2006

Summary Review of Data for Environmental Impacts of Household Activities

1. Introduction: Background to the Report

The significance of household consumption in the UK goes far beyond its economic value. Socially, household consumption provides us with sources of satisfaction, ways to express our identity, and contributes to the cultural life of the nation. Household consumption also accounts for a considerable proportion of the environmental impacts generated by our way of life and our economy.

To develop a more sustainable society, changes to regulations, production technologies, business practices and government policies will all be important. It will also require changes to the purchasing and consuming behaviour of UK households. Understanding the significance of household consumption in terms of environmental impacts, and developing strategies to reduce these impacts, are major challenges for policy makers. To meet these challenges, they need to have relevant and reliable evidence on which strategies and decisions can be based.

This report provides a distillation of the key findings of the Critical Review of Data for Environmental Impacts of Household Activities conducted for Defra by the Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS), based at Cardiff University. This project sought to identify and review a range of the most useful on-line and in-print data sets, reports, papers and other sources relating to the environmental impacts of household consumption. The aims of this exercise were

a) to provide a comprehensive and critically evaluated summary of available data sets and resources on key components of household consumption that may be used as evidence in future decision making;

b) to highlight those areas where there is currently a lack of reliable and accessible information, which could usefully become the focus of future research initiatives.

In total the BRASS research team identified a wide range of sources and evaluated more than 300 of them. To identify the most useful sources, each was evaluated in terms of :

• the age of the data,

• transparency of data collection processes;

• scope and scale of the data;

• relevance (in terms of focus on home consumption);

• data equivalence and degree of aggregation;

• objectivity (in terms of degree of impartiality and independence);

• quality of analysis and recommendations;

This report highlights the most useful sources reviewed, and some of the key issues raised within them, to enable a picture to emerge of the UK’s environmental impacts of household consumption and what more we need to know about it.

2. Key Questions about the Environmental Impacts Of Household Consumption

Evaluating the environmental impacts of household consumption sounds straightforward, but it requires a number of key questions to be answered, particularly about the four key words, environmental, impacts, household and consumption:

1. What do we mean by “Consumption”? Consumption is usually discussed in economic terms, with an emphasis on expenditure and on purchases of goods and services. From an environmental perspective, it is more useful to consider consumption as a process that encompasses the evaluation, choice, purchase, use and disposal of goods and services.

2. What do we mean by “Household”? In this report it means: “An individual, family, or group of individuals living together as a unit in a home.” UK households are increasingly diverse, and their consumption activities and resulting environmental impacts will vary to reflect that diversity.

3. So what constitutes “Household Consumption”.? For the purposes of this report it is defined as “consumption by individuals living in a household, and includes consumption both in and outside the home. For example, food consumed at home and in restaurants”.

4. What are “Environmental Impacts”: In this report it refers to the impact on the physical or ecological environment. Studies linking household consumption to environmental impacts most commonly focus on release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other air pollutants; use of energy, land, water and other resources; generation of waste; and contribution to the acidification and eutrophication of water resources 4.To understand household consumption from a sustainability perspective, it is also important to consider economic and social impacts, and their inter-relationship. However, this report is focused on environmental impacts, which can take place at any point in the product lifecycle or delivery of the service. This includes :

• Extraction and production;

• Physical distribution;

• Resources consumed by marketing and retail activities;

• The consumers search and purchasing activities (e.g. travel to shops);

• Product use;

• Post-use product disposal.

Physical impacts can also have a social dimension. The aesthetic impacts of a housing development, or a wind-farm that supplies it with power, will depend upon individuals’ personal and subjective perspectives and values.

5. How are environmental impacts measured? Environmental impacts usually relate to the (unsustainable) use of resources; which includes pollution, bio-diversity loss and negative impacts of quality of life including noise, aesthetics and health impacts. Such impacts are measured and expressed in a variety of different ways including :

a) monetary costs of remediation or loss;

b) physical quantities of resources used, or waste or pollution produced;

c) the burden they place on environmental resources.

6. How can we distinguish between production impacts and consumption impacts? Sustainable consumption and production (SCP) are usually considered in tandem. Various attempts to define sustainable consumption specifically have been made. The UNEP 5 views it as comprising “… a number of key issues, such as meeting needs, enhancing quality of life, improving efficiency, minimising waste, taking a lifecycle perspective and taking into account the equity dimension, for both current and future generations, while continually reducing environmental damage and the risk to human health.” In assessing the impacts of household consumption it is difficult to delineate where it begins and ends. If household consumption is responsible for holiday air miles travelled, is it also partly responsible for aircraft manufacture and airport development and operation ? In seeking to understand the environmental impacts of household consumption, drawing absolute boundaries between consumption and production is unhelpful and virtually impossible. Drawing no distinction is also unhelpful, since the focus becomes total economic activity, not household consumption. This report therefore seeks to emphasise:

a) Elements of household consumption that have a significant environmental impact;

b) Elements of consumption where the environmental impacts are most closely linked to behaviour and decision making activities of household members (as opposed to the decisions and activities of producers, or of municipal waste processors).

c) Those elements of production impacts that the consumer is potentially aware of and may respond to (e.g. organic food production, food miles or use of recycled materials).

7. Which products and services should we focus on?

The UK is a culturally rich and diverse country, which means that the consumption of its households encompasses a vast range of different goods and services. A review such as this can only hope to focus on certain aspects of household consumption. It is therefore focussed on those elements of consumption that are widely shared, and that have significant environmental impacts. This includes:

• Dwellings themselves;

• Food : both eaten in the home and elsewhere;

• Other household fundamentals : including energy, water, clothes and shoes, and furniture;

• Household waste;

• Personal travel;

• Electronics, computing (including internet use) and domestic appliances;

• Gardening

3. Influences on the Environmental Impacts of Household Consumption

The most important words for understanding the environmental impacts of any aspect of household consumption are “It depends”, since there are a variety of factors that influence the eventual impacts. Research identifies a range of important influences including: the age profile of the household, its income level, the location of the house (whether in an urban or rural area), access to different forms of transportation, and social background 1. Households are also increasingly fluid. When parents separate they may establish two homes that the children alternate between, duplicating some elements of consumption but spreading others between the households. The UK trend towards a larger number of smaller households has implications for many of the issues tackled in this report. There are one-third fewer people in each household than a generation ago. The average household is now 2.3 people, 0.4 cats and 0.3 dogs 2. In 1961 44% of households were one to two person households, but by 2001 the figure had reached 64% 3.

Partly, the environmental impacts of household consumption depend upon the absolute level of consumption in economic terms. The UK Government’s SCP Framework “Changing Patterns” 6 viewed “Decoupling economic growth and environmental degradation” as an important sustainability strategy. However, this decoupling process will not be easy. Trends in household consumption expenditure against GHG emissions, energy and water consumption, and waste not recycled all suggest that environmental impacts rise as consumers spend more 7. However, the link between the economic and physical dimensions of consumption is not simple. If consumers spend twice as much on food, they are not necessarily buying twice as many items, nor doubling their environmental impact. They could be purchasing more expensive items, including more produce with a lower environmental impact such as organic food. A consumer capitalising on “Buy-one-get-one-free” food offers could also double much of the environmental impact associated with a given level of spending.

When an individual item is purchased and used the ultimate impacts will reflect :

• the nature of the item (e.g. a large or small-engined car);

• how it has been produced (e.g. free-range or battery eggs);

• the distance and mode of travel (e.g. local versus imported foods);

• how the consumer uses it (e.g. using energy saving settings on appliances);

• how the consumer disposes of it (e.g. selling on, or throwing away durable items);

Certain types of goods will also have specific influences, so for example the impact of an electrical item will also depend upon whether it uses renewable energy or not.

Therefore there are a number of factors that can moderate the environmental impacts of a given element of household consumption. Consumers can choose products whose production and supply embody reduced environmental impacts (e.g. organic or locally produced food); or choose products that are efficient in use (e.g. energy efficient appliances,) and use and maintain them efficiently to reduce their impact and extend their lifespan; or reduce impacts by finding a second use for old products (through resale or returning it for remanufacture) or by responsible disposal such as recycling or composting.

The key influences on environmental impacts are therefore:

a) the quantity of consumption;

b) the environmental quality of production, marketing and distribution;

c) the efficiency of consumption (in terms of purchase and use);

d) post-use product disposal.

One final complication is the so-called “Rebound effect”. This refers to consumption increases resulting from the savings associated with efficiency increases 8. If consumers improve their home insulation by 50 %, this will not all translate into reduced environmental impacts. The consumer will use their savings for alternate forms of consumption, perhaps even keeping their home at a warmer temperature.

It is the interaction between the different components of environmental impact (linked to all the stages of the product life cycle) and the various potential moderating factors that makes evaluating the environmental impact of any aspect of household consumption so difficult. Is an organically grown vegetable from another country better or worse than a locally sourced but conventionally grown alternative? Is it better or worse to replace an existing electrical appliance with a new, but more energy efficient, model? These are difficult questions, and precise answers will depend upon the specifics of the products, production processes, product use and disposal. Answers will also vary according to the weights attached to different types of environmental impact. One of the long-running debates is whether disposable nappies are better or worse for the environment than washing and reusing traditional nappies 9. If reducing landfill is emphasised then traditional nappies tend to win this argument, but if energy and water use is emphasised then the disposables can be viewed as preferable.

The better the evidence we assemble about the environmental impacts linked to specific products or specific types of household consumption behaviour, the better we will be able to addresss such questions and develop better products and policies.

4. Environmental Impacts Linked To Dwellings

The home is itself an element of household consumption, as well as the location for much of it. In terms of the environmental impacts of home-buying, there is clearly a difference between buying an existing home and a newly built one. The impacts relating to new homes will relate to the land, energy and the materials used for construction, the waste and emissions generated, and the use of water and discharges to sewer and surface waters. 4,10. For existing homes, when buying, improving or maintaining them, there is also often considerable consumer expenditure on materials, and the volume and nature of these materials will vary according to the size, age and type of dwelling.

Key Information sources on impacts

Entec’s Study of the Environmental Impact of Increasing the Supply of Housing in the UK, (2004) published by Defra 10, considers different housing growth scenarios (from 149-288 K new homes per annum). It focuses on the use of new land and brownfield sites, construction impacts, design issues, occupation issues and also looks at the economic value of environmental impacts, including waste, water, land and CO2 emissions.

For DIY products, both Mintel 11 and KeyNote 12 market data reports show market growth; at 7-8% pa according to Mintel. UK consumer expenditure on DIY tools and materials reached £10.84 Bn in 2004 12. By 2007, the market should be worth £14.8 billion, up 72% on 2001 and 50% on 2002 11. The Mintel report does not mention the potential environmental effects of such growth though the KeyNote report does note that ‘environmental issues concern many of the products sold in DIY shops’.

Key findings

The land-use impacts of planned home building are forecast at between 47 and 78 K hectares of new land between 2001 and 2016. Annual construction impacts using the worst case scenario are forecast at up to 18 million tonnes of aggregates used, 26 million tonnes of CO2 generated and 6.2 million tonnes of waste by 2016 10.

Construction and demolition in England and Wales in 1999 produced over 72 M tonnes of waste (although almost half of this was reused or recycled), and accounted for over 8 M tonnes of oil equivalent in terms of energy 13, but such figures do not separate out housing from non-housing construction.

Various studies investigating the environmental impacts of DIY products for existing homes provide descriptive evidence, but few impacts have been measured and quantified. Some key environmental impacts are outlined below.

Environmental Effects of DIY Products (compiled from various sources14).

|Product |Environmental concerns |

| |Contains harmful chemicals |

|Paint |Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from production and use |

| |Waste management issues |

| |Use of wood from unsustainable sources |

|Timber |Deforestation |

| |Destruction of biodiversity |

|Medium Density Fireboard (MDF) |Release of fine dust and formaldehyde fumes |

|Chemicals e.g. solvents |Pollution risk from spills during production and use |

| |Effects on human health |

|Lighting products |Light pollution |

| |Inefficient energy consuming lighting |

| |Hazardous materials including lead and mercury |

| |Disposal of light bulbs, tubes and fixtures |

|Packaging |Resource use |

| |Waste |

Future research needs

Research opportunities in this area include:

• Understanding the secondary impacts of new housing development (e.g. transport and infrastructure);

• Developing better tools and techniques to aid comparisons between types and locations of planned housing developments;

• Establishing consumer knowledge levels relating to the environmental impacts of specific elements of dwelling construction, materials and maintenance;

• Exploring opportunities for virgin material substitutes such as used glass, shredded plastics and paper sludges;

• More comparisons of environmental impacts of refurbishing and repairing exsiting housing stock against building new houses to traditional specification and to eco-home specification;

• More work nationally and regionally on construction and demolition waste as related to specific types of construction project through longitudinal studies.

5. Environmental Impacts Linked To Food Consumption

Food production impacts the environment through agricultural practices which shape our landscape, strongly influence biodiversity, and contribute to water pollution through farm run-off. There is an abundance of data regarding the impacts of food production relating to the use of water, energy and pesticides in particular. The energy consumed in food storage and transportation also has considerable environmental impact and is the subject of increasing research. However, by contrast relatively limited data exists relating to the manufacturing and processing of individual food products and the environmental effects of food distribution and retail.

The consumer’s influence on the environmental impacts associated with food consumption is largely determined by their willingness to buy products with a reduced environmental impact, including:

• Food produced to organic, or other certified environmental, standards;

• Local and seasonal produce;

• Less highly processed and packaged foods;

• A diet orientated more towards vegetables than meats;

Of course information market failures may mean that consumers’ purchasing decisions do not accurately reflect their willingness to pay for food products with lower environmental impacts.

There are also specific issues in terms of energy used for cooking and food waste. Relatively unusually, food consumption is an area where some consumers can partially fulfil their own needs through growing their own fruits and vegetables.

Key information sources on impacts

Internationally, the report on OECD countries, Sector Case Study on Household Food Consumption Patterns 15 summarises major consumption trends for food products and services and describes the environmental impacts of these trends.

The National Diet and Nutrition Survey 16 and data publications from the ONS/ Defra on Expenditure and Food Survey (EFS) 17 provide expenditure data for a wide range of food consumption related activities. The Family Food Report 18 gives a breakdown of figures on UK household food consumption expenditure, and food eaten outside the home. The Expenditure and Food Survey is one of the few large scale (8000 + households) studies looking at food consumption patterns at the household level, using data derived from household levels surveys. Several studies have also sought to develop eco-footprints relating to food consumption, including studies for Inverness, the South-East, Cardiff and York 19.

The concept of “food miles” has recently emerged as a research and policy topic that may provide a way to evaluate the impacts of eating certain types of food, produced in non-traditional locations. Pettty & Lang’s study Farm costs and food miles 20 provided an analysis combining the environmental costs and impacts of food production and distribution.

Key Findings

• Agricultural production does account for a large proportion of the environmental impacts of food consumption and higher value products involve more energy use through GHG production, transport and processing. The food production system or food chain contributes 7.5% to 22% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions 21,22;

• Organic systems use between 30-50% less energy than conventional counterparts per unit of output 21. If all farms in the UK went organic environmental costs would fall from £1.5bn to less than £400m 20;

• If all food were sourced from within 20km of where it was consumed, environmental and congestion costs would fall from more than £2.3bn to under £230m 20;

• Car based food shopping contributes 0.72% of the total CO2 emissions in the UK, and food distribution approximately 2.5% 21. If shopping by car were to be replaced by travel by bus, bicycle or walking, environmental and congestion costs would fall by a further £1.1bn, from £1.3bn to just over £100m 20. The 2005 Food Miles report from DEFRA calculates that 12.6% of total food transport CO2 in kt of is generated by car transport of food (mostly relating to the movement of foodstuffs from shop to home), and that this equates to some 2,392 kt. The same study identifies the car as responsible for transporting 158 million tonne km of food, accounting for 14,340 million vehicle km82.

• GHG emissions comparisons for foodstuffs reveal that healthier foods (e.g. fresh vegetables, cereals and low fat spreads) produce only between 10 and 25 % of the CO2 per tonne of products like beef, chicken and butter 23. Swedish research shows that a locally supplied vegetarian meal generates 190g of CO2 equivalent compared to an imported meat based meal’s 1800g of CO2 equivalent 24;

• Food related activities including refrigeration, cooking and cleaning amount to 7-12% of total household energy use in European countries 25;

• There is an increasing trend for people to eat outside the home either in restaurants or cafes, at schools, or by using fast food outlets 25. Very limited data exists about the environmental impacts of this.

Future research needs

• Although there have been some studies of the environmental impacts of specific foods (e.g. pasta or cooking oils), the number is limited. There are many foods for which the environmental impacts (either at the household level or further up and down the supply chain) have not been considered. Potential products for future research could include meats, fish, vegetables and fruits, processed foods and oven ready meals.

• Other valuable information for future analysis could include the percentage of organic food consumed, and data on the specific energy requirements to produce locally grown foods;

• Research on eating out, focusing on socio-economic profiles and types of meal, would provide a clearer picture of the impacts of different lifestyle choices. This could include social eating as well as workplace related eating such as school meals;

• More research into households eating processed food on a regular basis as compared to those eating freshly prepared foods regularly would allow better understanding of energy used, emissions generated and waste created by such lifestyle choices;

• A clear understanding and delineation of the boundaries of environmental impacts as directly linked to household food consumption would be beneficial. This could then lead to clearer identification of direct impacts that could be further investigated;

• Thorough LCA studies looking at relative contributions each food makes to meeting dietary needs expressed in carbon emissions per nutritionally balanced portion would allow better understanding of the relationship between healthier food choices and environmental impacts.

6. Environmental Impacts Linked To Energy Use

Many of the environmental impacts linked to energy are associated with production issues in terms of the extraction of coal and oil, the contruction of infrastructure to generate and distribute electricity, and the long-term challenges of storing nuclear waste. The key focus in terms of household consumption is GHG emissions, which are influenced by consumer choices and behaviour, particularly choice of supply and efficiency of use.

Key information sources on impacts

Energy data sources mostly focus on total household energy use, rather than the uses linked to specific activities, or the resulting environmental impacts. The Building Research Establishment’s UK Domestic Energy Fact File 26 provides data on energy consumption, prices, population data, housing stock, insulation, hot water tanks (and insulation), housing stock and energy efficiency, fuels used, as well as looking further at such environmental impacts as CO2 emissions and future scenarios.

The ONS report from Perry Francis on The Impact of UK Households on Environment Through Direct and Indirect Generation of Greenhouse Gases 27, offers a comprehensive review of and data on GHG emissions from energy consumption at regional and household level, from different travel modes (wide range), and from non-energy and travel demands (products and services such as clothing, leisure, food and drink). It provides a coherent and useful overview of the GHG emission pattern from household consumption.

Key Findings

The 2001 European Environment Agency indicator on European household energy consumption 28 revealed that in the UK there has been a moderate increase in final energy consumption, although energy consumption per dwelling has remained fairly stable. Space heating uses most energy per dwelling at 69% (with water heating next at 15%), but due to improved energy efficiency standards, dwellings today need 22% less energy for space heating than those built in 1985.

In 1999 energy consumption in the UK cost only 2.9% of overall household budgets and as a result only the lowest income households are price responsive in their energy demand 29.

UK household GHG emissions rose from 140.7mt of CO2 equivalent in 1990 to 158mt CO2 equivalent in 2001 (although this also includes domestic travel as well as household heating and lighting), an increase of 12.4% (overall emissions decreased over same period by 7.6%). Also most household related GHG emissions are attributable to electricity generation, 168.7 mt in 2001, which relates to 29% electricity consumption by the domestic sector of total electricity consumption in 2001 (creating 49.4 mt of GHG indirectly in power stations), thus forming an indirect household impact 27.

The report also shows that bigger households produce less GHG emissions per capita annually, with households having 3+ occupants generating an average 1.7 t of CO2 equivalent per capita, the average UK household generating 2.4 t and single occupancy households generating 4.1 t. This data is reinforced by the work of Ricki Therivel in a Sustainability Scenario appendix to the Carbon Futures Report 30 who predicts UK household growth of 20% between 2000 and 2020, which creates a challenge in terms of GHG emission reduction.

Future research needs

• Understanding energy use related to specific activities within households.

• Research to explore the relationship between energy use and benefits accrued by householders. This would help to discover the extent to which energy is consumed lighting and heating empty rooms, powering idle computers, or by appliances on “standby”;

• Access to data sets supporting existing energy conservation web sites and guides would be helpful for those seeking to determine impacts of specific activities i.e. making meals, children playing in bedrooms etc.;

• Environmental impacts of different forms of energy generation and energy conservation approaches, especially at the local level or household level, i.e. installation of solar panels at individual household level, building of household scale wind turbines and so on.

7. Environmental Impacts Linked To Water Consumption

Understanding all the environmental impacts associated with water supply and use is made difficult because water “production” combines a natural renewable cycle with man-made systems for purification and distribution. There are production infrastructure impacts in terms of the construction of dams, reservoirs and distribution systems. Impacts related directly to household consumption include the generation of water-borne wastes such as detergents, and over-use during times of drought. However, data tends to reflect total water demand rather than separating out private, public and industrial demand and use.

Key information sources on impacts

Water consumption data is relatively scarce compared to energy. There are aggregate national and regional level data sets available for water consumption but very limited data for water consumption relative to household activities or socio-economic profiles. The most useful source, although dated, is Edwards K and Martin L (1995) A Methodology for Surveying Domestic Water Consumption (SodCon) 31. This annual, large-scale survey of 2000 households by Anglian Water also provides a micro-analysis of 100 households’ water use in terms of specific household activities and appliances.

The European Environment Agency’s Indicator on Household Water Consumption 32 shows two key counterbalancing trends in water consumption. Water savings are accruing as water-using applicances are becoming more efficient (e.g. low flush toilets and more efficient dishwashers) and more householders are switching from baths to showers. These savings are being offset by increases in other equipment (such as pressure washers) and other activities such as watering lawns or constructing swimming pools and water features in gardens. The relatively low cost of water to most households and the fact that many households are supplied through a fixed cost non-metered usage process provides little incentive for saving.

Key findings

• Households account for about 10% of total water consumption in the whole of the EU, and average per capita consumption is about 150 litres per day 32;

• Toilet flushing is revealed to be the main specific water use of UK households (based on England and Wales), followed by personal hygiene and clothes washing 32;

• In England and Wales the annual average water bill has risen by about 1/3 since privatisation in 1989 but still only accounts for about 1% of average household family income. Domestic water consumption has also continued to rise but has remained in the low range as compared to the rest of Europe 32

• Water use by metered customers is about 10% less than by non metered customers 32

• Almost 10 % of sites (26) of special scientific interest in England require remedial action because of water abstraction, many others are being reviewed 33.

Future research needs

• Research could provide more data about water consumption for different activities within households, and how different household types and locations (ie rural or urban) perceive and use water.

• Information on seasonal variations, household use of “grey” water, the use of particular equipment (such as hoses and the growing use of pressure washers), would also provide useful information about household level impacts and current attitudes to, and application of, management of water.

8. Environmental Impacts Linked To Household Waste

The collection, processing and disposal of waste has a range of environmental impacts 4, 13. A large proportion of UK waste is disposed of through landfilling, for example, 24 million tonnes of municipal (largely household) waste was sent to landfill in 2001/2002, which was a 9% increase over the previous six years, although it is expected that this figure will have started to decline in the past one to two years 83. This consumes land and generates carbon dioxide and methane gases. Infiltration of water also creates impacts in terms of pollutants being leached out. The environmental impacts of household waste disposal largely depend upon the municipal waste management strategies and infrastructure in any area. However, certain impacts are influenced by the household’s behaviour in terms of the extent to which waste is segregated for recycling or composting, and also their willingness to convert old but viable products into waste.

Key information sources on impacts

There are a number of large scale household or municipal waste surveys carried out nationally or locally within the UK (and across Europe). Noteworthy studies include:

1. DEFRA (2004) Municipal Waste Management Survey England 2002/2003 34

2. Milton Keynes Council 2000 35 which used a detailed breakdown of waste composition into 70 waste streams and provides detailed disposal route data, and also include household profile data.

3. From Cheshire County Council 2000 36, this included seasonal data across four seasons, thus showing changes over an extended period of time and reflecting specific seasonal household purchasing patterns.

There are also a range of data based articles concerned with the environmental impacts of different waste management options such as recycling 37. Eunomia Research & Consulting, Avon FOE, Network Recycling (2003) Maximising Recycling Rates, Tackling Residuals 38 covers waste types within the context of socio-economic profiles and to look at impacts of technical solutions to waste disposal.

The Cardiff Waste Trial Survey and Evaluation Project 39 dataset and analysis provides an unusually holistic view of products’ lives including: waste arisings, household waste behaviours and management, time of stay of goods within households, environmental and recycling information, awareness and attitudes. It includes spatial data, type of house data, socio-economic profile of household data.

Key findings

• The UK produces over 30 mt of municipal solid waste, around 1.2 tonnes per household. In 2001 17% of this was kitchen waste, mostly food waste. Around 25% of household waste is packaging of which 70% is food related (17.5% of household waste) so in total some 34.5% of household waste is related to the food supply chain 34;

• 68 % and 83 % of the total household waste collected for recycling by local authorities in England and Wales respectively, were collected from civic amenity and bring sites 34;

• There are many studies investigating the factors that determine whether or not people will recycle. The most rigorous and integrated UK study 40 found that :

- recycling is a “low involvement” behaviour that people think little about;

- habit and inertia play an important part in determining people’s involvement;

- those who see recycling as a moral issue and “the right thing to do” are much more likely to be involved;

- for those who are not involved, trying it tends to reduce the perceived barriers and encourage future involvement.

Future research needs

• Considerable evidence exists relating to encouraging household recycling. Comparatively under-researched is the issue of encouraging waste minimisation within households. Linking waste minimisation to purchasing behaviours and choices, and identifying ways in which householders can reduce particular waste streams (e.g. by reducing junk mail) could be valuable research topics;

• As household recycling is set to increase dramatically in the UK, more data is needed on the likely environmental impact of dealing with this material at CA sites, recycling facilities and reprocessing facilities;

• Composting as a domestic waste management activity is comparatively under-researched compared to recycling, particularly in view of its ability to contribute to the reduction in landfill, methane emissions and peat-bog destruction;

• Issues of product durability and product lives within households require more detailed research to understand how products are treated, and the opportunities that exist for refurbishment or reuse. This will be valuable to develop a more sustainable approach to resources, materials and waste management;

• The growth of channels for reuse of items, such as Ebay and Amazon Marketplace, needs to be better understood in terms of their ability to extract benefits from otherwise redundant resources, and to influence consumer behaviour.

9. Environmental Impacts Linked To Personal Travel

The environmental burdens generated by the production, use and disposal of various transport modes include 6:

• resource extraction for infrastructural materials (e.g. roadbuilding), for vehicle manufacture and for fuels, and related impacts (e.g. loss of habitat and species diversity);

• pollution in production (especially petroleum);

• land use for infrastructure;

• ambient and drive-by or fly-by noise;

• emissions from power sources;

• carbon dioxide emissions;

• water vapour emissions (especially from aeroplanes);

• dust (especially brakes and tyres) and particulate emissions;

• the use of hazardous materials in the product or in the production process; and

• disposal issues (especially cars, and key components such as tyres or oil).

Much of the data on transport focuses on two environmental impacts: the use of energy and the generation of emissions (both GHG and non-GHG). Much of the energy use data and research concerns automotive energy use in general, and there is less focus on energy use by type i.e. less on differences in use and environmental implications of petrol, diesel, LPG and other automotive fuels.

Households may adopt a range of transportation modes and trip types. Their influence in terms of environmental impacts will depend on the number of trips, distance travelled, transport mode chosen, and choices in purchase, ownership and disposal of motor vehicles in particular. Calculating the environmental impacts of personal transport involves some danger of “double counting”. For example, fuel consumed to travel to a restaurant could be counted as part of the impacts of the meal, as well as a component of personal travel.

Key information sources on impacts

Available evidence on transport impacts is strongly weighted towards cars and aircraft, as the dominant modes of transport that have substantial environmental impacts. The Transport Trends: 2004 Edition report from ONS 41 and the UK National Travel Survey Update and Focus on Personal Travel from the Department for Transport 42 provide a detailed overview of transport use. The latter provides data on GHG emissions, air pollutants, energy consumption and fuel efficiency, noise and land take. It also includes data on travel trends by household income, age and gender of traveller, and type of trip.

Towards Greener Households : Products, Packaging and Energy 2 is one of the few reports that attempts to look at the energy use implications of transport modes and use at the household level. The EEA Report on Transport final energy consumption by mode 43 looks at transport types and can be related to household use when linked with travel data from other reports.

The Aviation Environment Federation report From Planes to Trains 44 looks at what train travel and short haul air travel offer to consumers, how the two travel modes can interact, what the environmental implications of each are in relation to energy used and NOx, and looks at domestic air travel trends, locations and potential demand. It includes estimated environmental and cost savings from transfer of air travel to train

Emissions data forms a large proportion of the sources available. Again, the main focus is on automobile emissions, and GHGs are a key concern. Monitoring of ACEA’s Commitment on CO2 Emission Reductions from Passenger Cars 45 provides a very good level of analysis of the impacts of this specific GHG. The 2004 ONS report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transport 46 provides trend analysis and compares emissions from different vehicle types as well as different transport modes.

There are also increasing numbers of studies and collections of data on waste related to transport types, mainly progressing from the implementation of producer responsibility approaches to environmental legislation i.e. the End of Life Vehicles Directive in Europe. There are some studies that provide quite a detailed analysis of the trends relating to ELV data, for example the Generation of Waste from End- of-Life Vehicles 47 work from the European Environment Agency. Essentially this is linked to end of life vehicle producer responsibility schemes and legislation, but there is little data on end-of-life (or even during life) waste related to other transport modes (such as trains).

Key findings

• Energy use, emissions and to some extent waste, dominate the environmental impacts of household transport consumption. The European transport sector accounts for 32% of final energy use and 29% of CO2 emissions in Europe, and the increase in energy use between 1990 and 2000 for rail transport was 10%, road 19% and air 58% 29

• Some modelling techniques have been developed for EFA studies to provide local estimates, for example the Footprint reports of Inverness and the South East 19. Cars in the SE make up 2% of total material of household durables and relate to a material consumption of 50kg p/yr. Cars include by weight 50% steel, 11% plastics, 11% aluminium, 5% rubber;

• The most significant categories of car use are leisure (40% of trips) commuting (30% of trips) and shopping (20% of trips) 29

• Per model comparisons of impacts are common for cars, but not for other transport modes (such as bicycles, trains and aeroplanes);

• Per model or per vehicle data is often limited in scope, for example only applying to new vehicles and only giving in-use data under ideal (Type Approval) conditions. This ignores the potential influence of the driver, the weather or road conditions;

• The Civil Aviation Authority has air passenger survey data which could be valuable for future analysis if combined with specific data on distances travelled. The DETR document Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000 48 presents the national forecasts for the future demand for air travel, by passenger numbers, at UK airports as a whole between 1998 and 2020. This suggests that forecast terminal passenger numbers at UK airports, 1998 to 2020 (m), using the highest scenario, would increase from 237.4 million in 2005 to 460.8 in 2020.

• Passenger air travel in Europe increased by 7.5% between 1993 and 1999 and by 7% increase between 1999 and 2000 29.

Future research needs

• More primary research or improved data sources are needed for the environmental impacts of specific household journeys at the local level;

• More realistic data is needed for short trips in older vehicles where the environmental burden may be disproportionately high;

• Better data is needed linking travel consumption with lifestyles, socio-economic profiles, social trends and household structural changes. For example the growth in travel demand for international weddings, weekend ‘stag’ and ‘hen’ trips. This could be linked to comparative data on journey options and travel modes at household level i.e. train, plane, bus or car and associated environmental impacts and economic costs;

• Data on impacts other than energy use and emissions could be developed more fully, i.e. land-take, noise, waste issues. More focus on the environmental impacts of individual or limited passenger number modes of transport could be conducted to look at the economic and environmental efficiencies of promoting their use, examples being, bicycle, walking and others;

• More research into the environmental impacts of public transport in comparison with automobile transport for specific types of household related travel, and further research into the factors determining householder choice between transport modes for specific journeys.

10. Environmental Impacts Linked To Electrical Goods & Domestic Appliances

The production of electronic equipment creates environmental impacts through energy and material use, waste generation, and from the use of substances such as lead in solder and chlorinated fluoro-carbons (CFCs) as solvents. Sales of electrical and electronic goods have increased rapidly driven by rapid innovation, product improvements in terms of the features available for a given price, and a growing “gadget” culture. To keep up with innovations and trends, consumers are now frequently movitaved to replace products that are still in working order 13. These trends have implications for material and resource use and also for waste management options. Waste management has become the dominant issue facing the industry in terms of environmental impacts following the recent introduction of take-back legislation focusing on electrical and electronic products (the WEEE Directive49).

Understanding the impacts of electronic equipment is made difficult by its diversity. Computers are relatively well researched due to concerns over the hazardous nature of Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) and also their potential for reuse. However, the majority of small electrical and electronic products, which form over one third of the household EEE waste stream, 50 receive little attention from researchers.

Key information sources on impacts

Trends in manufacturing and purchasing growth are described in market reports for the sector such as Mintel 51 and KeyNote 52 reports. These rarely discuss the environmental implications of forecast market growth. Reports covering the environmental impacts of specific products are emerging, but this is creating a very piecemeal understanding of the market as a whole. Computers and the Environment: Understanding and Managing their Impacts 53 for example by Kuehr and Williams provides a coherent and accessible analysis of environmental impacts including waste and energy. It also traces the origins of the problem and its growing importance, and examines potential practical responses.

Carbon Futures for European Households 54 includes input-output data for a large range of appliances and other household items such as heaters, washing machines and TVs in terms of energy consumption, emissions, hours of use, and number owned.

A key source for the impacts of electronics waste is the ICER Status Report on WEEE (2001 – update due 2005) 55, which covers the amount of equipment entering the UK waste stream, material content, recycling rates and barriers to increased recycling. Data sources that look at hazardous waste and WEEE in the UK are beginning to emerge, the report by AEA Technology Report to DEFRA on WEEE and Hazardous Waste 56 being one such detailed source. There have also been a number of high profile reports focusing on the hazards and high-risk environmental impacts of WEEE.

There are studies that look at material flows in relation to certain products, these tending to focus on technical aspects, but perhaps more interesting work has been done in recent years on electrical and electronic product durability, repair and the potential for changes in design and ownership models. Tim Cooper at the Centre for Sustainable Consumption in Sheffield Hallam University has carried out key research on the use and disposal of household EEE, and repair activities and product durability of a variety of household items, some of which relates to EEE. His reports on Prospects for Household Appliances: E-scope Project (2000) 50 and more recently his Repair Activity in the UK: a Review. Draft Report (2004) 57, are well evidenced and detailed analyses, and represent practically all of the data in this area.

A study by Berkhout and Hertin 58 Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies on Environmental Sustainability: speculations and evidence, summarises recent literature on the environmental impact of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the Internet. The main types of effects that they may have are direct environmental effects related to production and use such as pollution, resource use and disposal. It also examines positive indirect effects gained through dematerialisation, virtualisation and demobilisation; and indirect effects through their impact on values and lifestyles. This very useful report concludes that ICTs are having profound environmental impacts both positive and negative, but does not distinguish between home use and use in other locations.

Key Findings

• Cooper and Mayer’s report shows that households own, on average, 25 appliances. Ownership of products within the households studied had increased by around 60% in the previous five years. The product stock was relatively young, most products (88%) being under 10 years old and more than half (57%) under 5 years old 50.

• Teenagers get a new phone every 11 months, adults every 18 months. A total of 15 million handsets are replaced each year. The average computer’s in-home lifespan has fallen from 4-6 years in 1997 to under 2 years in 2005 13.

• In terms of environmental impact, there is a key focus on product energy use and associated emissions when in use. Pearson’s appendix for the Lower Carbon Futures Report predicts washing machine ownership to increase from 22,752,000 to 26,702,000 between 2000 and 2020, and carbon emissions to increase from 0.663 to 0.707 from averages of washing machine use during this period. They also predict increases in ownership and emissions of dishwashers (2.2 million to 2.4 million and 0.250 to 0.290), tumble driers (8.5 million to 9.8 million and 0.346 to 0.409), TVs (43 million to 53 million and 0.576 to 0.819) and microwaves (19.8 million to 23.8 million and 0.188 to 0.251). The general trend is therefore for increased ownership and increased emissions, with few exceptions (fridge freezers being one with an increase of stock owned from 15.6 million to 17.7 million but a slight reduction in carbon emissions from 1.058 to 0.994) 54

• The OECD Working Party Report on Decision-Making and Environmental Policy Design for Consumer Durables (2002) 59 identifies that the share of residential electricity used by consumer durables across all OECD countries has grown significantly. Examples include tumble dryer energy use increasing by a total of 32% between 1990 and 2000 across all OECD countries, dishwasher energy use increasing by 26.7%, and TV energy use by 17.2%. They estimate that standby power alone of appliances and other domestic equipment is responsible for 1.5% of total electricity consumption, and also contributes 0.6% (68 million tonnes) of CO2 emissions (which is equivalent to CO2 emissions of 24 million cars).

• Boardman (2004) 60 shows that energy use of fridges and freezers alone in the UK is 15% of the (115 TWh) domestic sector’s 35% share of total electricity used in the UK. Boardman also reveals that despite the introduction of an EU Energy label for new domestic cold appliances which has led to a 25% improvement in energy efficiency, a 19% reduction in electricity consumption per appliance, a reduced life cycle cost to consumers of 16% (lower purchase price and reduced running costs), the increase in number of households and levels of appliance ownership has meant that achieved efficiencies have largely been offset.

• A report produced by Oftel in 2002, based on a residential survey, shows that ‘there is a sustained rise in Internet penetration, accompanied by a rise in PC ownership’, 47% of UK homes have Internet access and 58% of UK homes have a Personal Computer (PC) 59. The Ofcom Internet and Broadband Update, produced in April 2004, shows that Internet access in UK homes had risen to 53% (equivalent to around 13 million homes) and 64% of UK adults now have a PC at home 62. However, neither of these reports makes any allusion to the potential environmental impact of growing household internet use.

• As with the consumption of many other products and services covered in this review of evidence, the consumption of electronic and electrical equipment is clearly affected by trends in family and household size. The Mintel 2003 Fridges and Freezers Report 51 shows this clearly linking data on the growth of the one person (6.86 million households to 7.88 million households) and two person (8.33 million households to 9.23 million households) household between 1998 and 2003, and the growth in consumption of fridges and freezers as retail volume sales of all refrigeration appliances grew by an estimated 27% between 1998 and 2003. They identify other factors as assisting the growth in sales, including increased spending on advertising by manufacturers, a strong housing market, and increased consumption of new types of fridges including large size US style larder fridges.

• The Poison PCs and Toxic TVs Report (2003) 64 is a very thorough breakdown of PC materials and components and their potential hazards and effects on humans and the environment. For example, they state that of the 315 million computers in the US that are likely to have become obsolete between 1997 and 2004, plastics make up an average 13.8 pounds per computer leading to more than 907 tonnes of plastic waste from this period in the US alone. The largest volume of these plastics are polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which creates substantial hazards through fumes if burnt, and the generation of dioxins and furans. Each computer CRT display unit may include between 4 to 8 pounds of lead when all components of the CRT are taken into account much of which has gone to landfill in the past. This would enable an understanding of the environmental risks facing households from the use and disposal of these products;

• The production of a PC including the material production and manufacturing processes uses 240kg of fossil fuels, 22kg chemicals and 1500 kg of water 53;

• UK households throw away about 1 million tonnes or 93 million items of electrical and electronic waste annually. Large appliance such as washing machines make up about 70% of the total weight, but only 16% of the products, small appliances are 30% of total arisings but make up only 8% of weight. Consumer equipment makes up 13% of total tonnage, and this includes TVs, hi-fi equipment and other products (ICER Update Spring 2005) 65;

• More than a third of householders (38%) said that they rarely or never got products repaired. One in ten discarded products (10%) still functioned but were not donated or sold to others for reuse 57;

Future research needs

• Currently, research and data on the environmental impact of household EEE is inconsistent and tends to focus on certain product groups, for example, large household appliances. There needs to be a more holistic approach to researching the environmental impact of EEE, from manufacture, use, reuse, recycling and disposal. This needs to be in terms of material use, impacts during use, consumer lifestyle choices, product durability and repair, reuse, recycling and disposal. Although this information exists in part for different products, it would be helpful if a number of items of household EEE were assessed in a comprehensive way;

• Small EEE forms a substantial proportion of household waste arisings (37%), and this figure is increasing. More research and data gathering needs to be carried out on this ‘small WEEE’ if an understanding of the range of products, nature of components and materials, specific environmental impact and potential for diverting products away from landfill is to be achieved;

• A fuller understanding of the potential role of refurbishment and reuse of ‘waste’ products needs to be gained. The role of social enterprises may form such an understanding;

• A comparative analysis of environmental impacts and specification of major EEE could be carried out based on the data provided by manufacturers;

• Research mapping the impacts of technological change on waste management strategies and regulation would help to avoid the situation whereby current measures are shaped by yesterday’s technologies;

• Consumer behaviour in relation to faulty or old-generation equipment needs to be better understood in terms of the factors that promote or deter repair or responsible disposal.

11. Environmental impacts from purchase and use of ‘other’ household goods

Although the preceding sections cover those elements of household consumption that are generally acknowledged to account for the majority of households’ environmental impacts, there are a range of other elements of household consumption that have environmental implications including gardening products, clothes and shoes, furniture, kitchenware, cosmetics and toys.

Key information sources on impacts

The Office for National Statistics publishes comprehensive data on UK household expenditure. The latest publication, Family Spending: A report on the 2002-2003 expenditure and food survey (2004) 17 provides information on the weekly expenditure on household goods and includes data on those household goods selected for analysis in this section. One finding of the report, that has relevance for this section, is that the amount spent on clothes and footwear by households is the fifth biggest weekly expenditure (after transport, recreation and culture, food and non-alcoholic drinks, and housing fuel and power). This report also analyses weekly expenditure according to socio-economic characteristics, region and place of purchase. For instance, spending on clothing and footwear was highest for other outlets (55%) with 17% taking place at large supermarkets.

Key Note has published market reports on many of the ‘other’ household products that were included in the analysis of this section, including; clothing 66, footwear 67, furnishings 68, furniture 69, videos and DVDs 70. Likewise Mintel has published numerous market reports on household products including; clothing 71, footwear 72, books 73, stationery 74, cosmetics 75, toiletries 76, accessories 77. Despite both Mintel and Key Note publishing detailed information on household consumption, market size, market and economic trends and market forecasting, these reports do not contain information concerning the environmental impact of these products. Indeed, data in general on the environmental impact of household purchasing of ‘other’ goods was difficult to find.

Very few reports do exist in relation to environmental impacts of these other activities and products. One report that does provide a useful summary is the Study On Hazardous Household Waste (HHW) With A Main Emphasis On Hazardous Household Chemicals (HHC) 78 published by the European Commission in 2002. This contains information about a wide range of hazardous products, including paint, fluorescent tubes and low energy light bulbs, arsenic treated wood, car oil filter, cleaner and care household products, house and garden pesticides, and as such covers at least one aspect of many of these other products.

Key findings

• In total 25 million UK households buy over 100 billion goods a year, some 4,300 on average for a two person household. Smaller households (one person) buy 3,400 items on average, while larger ones buy more, some 5,100. In the average two person household this breaks down as 2,850 food and drink items, 470 personal care and clothing items, 180 home and improvement items, and 800 education, leisure and transport items 2

• For gardening Mintel estimates, in the Gardening Review UK 79 report, that the 2003 market was worth £4,450 million, up from £3,350 million at the start of the decade (Mintel, 2003b). While the Mintel report makes no reference to environmental issues, a Key Note report 80 notes that ‘environmental issues [related to gardening products] are likely to gain importance over the next 5 years’. These issues include:

a) Air pollution from lawn mowers and power tools;

b) Freshwater used to water gardens;

c) Pesticide use and pollution;

d) The use of fertilisers and pollution of the water table;

e) The destruction of native plant species and habitats;

f) The use of peat, leading to the destruction of natural peat lands.

While it is clear that gardening at home has a number of adverse environmental effects, this investigation concludes that so far these effects have mostly only been described and not measured. There may be a relationship between the numbers of households that spend time gardening and the numbers of households that actively home compost. Additionally, there may be positive trade offs in gardening as a pastime if it means household members are then not engaged in more polluting or energy intensive activities. If either of these possibilities are the case it may mean that the overall negative impacts of gardening are outweighed by the positive impacts.

• A number of market reports detailing consumption trends for ‘other’ household goods exist, but information on their associated environmental impacts is much sparser.

Future research needs

• There are a huge number of activities that take place at the household level, or external to the home but as part of the daily life of the household, that have environmental impacts. These activities have received relatively little attention by researchers or data gatherers and this gap needs to be addressed;

• A prioritisation of household activities, products purchased or services used needs to be undertaken, perhaps based on one of the key data sources such as Family Trends

• Gardening, DIY and the Internet are only three activities that are likely to figure largely on any dataset focusing on household consumption trends. Other activities or sectors may relate to medicines and pharmaceuticals, leisure activities and sports, cigarettes and tobacco and a range of others;

• Implications of new technologies supporting the Internet need to be researched especially in relation to duplication of product purchases, durability, fashion and technological change. Such items may include MP3 players, internet accessible mobile phones and wrist watches, new material based screens using paper and nano technologies.

12. Conclusions

A brief overview such as this can only hope to highlight some of the key issues and trends in the environmental impacts of UK Household consumption. Despite the diversity of both household consumption and its environmental impacts, certain common themes have emerged from the review of the available evidence.

1. We are much more certain about the economic and quantitative aspects of consumption than about its quality and environmental impacts. Detailed data on current sales volume and trends, and robust growth forecasts, are available for all the economically important market sectors. Information about environmental impacts it much more difficult to find.

2. Where environmental impacts are measured in a particular market, these tend to reflect one key environmental impact (for example GHG emissions) rather than a holistic picture of the overall environmental impacts of a product;

3. Research is emerging which shows clearly which elements of household consumption are responsible for the most significant environmental impacts 4. This provides opportunities to focus research efforts, policymaking and communications efforts to greatest effect;

4. Some environmental impacts, such as impacts on biodiversity, are not yet well linked to specific elements of household consumption by research or evidence;

5. Most environmental impacts can be moderated through particular changes to consumption behaviour amongst households. However, consumer behaviour in relation to pro-environmental behaviours is under-researched compared to consumer behaviour in purchasing products. The opportunity to influence any aspect of consumer behaviour will partly depend on the economic and social/symbolic implications of particular products. These issues are dealt with comprehensively by Professor Tim Jackson’s report “Motivating Sustainable Consumption”. 81

References

1. Munksgaard, J., Pedersen, K.A. and Wier, M. (2000), Impact Of Household Consumption On CO2 Emissions, Energy Economics 22 (4) pp 423-440;

2. Komijman, J. (2000),  Towards Greener Households – Products, Packaging and Energy, INCPEN : Reading.

3. IDG Report:

4. Tukker, T., Huppes, G., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A. van Oers, L., Suh, S., Geerken, T., Van Holderbeke, M., Jansen, B. and Nielsen, P. (2005), Environmental Impact Of Products (EIPRO), European Science and Technology Observatory;

5. UNEP (2001), Consumption Opportunities: Strategies for Change, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris.

6. Defra (2003), Changing Patterns: UK Government Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production

7. SDC (2004), All Consuming: Sustainable Consumption Roundtable: Response to ‘Taking it on’ Consultation, Sustainable Development Commission, London.

8. Herring, H. (1999). Does Energy Efficiency Save Energy? The Debate and its Consequences, Applied Energy 63, 209-226.

9. EA (2005), Lifecycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Nappies in the UK, Environment Agency, London.

10. Entec (2004), Study of the Environmental Impact of Increasing the Supply of Housing in the UK, Defra, London.

11. Mintel (2003), DIY Report, Mintel, London.

12. Keynote (2003) DIY Report, Keynote, London.

13. Biffa, (2003), Future Perfect, Biffa, High Wycombe.

14. Compiled using data from : [accessed January 26th, 2005]; [accessed January 26th, 2005]; [accessed January 26th, 2005]; [accessed January 26th, 2005];

15. OECD Sector Case Study on Household Food Consumption Patterns, OECD, Paris.

16. FSA ( 2002), National Diet & Nutrition Survey: Adults aged 19 to 64, Food Standards Agency, London.

17. ONS (2004) Family Spending : A report on the 2002-2003 Expenditure and Food Survey, Office of National Statistics /Defra, London.

18. Defra (2004) The Family Food report Family Food - Report on the Expenditure & Food Survey, Defra, London.

19. Eco-footprints relating to food consumption : see for example Barret, J., Cherrett, N., Hutchinson, N., Jones, A., Ravetz, J., Vallack, H. & Weidmann, T. (2001) A Material Flow Analysis and Ecological Footprint of the South East. Project Report. Taking Stock, Managing Our Impact. Taking Stock : Brighton or Collins, A.., Flynn, A. and Netherwood, A..(2005) Reducing Cardiff’s Ecological Footprint. A Resource Accounting Tool for Sustainable Consumption (WWF).

20. Pretty and Lang, T. (2005), Farm Costs And Food Miles: An Assessment Of The Full Cost Of The UK Weekly Food Basket, Food Policy ;

21. Defra (2000) Climate Change: The UK Programme, Defra, London.

22. Garnett, T. (2003) Wise Moves. Exploring the Relationship Between Food, Transport and CO2, Transport 2000 Trust : London;

23. Energy Analysis Programme (2000), V3.2 University of Groningen

24. 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), pp.277-293;

25. Michaelis, L. and Lorek, S. (2004) Consumption and the Environment In Europe: Trends and Futures, Environmental Project No. 904, Danish Ministry of the Environment

26. BRE (2004) UK Domestic Energy Fact File, Building Research Establishment, London.

27. Francis, P. (2004) The Impact of UK Households on Environment Through Direct and Indirect Generation of Greenhouse Gases, Economic Trends 611, ONS, London..

28. EEA (2001) Indicator on European Household Energy Consumption, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

29. Michaelis, L. and Lorek, S. (2004) Consumption and the Environment In Europe: Trends and Futures, Environmental Project No. 904, Danish Ministry of the Environment;

30. Sustainability Scenario Appendix to : Fawcett, T., Lane, K., Boardman, B., with, Banks, N., Griffin, H., Lipp, J., Schiellerup, P., Therivel, R., Blok, K., van Brummelen, M., Eising, K., Zegers, F., Molenbroek, E., de Almeida, A.T., Nunes, C. & da Silva Mariano, J. (2000) Carbon Futures for European Households (Lower Carbon Futures), Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford : Oxford

31. Edwards, K. and Martin, L. (1995) A Methodology for Surveying Domestic Water Consumption (SodCon), Anglian Water

32. EEA (2001), Indicator on Household Water Consumption, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

33. English Nature and EA (1999) Water Abstraction and Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England, English Nature and the Environment Agency, London;

34. DEFRA (2004) Municipal Waste Management Survey England 2002/2003, Defra, London.

35. Milton Keynes Council (2000), Waste Composition Audit,

36. Cheshire County Council (2000), Household Waste Composition Report

37. Craighill, A.L. and Powell, J.C. (1996), A Life-Cycle Assessment And Economic Valuation Of Recycling : A Case Study, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39, pp. 97-112.

38. Eunomia Research & Consulting, Avon FOE, Network Recycling (2003) Maximising Recycling Rates, Tackling Residuals

39. O’Bara L. (2004), The Cardiff Waste Trial Survey and Evaluation Project Report, BRASS Research Centre, Cardiff University.

40. Davies, J., Foxall, G.R. and Pallister, J. (2002), Beyond The Intention-Behaviour Mythology: An Integrated Model Of Recycling, Marketing Theory 2 (1), pp. 29-113;

41. Office of National Statistics (2004) Transport Trends : 2004 Editions ONS : London

42. Dft (2005) UK National Travel Survey Update and Focus on Personal Travel, Dft : London

43. European Environment Agency (2003) TERM 2003 01 EEA-17 – Transport Final Energy Consumption By Mode, European Environment Agency : Copenhagen

44. Aviation Environment Federation (2000) From Planes to Trains,  Friends of the Earth : London

45. European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) /Commission Services (2003) Monitoring of ACEA’s Commitment on CO2 Emission Reductions from Passenger Cars (2002),

46. ONS (2004) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transport, ONS, London.

47. EEA (2003) TERM 2002 11a AC (WMF13) – Generation Of Waste From End- Of-Life Vehicles : European Environment Agency Copenhagen

48. DETR (2000) Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000, DETR : London;

49. European Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE);

50. Cooper, T. and Mayers, K. (2000) Prospects for Household Appliances: E-scope Project, Sheffield Hallam University

51. Mintel (2003) Desktop PCs UK Report  Mintel : London; and Mintel (2003) Fridges and Freezers Report  Mintel : London

52. KeyNote (2005), Computer Hardware Report. Keynote, London.

53. Kuehr, R. & Williams, E. (Eds) (2003), Computers and the Environment. Understanding and Managing Their Impacts, Kluwer Academic Publishers

54. Fawcett, T., Lane, K, Boardman, B, with, Banks, N., Griffin, H., Lipp, J., Schiellerup, P., Therivel, R., Blok, K., van Brummelen, M., Eising, K., Zegers, F., Molenbroek, E., de Almeida, A.T., Nunes, C. & da Silva Mariano, J (2000) Carbon Futures for European Households (Lower Carbon Futures) Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford : Oxford

55. ICER Status Report on WEEE (2001 – update due 2005)

56. AEA Technology (2004) report to Defra on WEEE and Hazardous Waste AEA Technology : Harwell

57. Cooper, T. (2004) Repair Activity in the UK: a Review.  Draft Report. Centre for Sustainable Consumption Sheffield Hallam University : Sheffield

58. Berkhout, F. and Hertin, J. (2001) Impacts of Information and Communications Technologies on Environmental Sustainability: Speculations and Evidence, a Report to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Social Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex,

59. OECD (2002), Working Party Report on Decision-Making and Environmental Policy Design for Consumer Durables, OECD, Paris

60. Boardman, B (2004) New Directions for Household Energy Efficiency: Evidence from the UK, Energy Policy Journal, 32 (17), pp. 1921-1933

61. See: [accessed January 25th, 2005].

62. Ofcom Internet and Broadband Update (2004) See [accessed January 25th, 2005].

63. Kleijn, R. (Editor), Hansen, E., Huppes, G., McLaren, J., Pesonen, H., Steevels, A., Vanakari, E. & van der Wel, H. (1999), Electronic Consumer Goods: Case report, CHAINET

64. SVTC (2003) Poison PCs and Toxic TVs, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition: San Francisco.

65. ICER (2005) Status Report on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the UK, Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling, London

66. Key Note (2004) Clothing Retailing Market Report,  KeyNote : London,

67. Key Note (2002) Footwear  Market Report, KeyNote : London

68. Key Note (2002) Home Furnishings Market Report, Key Note: London

69. Key Note (2002) Household Furniture Market Report, KeyNote: London

70. Key Note (2002) Video and DVD Retail and Hire Market Report,  KeyNote: London

71. Mintel (2000) Clothing Review Mintel : London

72. Mintel (2003) Footwear Report, Mintel : London

73. Mintel (2002) Books Report, Mintel : London

74. Mintel (2002) Stationery Report, Mintel : London,

75. Mintel (2003) Cosmetics Report, Mintel : London,

76. Mintel (2000) Toiletries Report UK Mintel : London

77. Mintel (2003) Accessories Report, Mintel : London.

78. Gendebien, A.,   Leavens, A, Blackmore,  K., Godley, A., Lewin, K. Franke B. and Franke A. (2002) Study On Hazardous Household Waste (HHW) With A Main Emphasis On Hazardous Household Chemicals (HHC) European Commision, Brussels.

79. Mintel (2003) Gardening Review, Mintel : London

80. Key Note (2003) Garden Equipment 2003, Keynote, London.

81. Jackson, T. (2004), Motivating Sustainable Consumption, Sustainable Development Research Network, London.

82. Watkiss, P. (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development Report produced for DEFRA AEA Technology : Didcot

83.

-----------------------

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |[pic] |

| | | |

|Nobel House | | |

|17 Smith Square | | |

|LONDON SW1P 3 JR | | |

| | | |

|.uk | | |

[pic]

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download