jensen o. j. 2008

8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

1/9

ANALYSIS

Measuring consumption in households: Interpretationsand strategies

Jesper Ole Jensen

Danish Building Research Institute, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:

Received 31 October 2006

Received in revised form

31 March 2008

Accepted 31 March 2008

Available online 27 May 2008

The paper discusses the connection between environmental awareness and metering data

on household consumption (electricity, heating, water), and it is based on recent Danish

studies. It is discussed, how families' understanding of environmental awareness and

environmental practices relates to their overall household consumption. The paper

indicates that residents' environmental practices in everyday life are often overshadowed

by consumption practices in other areas, and that such practices are often rooted in quite

different rationales than environmental awareness. These findings are seen as an example

of what Pierre Bourdieu calls the economy of symbolic goods (Bourdieu, 1998; 92), offering

an explanation forwhy some symbolic actions apparently play a largerrole than other,more

environmentally serious consumption practices. From this, it is argued that the social

structures underlying consumption and green behaviour should be recognised in theformulation of environmental policies, and that instead of using sustainable practices such

as environmental awareness as a sales argument, more reflexive strategies that take

consumers' preferences into account should be considered.

2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Consumption

Households

LifestyleSustainability

1. Introduction

It has often been said that our lifestyle determines the way weinfluence the environment, and therefore we should changeour lifestyle. There are several things that point in thedirection of increased environmental awareness in our life-style, for instance that ecological modernisation improves

our possibilities to act in a more environmentally friendlymanner (Spaargaren, 2000). Over the last 20 years, people inDenmark have been exposed to a number of campaigns thathave sought to influence behaviour so that they become moreenvironmentally friendly. Campaigns have encouraged peopleto turn off the light when it is not being used, to buy energy-saving bulbs, to take the bicycle to the baker on Sundays, andmost recently to reduce the stand-by consumption. These

things are often referred to as green lifestyle, environmen-tal awareness or good energy behaviour. One the otherhand, other influences are encouraging us to buy morematerial goods than ever before, thereby generating morewaste and traffic, using more resources and emitting moreCO2 into the atmosphere. Lifestyle has been used in severalresearch studies to understand and explain different con-

sumption patterns (see Lutzenhiser, 1993), but these studieshave encountered problems in linking actors' environmentalawareness and measured consumption, and then relatingthis to lifestyle theories. In the following, some of theseproblems will be discussed, first by outlining some principallydifferent ways of understanding lifestyle, and then bypresenting examples of different types of research on lifestyleand consumption.

E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 3 5 3 3 6 1

Tel.: +45 45742358; fax: +45 45867535.E-mail address: [email protected].

0921-8009/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.016

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w . s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.016mailto:[email protected]

8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

2/9

2. Lifestyle in theory and practice

Lifestyle is a way of talking about differences in people'sactions and their worldview. Amongst theorists themselves,however, lifestyle is used very differently and in manydifferent connections. One can roughly distinguish between

those who understand lifestyle as substituting class, andthose who see lifestyle as a more abstract notion of class.The first group includes sociologists such as Anthony Giddens,Ulrik Beck and Zygmunt Baumann. They generally describehow modern and late-modern man has been liberated fromthe structures and norms of former times, and increasinglyhas to decide, make choices and act reflectively on choices ofjob, education, partner, home, consumption etc. The disap-pearance of norms and economic limitations has removed therestriction of individual choices in pre-modern society, under-mined the notion of class, and made the individual life-style a more appropriate way to describe differences inaction, worldviews and consumption (Giddens, 1996; Beck,

1997; Bauman, 1998). Another group of theorists, typicallyfrom an anthropological or ethnological background, haveinstead been interested in different groups within society,whose identity or worldview remains largely unchanged overtime. Influential theorists on consumption and lifestyle arePierre Bourdieu and Mary Douglas (and in a Danish contextThomas Hjrup). Here lifestyle is understood as differencesaccording to habitus of the bourgeoisie, petit bourgeoisie andworking class (Bourdieu, 1984), worldviews amongst individu-alists, hierarchists, collectivists and fatalists (Douglas andIsherwood, 1996) or different forms of life, defined by theirway of earning a living (wage-earners form of life, self-sufficient form of life, career form of life, and investor form

of life (Hjrup, 1989)). These three theorists all believe thatwithin certain lifestyle groups there are similar consumptionpatterns that differentiate them from other lifestyle groups.This has made their theories attractive as a way to understanddifferent consumer behaviour and consumer segments. Theirlifestyle categories have much in common. For instance,Douglas' hierarchists, Bourdieu's working class andHjrup's wage-earning form of life share a number ofsimilarities, although they are defined in different contexts.In Denmark, Hjrup's theory and easily recognisable forms oflife have been very influential in many Danish consumerstudies aiming to understand and explain the rationalesbehind different consumption rationales. It has also been

combined with Douglas' group-grid analysis, and Bourdieu'stheory of habitus, to develop a widely used tool for consumer-segmentation (Dahl, 1997). However, the underlying concept isthat all lifestyle categories are artificial and will never befound in their pure form in reality; they will merely bereflected by reality.

The two different understandings of lifestyle mentionedabove one seeing lifestyle as a choice of the individual, theother regarding lifestyle as a structural phenomenon aredifficult to merge into onetheory, although attempts have beenmade (for instance Johansson and Miegel, 1992). Instead, onemust accept thatdifferent methodsand approachescanbe usedto understand how lifestyle influences consumption, and eachmethod will reveal different aspects (Lsse, 2000; Wilk, 2002).

In the previous research on lifestyle and consumption,three principally different approaches can be outlined (for amore detailed description, see Jensen, 2002):

One approach focuses on certain environmentally friendlypractices in everyday life, for instance to sort waste, buyorganic food, buy low-energy fridges etc., and sees suchdifferences as a result of different lifestyles (for instance,

Bennulf, 1995). The problem of focusing of certain greenpractices is that other, and more ordinary practices in theeveryday life, are overlooked. (Lidskog et al., 1997). Thereforeone can easily be surprised to note large differences betweenattitudes (to green products) and action (actual consumption)(Broegaard and Holm Pedersen, 1997). Moreover, the use ofempirically based lifestyle categories in this type of research(for instance, large consumers, rejecters, willing etc.) hasbeen criticised by several social scientists because of thenarrow understanding it presents of the actors' rationales forconsuming (Kuehn, 1998).

Another and more quantitative approach is based onconcrete measurements of consumption of electricity, heat-

ing, water, waste production, transport etc. amongst differentfamilies, blocks of flats, residential areas etc. Lifestyle isoperationalised as socio-economic and demographic data (theresident's age, occupation, income, gender, education, ethni-city etc.). This enables analysis of possible lifestyle parametersinfluencing consumption in one specific direction. In Den-mark, a number of such studies were conductedin the wake ofthe first energy crisis in 1973, including comparisons of theenergy consumption in different types of buildings (forexample: Budde, 1988). This revealed large variations inconsumption amongst households and families, occupyingtechnically similar buildings. Lifestyle was, however, primar-ily defined as a matter of different activity patterns, and not,

for instance, as the social understandings and rationalesbehind the consumption, or the attitudes, values and experi-ence of the resident which drive his consumption. Suchstudies gave a good picture of the variations in householdconsumption, but the limited theoretical basis and thequantitative approach offered little explanation of the reasonfor the variations.

A third approach can be labelled the consumption ofeveryday life. The theoretical departure is that ordinary waterand energy consumption has a social and cultural meaning,and the dynamics of theconsumption are to be found in socialfactorsrather than as a result of the environmental awarenessor income of the individual (see for instance Wilk and Wilhite,1985; Lutzenhiser, 1992, 1993, 1994). Focus has been onordinary consumer practices (bathing, use of freezers, airconditioning, washing machines etc.), the social and culturalconstruction of them, their relation to technical and societaldevelopments etc. One example is Wilhite et al.'s comparisonof Norwegian and Japanese households, where differentconsumption levels reflect very different, culturally deter-mined understandings and practices in relation to bathing,heating, dining, comfort etc. (Wilhite et al., 1996). In Denmark,Susanne Kuehn in her PhD study explored the connectionbetween lifestyle and energy consumption on the basis ofBourdieu's theory of habitus and lifestyle (Kuehn, 1998). Sheconcludes that energy consumption cannot be considered afield for social action in everyday life; instead, energy

354 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 3 5 3 3 6 1

8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

3/9

consumption arises as an unintentional consequence ofpeople's social positioning in other fields, and thereforethere is little direct connection between lifestyle and energyconsumption. This approach, in line with the consumption ofeveryday life mentioned above, explanations where con-sumption comes from, and why, for instance, large con-sumers act as they do, by rendering probable the rationales

behind their consumption.This line of studies, especially inspired by Bourdieu's Dis-

tinction and Douglas and Isherwood's The World of Goods, waslabelled as The Cultural Turn when the studies emerged inthe 1980s. They came in a period of research dominated by aneconomic understanding of consumption, where lifestylewas used to explain the remainingirrational behaviour thatcould not be explained by economic rationality. This devel-opment partly reflects an increasing interest from socialresearchers to take up environmental studies, which for along time has been dominated by natural scientists, especiallyengineers.1 In spite of the much broader understanding ofconsumption represented by the Cultural Turn and its

successors, it also has its limitations in understandingconsumption behaviour. For instance, it gives little explana-tion on the large individual differences that are typicallyfoundwithin certain lifestyle groups, cultures or neighbourhoods.Also, by seeing consumption as culturally rooted, possiblechanges can be more difficult to identify. There is little chanceof making Norwegians take up Japanese practices, or turningthe 68 generation into young ecologically conscious con-sumers. Finally, it has been criticised for being too toleranttowards consumption growth, by trying too hard to explainand understand the rationales and forces behind consump-tion growth instead of focusing on ways to reduce theenvironmental impacts of consumption (Warde, 2001). How-

ever, within this group of studies there are major differences,for instance between Bourdieu's understanding of consump-tion as related to issues of status, symbolism and socialdistinction, and those who see consumption as a matter ofreproduction of habits, routine or convention (Wilhite et al.,2000; Shove, 2002).

Generally, the emphasis on lifestyle seems to place much ofthe responsibility of solving environmental problems on theindividual consumer, despite the often limited options forchange. Also, a consumer-oriented policy might legitimise anabsence of public regulation. A Danish PhD study has pointedout that young ecological consumers are calling for more publicpolicy and regulation to support for theirprivate environmentalconcerns (Halkier, 1999). Amongst the consumers there is a lackof trust that environmentally correct consumption alone cansolve the problems, and they are uncertain aboutthe long-termconsequences of different choices in the everyday consumption(ibid.). Instead, attention should be paid to identifying thedriving forces shaping consumption, including infrastructure,technology and norms for comfort, cleanliness and conveni-ence (Wilhite et al., 2000; Shove, 2002).

3. Danish studies of lifestyle and householdconsumption in residential areas

The possibilities and problems of studying lifestyle andconsumption can be illustrated by some recent studies ofresidential areas in Denmark. The studies can be seen as an

attempt to combine a quantitative approach with a culturalunderstanding of consumption (cf. Table 1). A main intentionwas to combine maps of social segregation in the city withmaps of segregation in consumption in order to illustrate thelinkages between lifestyle and consumption. The aim was toreveal basic consumption patterns, partly as a reaction tomore normative understandings of green lifestyle, like forinstance different guidelines to green lifestyle, to sustainablebuilding, or studies focusing on single green attitudes andtechnologies (for instance waste sorting) without includingthe whole consumption pattern. The research has generallybeen based on an everyday-consumption approach, incombination with an exhaustive use of household consump-

tion data (heating, electricity and water), as well as lifestyleindicators and building data. By focusing on ordinary settle-ments, this research breaks with previous studies that havemainly included green settlements and ecological buildings. Amain challenge has been to explore possible connectionsbetween the different types of indicators, and to establishtheoretical understandings. As a general thesis, it has beenexpected to find relations between the social segregation andthe measured consumption in different neighbourhoods.

1 This is especially for Denmark, and probably also in Europegenerally.

Table 1 Three approaches to studying lifestyle and

consumptionConsumption

as greenlifestyle

Consumptionby indicators

Consumptionas culture

Lifestyleconcepts

Empirical,constructedperiodically

Expressed byindicators suchas socio-economy,demography,ethnicity etc.

Cultural andsociological

Methodology Primarilyqualitative

Primarilyquantitative

Quantitativeand qualitative

Rationale Normative.Green

behaviourcontrolled byvalues andattitudes.

Demonstrative.Consumption as

a function ofmeasurable andquantitativerelations.

Explanatory.Consumption

as culturallyand sociallyconditioned.

Strength Focus onbarriers to agreener lifestyle

Objectivemeasures,based onquantitativedata.

Understandingdifferentrationales forconsumption

Weakness Selectiveunderstanding.Focusing ongreen practicesand overlookingordinary

consumption

Lack ofunderstandingbehindconsumption.Limited byavailable data.

Overlooksindividualdifferences,limited focuson possibilitiesfor change.

355E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 3 5 3 3 6 1

8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

4/9

One of the first examples of such studies wason differencesin waste production between different neighbourhoods. Jen-sen argues in his study, that household and dwelling sizeexplain little about the differences. Instead, he argues thatamongst the different lifestyle groups (forms of life) dom-inating the neighbourhoods, there are different saving ratio-nales (environmental awareness, income level and

Puritanism), which can explain the differences in wasteproduction ( Jensen, 1996). A study of residential areas inAalborg, Marling and Knudstrup has mapped the type ofbuildings and resource consumption of the areas, and theresidents' socio-economic status. The areas are divided intofour, according to type of buildings: Low-scattered (detachedhouses), high-scattered (newerresidentialblocks), low-density(terraced houses), and high-density (older apartment blocks incitycentres). The studyconcludesthat high-densityapartmentblocks generally have the lowest consumption rates, andthereby points at the importance of choice of dwelling, whendiscussinglifestyle and consumption (Marling and Knudstrup,1998). A mapping of residential areas in rhus, based on

resource consumption, socio-economy, age-profiles, anddwelling types concludes that the dwelling consumption(square meter per resident) is a decisive factor for the overallconsumption. It also demonstrates that it is very difficult topoint at a clear connection betweenlifestyle, dwelling type andresource consumption (Jensen and Gram-Hanssen, 2000). APhD study exploring consumption patterns in low-densityresidential areas in rhus also shows that dwelling consump-tion is a decisive factor for resource consumption, but also thatthere are major differences (6700%) in consumption ratesbetween households living in the same type of dwelling(Jensen, 2002). Thispartly reflects differences in age andfamilytypes,for instance families with small children typicallyhave a

lower consumption per person, than the empty nesters.Interviews reveal that different uses of the dwelling provideanother reason; a high consumption might be due to muchtime spent in the home, andmany activitiestaking place there,whereas low consumption in some cases reflects muchabsence from the home due to travelling, use of a secondhome, much eating out etc. (Jensen, 2002). A similar study ofseven residential areas in Albertslund includes more detailedexplorations of the technical standards of the buildings, andthese turn out to have large influence on the differencesbetween the households' heat consumption (in spite of theirapparent similarity). For electricity, the number and use ofappliances accounts for a major part of the consumption,whereas the number of electricity-saving devices has nosignificant influence on overall consumption. For both heatand electricity there are examples that a low consumption isrooted in behaviour, upbringing or environmental awareness,but this is no general tendency, as other factors have asignificant influence, for instance income, age, dwelling typeetc. (Gram-Hanssen, 2003).

These and other studies clearly indicate lifestyle-rooteddifferences in resource consumption. This is either due tolifestyle as culture (Wilhite et al.,1996), class and habitus(Kuehn,1998),formoflife(Jensen,1996),dwellingtype(Marlingand Knudstrup, 1998; Scheurer, 1998), use of dwelling (Jensen,2002) or attitudes to consumption (Gram-Hanssen, 2003).These differences are, however, far from general, and more-

over interpreted within different theoretical (and empirical)frameworks that make comparisons and generalisation diffi-cult. For instance, it ispossibleto findan example ofa familyinAalborg with a working-class habitus, having a low consump-tion of energy and water, and examples of the opposite inAlbertslund. Comparisons can be further complicated ifdifferent units for measuring consumption (per household,

per capita or per square meter) are used, which unfortunatelysometimes is the case. Most Danish studies use consumptionper capita, where a measurement per dwelling or per squaremeter would give quite different results ( Jensen, 2002; Gram-Hanssen, 2003).One of the generalconclusions of the studiesisthat a growingdwelling consumption, in terms of more squaremeters of dwelling per capita, is a central driver for higherconsumption. This has also been identified as a general trendin Europe (European Environmental Agency, 2001), where anincrease in small households and more people living aloneleads to increasing consumption.

3.1. Problems of measuring lifestyle

So far, the conclusions to be drawn on sustainable lifestylesfrom using only metering data are limited, and there aredifferent reasons for this.

No matter which parameters are used to determine thegroup or segment (income, education, dwelling space, dwell-ing type, age, family type etc.), differences in the measuredconsumption within the group are always striking. In spite ofselecting, for instance, households of similar type of building,dwelling space, age, income, etc. differences of up to 700%between the lowest andhighestconsumption are not unusual.These differences are, however, often only for one type ofconsumption (electricity, heating, water). Typically, the pic-

ture is mixed, and the distinction between low consumers andhigh consumers is rarely unambiguous; most householdshave areas where the consumption is high, and areas where itis low (see Fig. 1).

The figure shows that there is no clear connection betweenconsumption of heating, electricity or water; one householdwould have a high consumption level of electricity, but a lowheating consumption level and vice versa with otherhouseholds. Only a few of the 61 households have a generallylow consumption level of heating, electricity and water. Thissuggests that the connection between lifestyle and savinghabits is rather blurred. Interviews also clearly indicate, thatsaving habits (aiming at reducing consumption of energy andwater) are not rooted in one specific lifestyle, but that suchactions can be rooted in quite different rationales peoplewith very different lifestyle can have different rationales andways of reducing their consumption. This makes it difficult tosee the direct connection between consumption and lifestyleindicators, and to use lifestyle theory for segmentation ofmeasured consumption. Other factors, such as type of homeownership, can also form structural possibilities for changingindividual consumption patterns. For instance, in socialhousing estates, replacement of fridges, freezers, stoves,toilets, windows and other domestic technologies that influ-ence consumption of energy and water will typically be madecollectively and decided at estate level, reducing the indivi-dual resident's influence on consumption. In contrast


8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

5/9

homeowners are free to change their appliances wheneverthey want (which does not necessarily lead to lowerconsumption).

As actual consumption is so strongly influenced by age,family type etc. it is difficult to isolate the lifestyle factor,understood as the residents' attitudes, habits, values, world-views etc. In general, collecting and arranging data is verytime-demanding, and there are many sources of error. Also,the available metering data has a number of inherentlimitations, as it does not include:

The environmental consequences of the consumption,determined by the local infrastructure (how is heat,

electricity and water provided, how is waste and sewagetreated?)

The non-metered consumption in the home (food, cloth-ing, furniture etc.)

The consumption outside the home (transport and travel,restaurants, leisure activities etc.).

The metering data must be seen as an indicator, coveringonly the direct consumption of the dwelling, but we have littleknowledge to which degree the metered consumption is a fairindicator for the overall consumption and environmentalconsequences. As mentioned before, there are examples of ahigh consumption reflecting a (to a certain degree) self-sufficient household, and a low-consuming household reflect-

ing much time spent outside the home, which suggests thatthe connection between household consumption and overallconsumption might not be linear.

4. Green contra ordinary consumption

A central questionis, how efforts to increasethe environmentalawareness, the belief in the green consumer and the greeningof lifestyle influence consumption by households. The largedifference in consumption between apparently similar house-holds has been interpreted as a potential for reducing the

consumption by the high consumers, based on the assumptionthatthe saving practices adoptedby thelowconsumers could betaken up by other families. This will be discussed in thefollowing, based on interviews conducted with families ineight different households (Jensen, 2002) about their everyday-consumption habits and environmental awareness.

4.1. Knowledge is not enough

Amongst the interviewed families (in Jensen, 2002), few knewhow much electricity, heating or water they actually con-sumed per year. Several families took notice of the quarterlyaccounts from the suppliers, and compared their annualconsumption with the one from the year before, but did not

Fig. 1 Consumption data on electricity, heating and water per person, from 61 households with 4 residents in a neighbourhoodin rhus with a similar type of houses. Consumption rates between lowest and highest household vary by app. a factor 7 forelectricity, a factor 3 for heating, and a factor 6 for water.


8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

6/9

compare this to neighbours, similar families, average con-sumption rates etc. In line with other studies this shows thatthe consumption measured on the meters does not to anylarge degree serve as a guideline for consumption practices.Furthermore, knowledge about own consumption, and aboutthe practices that lead to higher consumption do not auto-matically lead to changed habits. For instance, one family

were perfectly aware about heat-loss in the boiler that couldbe avoided by buying a new one, but they had decided to usethe money to go on holiday instead. Also, several familiesknew that their stand-by consumption was responsible for alarge part of their electricity consumption, but this was notenough to make them turn off their appliances when not inuse ( Jensen, 2002).

Generally, the answers indicate that environmental aware-ness is considered as something to be manifested throughbuying green or labelled products (especially the so-called -label, for organic farming), rather than not buying or not usingcertain products or actions. One family said that it isexpensive to be environmentally aware, although they can

afford to buy low-energy bulbs and the organic food theyprefer. However they also say that they really would like atumble dryer and would buy it the moment they could affordit. This is probably typical for many families' understanding oftheir own consumption pattern: environmental awareness isa luxury you have to be able to afford. In practice, however,being able to afford green products also means you can affordother things, e.g. a car, a larger house, more white hardwareetc., that increases the consumption of energy. A Danish studyamongst 800 households in Odense documented this appar-ently contradictory link between green consumption andactual consumption: families who had the largestnumber oflow-energy bulbs (and were most in favour of green taxes,

renewable energy etc.) also had the largest electricity con-sumption in the home. They live in larger houses, have morecars, travel more, have larger fridges etc. The families livingmore humbly, with less consumer goods, fewer trips abroad,and with a lowerenergy consumption, have a lower number ofgreen products in the home, and were generally moresceptical about green taxes (Broegaard and Holm Pedersen,1997). The consequence of making sustainability a matter ofthe type of goods you purchase therefore excludes non-consumption as a strategy; it is not possible to label a tumbledryer you do not own.

4.2. Gaps between attitudes and actions

Another striking, but related element, is the apparentdiscrepancy between environmental awareness and environ-mental action. The actions that residents define as a matter ofenvironmental awareness are generally small, visible and oflarge symbolic meaning. In contrast, there are many largeconsumption items, which are not defined as environmentalactions (travel for holidays in exotic destinations, a largedwelling, using light and heat for ambience etc.). Theenvironmentally conscious actions emphasised by residentsare typically using low-energy bulbs, taking short showers,turning off lights and the tap when not in use, washing on 60instead of 90, buying organic food, A-labelled white hardwareetc. Parents are generally upset when their children do not

follow these rules, and take long showers and forget to turn offthe light and TV. All in all, these little actions are stronglyassociated with environmental awareness.

Similarly, a number of other consumer habits were notincluded or mentioned as environmental actions, althoughthey had much larger consequences for the households'consumption of energy and water. For instance: living without

a tumble dryer, a dishwasher, a car, using a limited number oflamps, not going abroad for holiday etc. These consumptionchoices were not grounded in environmental concerns, but inother rationales such as, we prefer dim light, a car would justtake up space at the parking lot, we like to experienceDenmark (holidays), the tumble dryer just wears out theclothes, it is cleaner and costs practically the same as othermodels (a low-flush toilet) and others. These statements showthat substantial environmental consumer choices are notbound in environmental concerns, but in a number of otherrationales; comfort, practical sense, economy, cleanliness etc.These practices stand in deep contrast to the smaller habits,defined as environmentalactions,both in termsof howtheyare

formulated, and their environmental importance.A couple with low-energy consumption interviewed about

their everyday-consumption and saving habits (Jensen, 2002),emphasised their purchase of low-energy bulbs, reducing heatin the living room, taking short showers etc. What they did notmention was that theydid not own a car, a dishwasher, or theirown washing machine (they used the one in the communitybuilding, and washed a couple of times a week). Later in theinterview, when their reactions in thewake of thefirst year withindividual meters and green accounts in the area werediscussed, they mentioned this absence of consumer goods,and that they spent half of the summer in their allotmentgarden which was obviously one reason for their consump-

tion being so much lower than their neighbours. Although theyhad a clear impression about the habits actually influencingtheirconsumption(not owning a car, a dishwasheror a washingmachine), this was not what they emphasised, or evenmentioned, when their daily saving habits were discussed.

A parallel and similar example was a young couple in aninterview expressing their financial restrictions on actingsustainably. Forinstance, theywouldlike to buyenergy-savingbulbs, but as they had little moneytheyfeltthatthey could notafford it. This was also the case about organic food, which theywouldliketobuymoreoftenthantheyactuallydid.Laterintheinterview, when more general consumption patterns werediscussed, they expressed that when they could afford it, theywould really like to have a tumble dryer. Also, they revealedthat due to their limited financial resources they had no car,and had to rely on public transport and bicycle ( Jensen, 2002).However, the family did not see the absence of a tumble dryeror a car as part of an environmentally friendly lifestyle. In theirunderstanding, an environmentally friendly lifestyle was to amuch greater extent related to purchasing energy-efficientconsumer goods, such as energy-saving bulbs.

4.3. Symbolic and significant environmental consumption

practices

The interviews revealed some patterns in what types of actionin everyday life are understood as conservation practices and


8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

7/9

environmentally friendly consumption and also howdifferent types of consumer activities are valued, comparedto their environmental effects. Analysed from the outside,housing consumption, type of dwelling and heating system,number of appliances in the home and similar, could belabelled as significant environmental practices as they greatlyinfluence the household consumption of energy and water.

Analysed from the inside, from the consumers perspective oneveryday life, purchasing environmentally sound products(such as energy-saving light bulbs), taking shorter showers,washing clothes at lower temperatures and similar practicesare typically considered as being obvious conservation prac-tices. Similarly, strong feelings of guilt, shame and irritationare attached to sloppiness and wasting electricity, heat andwater, such as leaving the lights or television on, letting waterrun from the tap or enjoying long showers. These types ofactions could be labelled symbolic as the actual environ-mental effect is limited compared to the significant actions,but the communicative power is much stronger. These forcesseem to be much more powerful than the knowledge and

interest about the actual consumption of the household,which was limited for most families.

At the same time, practices with a much greater environ-mental effect, such as the use of heating and light to create afeeling of comfort, frequent washing of clothes, consumergoods such as tumble dryers and dishwashers, a larger houseor a holiday in exotic countries are not to the same extentcounted as directly negative environmentally practices.Although the respondents actually had a lot of energy-savingpractices, such as not having a dishwasher or going on abicycle-holiday in Denmark instead of flying abroad onholiday, these practices were not emphasised at all, or evenmentioned, in the discussion about the respondents' environ-

mental practices in everyday life. This is probably not becausethe respondents werenot aware of the environmental benefitsof those practices, but because these practices and actionswere not carried out with the intention of being environmen-tally correct.

Seen from a theoretical perspective, Bourdieu's theory onthe economy of symbolic goods could offer a way to under-stand how and why environmentally sound behaviour ineveryday life from an ordinary consumers perspective isnot achieved through minimal consumption of energy andwater, but rather through symbolic actions (such as buyinggreen products). Bourdieu's description on how the individualagents manage to act according to a social agenda seems tooffer a reasonable explanation:

What is required is not that that one does absolutelyeverything that one should do, but rather that one at leastgives indications of trying to do so. Social agents are notexpected to be perfectly in order, but rather to observeorder, to give visible signs that, if they can, they willrespect the rules (Bourdieu, 1998, p.98).

According to Bourdieu, being too literal about the agenda which in environmental terms could include actions such asselling the car, moving to an eco-community, or a house withless space, with the explicit aim to stay within the ecologicalspace would stamp you as strange, weird, and holy, or as

Bourdieu puts it, under suspicion of taking a universalposition (Bourdieu, 1998). This is probably why the threelow-energy bulbs give much more socialcredit than cancellingthe holiday to the Caribbean, in the name of the environment.Although, from a rational viewpoint, most people are aware ofthe environmental differences between the two types ofactions, there is according to Bourdieu a shared and tacit

knowledge amongst the actors of not to being too explicitabout it; talking too much about the factual differences wouldspoil the effect of the symbolic good. The taboo of calcula-tion, common self-deception and structural hypocrisy aresome of the phrases used by Bourdieu to characterise thisrelationship (Bourdieu, 1998 p.9597).One consequence is thatthe focus on the symbolic actions and the neglecting ofeveryday habits that are not being defined as environmentalactions probably means that the large consumption differ-ences revealed by the green accounts come as a great surpriseto many residents.

5. Visualising consumption re-designingsustainability

There is an obvious potential in visualising consumption ofenergy and water from everyday practices, for instance byusing green accounts, and then starting the discussion on thedifferences in consumption. This is not only to increaseknowledge about consumption, but also to enable goals andstrategies to reduce the consumption. Green accountsobviously make it possible, from a objective point of view,to discuss more directly and openly, the reason for differencesbetween apparently similar households. This could make it

more legitimate to talk about lower temperatures in the livingroom, doing without a dishwasher, using the washingmachine fewer times per week, and other practices that arerarely labelled as environmental in everyday language. Thisis the experience from housing estates, where consumptionchanges from collective to individual payment caused neigh-bours to compare their consumption levels, without making ita question of who is more environmentally aware.

Another, but similar theme revealed by the interviews, is athe general tendency to reject more radical changes in habitsamongst the respondents. This includes the use of alter-native technologies such as rainwater collection and solarpanels, as well as changes of habit, for instance washing less,

using public transport more frequently and others. Typically,this was rejected by we would like to do more if we had thetime, if we could afford it, ..unfortunately, .it isprobably unthinkable... Apparently, such solutions, in spiteof their environmental benefits, are regarded as being toodifferent and troublesome, and too much associated with agreeny segment or alternative lifestyle. What often seems tobe neglected is that for many people,it is crucial not to be seenas belonging to this greeny segment, and therefore theyreject technologies or habits which make them seem tooradical; too alternative. Making green synonymous withalternative, norm-breaking, ordifferent will seemattrac-tive to some, but it will repel others. When persuading peopleto buy or use certain environment-friendly products or


8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

8/9

practices, it is not enough to point at the environmentalqualities of the product alone. The interviews withthe familiesin rhus showed that low-consuming technologies andactions were chosen for a number of other reasons andqualities economy, comfort, health, taste, design, access tocleaning etc. Also, studies of reasons for purchasing differenttypes of products show that the environmental qualities (eco-

label, recyclability, energy consumption etc.) in general ranklow, compared to price, quality, power, durability etc. (Wiese,2001).

Promotion of green technologies therefore should be care-ful to emphasise such qualities of the products. Moreover,many green technologies emphasise a design that stronglysignals sustainability or greenness, and thereby con-sciously makes a distinction from traditional types ofproducts. One example is sustainable buildings that seemrepulsive to most people, not because of the low prices or thelow consumption, but because of the different lifestyle andsocial agendas attached to them. However, today there is anew generation of sustainable buildings that aims to be

designed as normal buildings, targeted at the ordinaryDane (Jensen and Gram-Hanssen, in press). Similar strategiescould be followed for sustainable technologies, such as solarpanels, PV's, rainwater collectors, compost toilets and othertechnologies that for many probably bear a strong image ofalternative lifestyle. Parallel to this, strategies concerninghabits and practices should emphasise other qualities thanthe environmental benefits. For instance washing less orat lower temperatures could be promoted by focusing onthe benefits for the consumer, in terms of the reduced wearand tear of the clothes, the financial savings or the reducedwork.

An example from another sector is the strategy ofenvironmental hitchhiking. When traffic planners try totalk municipalities into solutions aiming at reducing CO2emissions, they soon realise that this is of limited interest forthe municipalities, if there are no other advantages combinedwith the initiatives. The strategy ofenvironmental hitchhik-ing suggests selling the environmental benefits on the backof other qualities, such as security, better visual environment,economy etc. (Tolstrup, 2003).

Designing and selling environmental solutions needs to beseen in relation to theaudience.As an example,an evaluation ofa recycling campaign in US hasshown that it is not necessary totell people that recycling is good (people know that alreadyand agree), instead it is important to tell people how easy it is.Also, one has to aware that although recycling was once ahot brand amongst younger people, this is not the case anylonger this does notmean that they areagainst recycling,butcall it something different (Videncenter for affald, 2003). Baddesign might stand in the way of good qualities, which AdrianFortynoted in the case of selling sewingmachines forhomeusein the 1880s in England. Although the sewing machine was anextremely practical toolfor home repairs, it did not sell, becausethe design was too industrial, and industrial products were notwelcome in the home at that time. As soon as the design waschanged, and every reminder of industry had vanished, salesboomed (Forty, 1992).

In general, the task of designing low-consuming technol-ogies and artefacts as normal or neutral has to a large

degree been neglected. What needs to be done is to give a low-consuming lifestyle and technologies a dress, a form, a styleor rhetoric of normality and simplicity.

From a theoretical point of view, the studies show that theoverall consumption cannot be understood as a result of theconsumers' green lifestyle (cf. Table 1) norwoulda purelystatistical approach (consumption by indicators) offer much

explanation to the different consumption levels. Using theconsumption as culture approach is a more fruitful way tograsp the many various rationales and practices influencingthe consumption in the home, and to generate understand-ings about the complexity and contradictions in householdconsumption. Still, it is a challenge to develop lifestyle andconsumption theories in the context of the home, and todevelop a better understanding of thedynamicsin householdconsumption, most studies within the consumption as cul-ture-approach so far (at least in Denmark) have focused onreasons for different consumption levels. Developing anunderstanding of consumption dynamics in the home shouldinclude the effects beyond the individual consumers' control,

even in the consumers' own home, for instance, the local andregional infrastructure and the local housing management,and also attempts to change the behaviour of the individualconsumer should go hand in hand with changed housingmanagement and involvement from the local infrastructureproviders.

6. Conclusions

There is gulf between the social and the objective environ-mental account. This is not just because we lack knowledge,

but also because we respect the taboo of calculation(Bourdieu, 1998 p. 104) whether we are talking about giftsor environmental action. Therefore, more attention has to bepaid to the difference between environmentally conscious andenvironmentally friendly consumption.

The challenge of selling the green message is not amatter of emphasising the green rather the opposite: totone it down, and to emphasise the other qualities of theproducts or practices. But this would demand a more reflexiveeffort from the green salesmen, where actual actions areconsidered more important than the attitudes behind theconsumption. A kilowatt saved because of not drying clothesin the tumble dryer, or to save money on the electricity bill is

as good as a kilowatt saved for environmental reasons. Thisdoes not mean that we should give up teaching and com-municating the message of the environmental consequencesof consumption but that it is not the only solution. Thechallenge is a more reflexive effort where one has to decidewhether to give people the right attitudes or make them do theright actions.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewersfor many constructive comments in the review of the paper.Responsibility for the paper lies however on the author alone.


8/2/2019 Jensen O. J. 2008

9/9

R E F E R E N C E S

Bauman, Z., 1998. Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. OpenUniversity Press, Buckingham, PA.

Beck, U., 1997. Risikosamfundet p vej mod en ny modernitet.Hans Reitzel, Copenhagen.

Bennulf, M., 1995. Vad r det grna? Om livsstilar och milj i olika

sociala grupper. In: Dobers, P., Wolff, R. (Eds.), Miljstrategier -ett fretagsekonomisk perspektiv. Nerenius & Santrus Frlag,Stockholm.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgementof Taste. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Bourdieu, P., 1998. Practical Reason: on the Theoryof Action. PolityPress, Oxford.

Broegaard, E., Holm Pedersen, L., 1997. Husholdningernes elfor-brug en analyse af attituder og adfrd p energi- ogmiljomrdet [Household electricity consumption analysisof attitudes and behaviour related to energy and theenvironment]. AKF Forlaget, Copenhagen.

Budde, J., 1988. Energi- og boligforbrug i forskellige husstande[Energy- and housing consumption in different households].Danish National building Research Institute, Hrsholm.

Dahl, H., 1997. Hvis din nabo var en bil [If Your Neighbour were aCar]. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen.

Douglas, M., Isherwood, B., 1996. The World of Goods: Towards anAnthropology of Consumption. Routledge, London.

EEA, 2001. Environmental Signals 2001. . Localised on http://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicators.

Forty, A., 1992. Objects of Desire: Design and Society since 1750.Thames and Hudson, New York.

Giddens, A., 1996. Modernitet og selvidentitet. Hans Reitzel,Copenhagen.

Gram-Hanssen, K., 2003. Boligers energiforbrug sociale ogtekniske forklaringer p forskelle [Energy use indwellings social and technical explanations on differences].Danish National building Research Institute, Hrsholm.

Halkier, B., 1999. Milj til daglig brug? Forbrugeres erfaringer medmiljhensyn i hverdagen [Environment for everyday use?Consumers experiences with environmental concerns ineveryday life]. PhD report. Sociologi, Copenhagen.

Hjrup, T., 1989. Det glemte folk: Livsformer og centraldirigering[The Forgotten People: Life-Forms and Central Regulation).Danish National building Research Institute, Hrsholm.

Jensen, O.M., 1996. Affald i boligomrder: Livsstil og affaldsvaner[Waste in Residential Areas: Lifestyle and Waste Habits].SBI-rapport 261. Danish National building Research Institute,Hrsholm.

Jensen, J.O., 2002.Lifestyle,Dwelling and Consumption.PhD-Report.Danish National building Research Institute, Hrsholm.

Jensen, O.M.,Gram-Hanssen, K.,2000.Livsstilog energieftersprgsel.Danish National building Research Institute, Hrsholm.

Jensen, J.O. & Gram-Hanssen, K., 2008. Ecologicalmodernization of sustainable buildings: a Danish perspective.Building Research & Information 36 (2), 146158.

Johansson, T., Miegel, F., 1992. Do the Right Thing: Lifestyle andIdentity in Contemporary Youth Culture. Almqvist & Wiksell,Stockholm.

Kuehn, S., 1998. Livsstilens betydning for energiforbruget [TheLifestyle's Influence on Energy Consumption]. SociologiskInstituts Ph.d. serie nr. 6). Sociologisk Institut, Copenhagen.

Lidskog, R., Sandsted, E., Sundqvist, G., 1997. Samhlle, risk ochmilj: sociologiska perspektiv p det moderna samhlletsmiljproblem [Society, Risk and the Environment: aSociological Perspective on the Environmental Problems inModern Society]. Studenterlitteratur, Lund.

Lutzenhiser, L., 1992. A cultural model of household energyconsumption. Energy 17 (1), 4760.

Lutzenhiser, L., 1993. Social and behavioral aspects of energy use.Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 18, 247289.

Lutzenhiser, L., 1994. Sociology, energy and interdisciplinaryenvironmental science. The American Sociologist 25 (1), 5879.

Lsse, J., 2000. Forskning i energi, milj og livsstil forventningerog nytnkning i dialogen mellem samfundsforskning og demilj- og energipolitiske aktrer [Research in energy,environment and lifestyle expectations and innovativethinking in the dialogue between social research and theenvironment- and energy-political actors]. In Gundelach ogKuehn (eds.), 2000. Energi og livsstil. Kbenhavn: KbenhavnsUniversitet, Sociologisk Institut.

Marling, G., Knudstrup, M.-A., 1998. Bymiljindikatorer:

Bymiljvurderingaf danskeboligbebyggelser.Aalborg Universitet,Institut for Samfundsudvikling og Planlgning, Aalborg.

Scheurer, J., 1998. Evaluering af dansk kologisk boligbyggeri ogplanlgning. PhD report. Forskningscenter for skov oglandskab, FSL, Hrsholm.

Shove, E., 2002. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience. The SocialOrganization of Normality. Palgrave Macmillan.

Spaargaren, G., 2000. Ecological modernization theory anddomestic consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy andPlanning 2 (2000) 4. ISSN 1523-908X. - p. 323335.

Tolstrup, S., 2003. Frivillige aftaler som vrktj til at reducereCO2-udslippet fra trafikken. Arbejdsrapport fra MiljstyrelsenNr. 55. 2003. Tholstrup Consult for Miljstyrelsen, Copenhagen.

Videncenter for affald, 2003. Internationalt affaldsnyt 2003, No. 7,pp. 14.

Warde, A., 2001. Themes and Challenges in Consumer Research.Presentation at the Conference Aktuel danskforbrugerforskning Resultater og udfordringer d. 21.11.2001.The Danish Engineers Association Meeting center,Copenhagen.

Wiese, B.S., 2001. The ecological non-seller? On the marketacceptance of environmentally sound products. Paper forInternational Summer Academy on Technological Studies.

Wilk, R.R., Wilhite, H., 1985. Why don't people weatherize theirhomes? An ethnographic solution. Energy 10, 621629.

Wilhite, H., et al., 1996. A cross-cultural analysis of householdenergyuse behaviourin Japan andNorway. EnergyPolicy 24 (9),795803.

Wilhite, H., Shove, E., Lutzenheiser, L., Kempton, W., 2000. Twentyyears of energy demand management: we know more aboutindividual behaviour but how much do we really know aboutdemand? Proceedings of ACEEE 2000 Summer Study.Washington, D.C.

Wilk, R., 2002. Consumption, human needs, and globalenvironmental change. Global Environmental Change 12, 513.

http://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicatorshttp://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicatorshttp://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicatorshttp://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicatorshttp://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicatorshttp://themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/households/indicators

jensen o. j. 2008

Documents