Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rigy20

Download by: [Leabharlann Choláiste na Tríonóide/Trinity College Library & IReL] Date: 29 February 2016, At: 05:26

Irish Geography

ISSN: 0075-0778 (Print) 1939-4055 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigy20

Sustainable consumption and governance:reflecting on a research agenda for Ireland

Anna Davies , Frances Fahy , Henrike Rau & Jessica Pape

To cite this article: Anna Davies , Frances Fahy , Henrike Rau & Jessica Pape (2010) Sustainableconsumption and governance: reflecting on a research agenda for Ireland, Irish Geography,43:1, 59-79, DOI: 10.1080/00750771003732664

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00750771003732664

Published online: 17 May 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 255

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Sustainable consumption and governance: reflecting on a researchagenda for Ireland

Anna Daviesa*, Frances Fahyb, Henrike Rauc and Jessica Papeb

aDepartment of Geography, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland; bSchool of Geography andArchaeology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland; cSchool of Political Science andSociology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Contemporary consumption represents an archetypal ‘wicked problem’, beinglinked to climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion, while alsofunctioning as a cultural signifier and a driver of economic growth andinnovation. The Janus-faced nature of consumption is an important indicatorof the complexity facing those who aspire to encouraging more sustainableconsumption patterns. This paper argues that there are outstanding, and related,areas of contention that need further research in order to generate a morecomprehensive and coherent picture of consumption and how it may be mademore sustainable. In essence attention needs to be paid to the practices ofconsumption, its governance and also how practices and governance interact.This paper examines everyday practices and their regulation in two key areas ofconsumption in Ireland � how we get around (transport) and how we live in ourhomes (heating/cooling, lighting, cleaning and eating) � to identify current gapsin social science research. In conclusion a multi-pronged research framework forapproaching these lacunae is outlined.

Keywords: sustainable development; sustainable consumption; production;governance; environmental policy; Ireland

Introduction

Sustainable consumption has been described by some as the use of goods and

services that meet people’s basic needs and bring a better quality of life while having

only minimal impact on the environment (e.g. Jackson 2006). Undoubtedly the

notion of ‘sustainability’ itself is inherently contestable, and its links with issues of

consumption have triggered significant debates about needs versus wants, quality of

life and degrees of acceptable impact on the environment. In much of the policy

literature, for example, particularly at international and supra-national scales (EU),

sustainable consumption has been allied to sustainable production recognising the

intimate relationship between the two processes. Some have criticised this linking of

consumption and production, arguing that the inclusion of issues of production into

international sustainable consumption debates allows developed countries to shift

attention away from their resource-intensive consumption patterns to more familiar

regulatory arenas. Yet others have welcomed attempts to connect issues of

production with consumption as it draws attention to the global division of labour

*Corresponding author. Email: daviesa@tcd.ie

Irish Geography

Vol. 43, No. 1, March 2010, 59�79

ISSN 0075-0778 print/ISSN 1939-4055 online

# 2010 Geographical Society of Ireland

DOI: 10.1080/00750771003732664

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

and its effects on consumption patterns in rich and poor countries respectively (e.g.

Allen 1993, Clancy 1993).

International policy documents clearly reflect these tensions and debates. The

first global political agreement on sustainable consumption was Chapter 4 of

Agenda 21 at the Rio Earth Summit which stated that ‘action is needed to promote

sustainable consumption and production that will reduce environmental stress and

will meet the basic needs of humanity’ (UNCED 1992). Following on from this, the

2002 WSSD Conference (UNDSD 2002) in Johannesburg indicated a renewed global

policy focus and the agreement to develop a framework of policies on sustainable

production and consumption (SPC). In addition UNEP have been producing regular

reports on SPC since the beginning of the new millennium (see UNEP 2004) and at

the European level the Lisbon Strategy (EC 2000), the Sustainable Development

Strategy (EC 2001) and the 6th Environment Action Programme (EAP) provide

the broad programme for promoting SPC. Indeed in 2004 the EU Environment

Ministers stated that SPC would be a priority for action (EC 2004) and by 2008 the

European Commission had published the ‘Sustainable Consumption and Production

and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan’ (EC 2008) which suggests measures to

improve the environmental performance of products and to increase the demand for

more sustainable goods and production technologies.

To date, much attention to SPC has focused on the supply side, with initiatives

promoting sustainable technologies for energy generation, materials mining and

processing, and product manufacture. This has been accompanied by ecological

modernisation approaches to social and economic policy making and implementa-

tion which emphasise the role of ‘clean’ technologies and which promote technology

transfer from richer to poorer nations as a key strategy for addressing global

environmental problems and sustainability challenges. Despite these developments,

consumption continues to rise unsustainably and the impact of (over)consumption

continues to pose major governance challenges for public authorities at all levels,

businesses and society as a whole (EEA 2005).It is important to note here that governance is evoked in this context because,

although itself the subject of ongoing contestation within the literature (see Kooiman

2003), consumption practices are affected by more than formal structures of

governmental policy. As with other environmental challenges the ways in which

consumption practices are stimulated, supported and transformed also involves

complex interactions between non-state actors and institutions from the private

sector (e.g. manufacturing companies and retailers), civil society (e.g. consumer and

environmental organisations) as well as the actions of societal groups, households

and individuals (see Jordan et al. 2005 and Davies 2008 for further discussion on

environmental governance debates). While improving the sustainability of produc-

tion processes is undoubtedly important, these measures alone are clearly insufficient

to deal with some of the structural causes and consequences of (over)consumption.

This is exemplified by ‘rebound effects’ which occur when cost savings made through

use of more sustainable products, such as low-energy lightbulbs, are used to purchase

other consumables which themselves create environmental impacts. Thus the energy

and emissions savings gained in one arena are lost in another. Further attention also

needs to be paid to demand management and to the interface between consumption

and production processes. In addition, difficult questions remain regarding how a

60 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

shift towards more sustainable consumption might be measured, encouraged and

governed (Seyfang 2006).

Day-to-day choices made by members of households regarding the purchase and

use of products and services represent a key area in which negotiations over

sustainable practices take place. As a result household consumption, which is defined

by the OECD (2001) as the selection, purchase, use, maintenance, repair and disposal

of any product or services by members of a household, is increasingly being

highlighted as an arena requiring attention (Spangenberg and Lorek 2002, Geyer-

Allely and Zacarias-Farah 2003, Michaelis and Lorek 2004, Tucker et al. 2005).

While there are clearly complex connections between production processes and

consumption practices, and while individual behaviour is constrained by historical,

social and cultural conditions, the combined impact of households continues to be a

major cause of environmental pressures. Household consumption in the EU grew by

one-third between 1990 and 2002, and research has suggested that it will continue to

grow over the next 25 years unless action is taken (OECD 2001, EEA 2005). It

remains to be seen how the current economic recession will affect these projections.Although some attempts have been made to advance household consumption

analyses internationally (see Quist et al. 2001, Trentmann 2007), research in this

critical sector of sustainable development is still in its infancy in Ireland, both North

and South. This said, recent social-scientific work by Pender et al. (2007) and Doran

(2007) examines the emergence of embryonic sustainable consumption policy in

Ireland and shows that specific action in progressing sustainable consumption policy

has been very limited to date. These authors also observe that responsibility for

policy on sustainable consumption, general product labelling and environmental

claims remains dispersed across various Government departments, which signifi-

cantly limits the effectiveness of such policies. Within Ireland the majority of projects

have focused on sites of consumption outside the home such as swimming pools and

shopping centres, or within businesses and local authorities, and on general

calculations of consumption patterns through resource flow analysis or ecological

footprinting (Sustainable Northern Ireland 2007, Lammers et al. 2008, EPA 2009).

There is a need to extend this initial work to examine more broadly the context in

which sustainable household consumption and mobility are enacted. Responding to

this need this paper is divided into two main sections. The first provides a review of

sustainable consumption issues. Initially we examine the tools that have been

developed to indicate trajectories towards (or indeed away from) sustainable

consumption and to provide information to incentivise behavioural change.

Subsequently we focus on the behavioural dynamics of consumption and the links

between consumption behaviour and quality of life. Ultimately, we argue that more

attention needs to be paid to both the practices and governance of consumption �where governance is the sum of ways that affairs are managed (Latham 1999) � in

particular contexts.

The second main section of this paper provides a sectoral analysis of

consumption practices and governance in Ireland. Here we consider two key areas

of resource-intensive consumption, everyday household practices (how we live) and

mobility issues (how we move around), and identify areas in need of further research.

In conclusion we propose that problem-centred transdisciplinary research that links

consumption, environment and sustainability through innovative methodologies,

Irish Geography 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

stakeholder dialogue and reflexive modes of governing could help increase the

sustainability of consumption.

Measuring and managing consumption

Establishing goals and measuring outcomes within the complex arena of sustainable

consumption is fraught with difficulties, which often resemble barriers in other areas

of sustainable development (see Bell and Morse 2003, Wheeler 2004). Defining

appropriate indicators, agreeing benchmarks and setting reasonable targets for

sustainability can be problematic, particularly across scales and in different contexts.

When it comes to measuring consumption, which often has multifaceted drivers and

impacts, there are even more densely woven problems related to aggregation.Potential indicators of sustainable consumption, for example measures of the level of

waste recycling or the modal split of passenger transport, frequently appear in state

of the environment reports and sustainable development strategies (for example see

EPA 2006). However, there is generally little analysis of how sustainable consump-

tion in toto might be measured or evaluated and whether it can be simply aggregated

from individual indicators, such as recycling or public transport, or whether there are

cumulative or indirect impacts that aggregation cannot capture (Noland and Lem

2002).A number of sustainability accounting tools, such as Ecological Footprinting and

Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA), have been developed to address the problem of

aggregation. Such tools are central to many attempts to measure the impact of

particular socio-spatial forms (such as communities, cities and even nations) or to

compare the resource intensity of specific products (e.g. plastic or paper cups). The

appropriateness and accuracy of these tools has been subject to intense debate and

criticism (Ayres 2004, McManus and Haughton 2006). Ecological Footprinting, for

example, starts from the assumption that it is possible to objectively know andquantify what makes consumption unsustainable. However, the precise numeric

values which are the result of footprinting measures conceal the various debates over

what should and should not be measured, how it is measured, and even if it is

measurable (Haberl et al. 2001, Hinton and Goodman forthcoming). The lack of

a uniform approach to footprinting (Wiedman and Minx 2008) leads to variability

in footprint size even for the same place or product, indicating measurement and

comparability problems. LCA techniques and carbon calculators reveal similar

problems (Padgett et al. 2008, Reap et al. 2008).While proponents of sustainability accounting tools often recognise the limita-

tions of their methodologies in terms of accuracy, they frequently claim that these

mechanisms have a second, equally significant purpose, namely to raise awareness of

impacts (Stoeglehner and Narodoslawsky 2008). Under this second remit, the precise

accuracy of figures is seen as secondary to the communicative role of the tool, that is,

to raise awareness and to instigate a change in people’s behaviour. In other words, the

provision of information through sustainability accounting mechanisms is seen as an

awareness raising tool in itself. Of course the role of information in changingbehaviour has long been debated in the environmental policy world (see Blake 1999,

Owens 2000).

While information is certainly a necessary component of any strategy for moving

towards more sustainable levels of consumption, there is ample evidence that

62 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

behavioural change without attention to wider structural, societal and personal

factors proves problematic (Burgess et al. 2002, Dolan 2002, Hinton and Goodman

forthcoming). In fact, overly simplistic information-attitude-behaviour models that

anticipate a linear path from the provision of information to attitudinal change toappropriate (and consistent) behaviour patterns have been challenged by recent

theoretical and empirical work on sustainable consumption (see Princen 1999, Ropke

1999, Burgess et al. 2003). For example, Gatersleben and Vlek (1998) argue that any

assumed causal link between attitudes and behavior is mediated by cognitive

processes, including social and cultural norms, beliefs and values, as well as

contextual factors such as the level of technological innovation. Others have focused

on the role of the policy-making environment (Doran 2007).

In the field of environmental psychology, a range of factors has been identified todirectly affect pro-environmental behaviour, including personal moral convictions,

prevailing social norms, attitudes and behavioural controls. Problem awareness

(through information streams), on the other hand, has been shown to only indirectly

influence environmental behaviour (Bamberg 2003, Bamberg and Moser 2007). The

issue of behaviour and behavioural change is addressed in more detail in the next

section.

While accounting tools such as ecological footprinting can be useful for

monitoring changing patterns of consumption, they yield little information aboutthe underlying reasons why patterns both emerge and evolve. For example, the

presence of rebound effects, arising from increased demand for household

appliances, carbon-intensive travel, foreign holidays and imported foods, highlight

the need for careful analysis of social, political and cultural influences on consumer

behaviour in both developing countries with ‘emerging markets’ and mature market

economies like Ireland. Equally, people’s responses to both fiscal and non-material

incentives for sustainable consumption such as eco-taxes, grants, or information

campaigns based on moral, ethical and emotional appeals deserve greater examina-tion by social scientists. Measuring consumption patterns without attending to the

means and motivations that underpin them is only a partial response to the challenge

of sustainable consumption.

Complexity of consumption behaviour

It is commonly held that progressing sustainable consumption requires improved

understanding of consumer behaviour and attitudes (OECD 2001). However,

understanding consumer behaviour is a complex issue not least because of the

many underlying factors which influence consumption including: economic,

political, socio-technical, sociological and socio-psychological.

Political

It is a commonly articulated policy position that all parts of society must participate

in the sustainability project (EPA 2007b). Participation in sustainable consumptionpractices is no exception � however, an implementation deficit remains where policy

pronouncements on acceptable behaviour and actual behavioural dynamics are not

yet aligned. This mismatch provides the stimulation for policy interventions from

diverse spheres of governance (including public, private and civil society). One such

Irish Geography 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

approach to shaping consumption behaviour focuses on information provision,

through sustainability accounting tools, general public awareness campaigns and

eco-labelling of products. The mechanisms within this approach have the advantage

of being advisory rather than coercive and are generally positively received byintended audiences as long as the information is perceived to be accurate,

comprehensible, comparable and trustworthy. This has led to a proliferation of

campaigns in Ireland over the last decade including Race against Waste (waste

management), Notice Nature (biodiversity) and The Power of One (energy and

climate change). In addition, eco-labelling has been introduced in certain product

sectors, including government-led energy ratings for dishwashers, fridges and freezers

and labelling efforts driven by partnerships between non-governmental associations

and the private sector in areas such as sustainable wood products (see Jordan et al.

2004 and Dingworth 2008; for an overview on the practice of eco-labelling in the

Irish context see Pender et al. 2007). These campaigns, however, have been criticised

for adopting an overly simplistic information deficit model. There is also a difficulty

in discerning direct cause-effect relationships between these campaigns and any

behavioural change (Davies 2003).

Economic

Economic mechanisms have a dichotomous role in consumption debates in terms of

contribution to causing environmental damage and also attempting to mitigate

environmental damage. Economic development has traditionally been associated

with improving productively, reducing product process, increasing personal incomes

in additional to increasing the purchasing power of individuals (UNDP 2008).

However, market-based initiatives are increasingly being used in the environmental

arena.

A key approach to behavioural change is the use of fiscal measures to promote orpenalise unsustainable behaviour. De Young (1993) classifies monetary reinforce-

ment (such as deposit systems for beverage cans or contests for participation in

recycling schemes) and monetary disincentives (including consumption-based taxes)

as positive and coercive motivational techniques that make behaviour more or less

appealing. The role of material (dis)incentives in shaping consumption in particular

has given rise to extensive research (De Young 1993, Karp 1996, Price 2001). Indeed,

economic measures such as taxing, pricing, or direct charges have been proposed as

efficient means of forcing people to shift to more sustainable forms of behaviour(Linden and Carlsson-Kanyama 2003). A levy on plastic bags has already been

introduced within Ireland. A recent European survey estimates that this has reduced

consumption of plastic bags by 92%, yielding over 12.7 million Euros in 2003 (UNEP

2004). With such evidence in the public domain, it is unsurprising that the levy has

been used by government as a flagship indicator of the efficiency and effectiveness of

using financial measures to create change. Yet while the reduction of plastic bags in

Ireland following the levy may well be startling, it is not clear what environmental

costs have been generated elsewhere as a result, nor is it certain what level of plasticbag usage is considered sustainable. Equally, it is not obvious that the success in

terms of regulating plastic bag usage will be replicated in other areas, nor that all

taxes or charging mechanisms are so simple to implement effectively. The pay-by-use

waste charging scheme in Ireland, for example, seems to be generating more recycling

64 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

but levels of waste reduction are not as high as might be expected based on

international evidence. Concerns about socially regressive impacts of the pricing

mechanisms also remain (Davies and O’Callaghan-Platt 2008).

Socio-technical

Recent advances in technology have lead to a proliferation of more efficient products.

It has been argued that such advances can create new markets for consumption;however at the same time such technological advances have also been heralded for

attempting to mitigate problems with increasing consumption patterns, e.g. devel-

opment in information technology provides opportunities for substituting long haul

business flights with video conferences.

At the heart of the approaches to behavioural change detailed above is the

assumption that many environmental impacts derive from ‘generalised behaviour

patterns’ (EPA 2007b, p. 5). However, this assumption has been criticised for its

narrow, rationalistic understanding of the causes and consequences of humanactions, attitudes, routines and habits (Shove 2003; Shove et al. 2007) and for

obscuring complex relationships between technological and social innovation (Green

and Vergragt 2002). As Hobson (2003), Shove (2003) and many others argue,

consumption behaviours such as shopping, heating, washing and driving a car are

socio-technical practices that reflect shared social norms, values and goals (for

example, individual freedom, convenience and safety) which often overshadow

environmental concerns. Negative environmental behaviours are often disguised as

‘forms of inconspicuous consumption’ (Hobson 2003, p. 102) that reflect tensions inmodern society between the rejection of wasteful behaviour and the desire for new

things (Arkes and Hutzel 1997, p. 154). While financial considerations may influence

people’s decisions to some degree, they may well not override other socially

embedded desires. The elasticity of demand for some consumer goods as well as

ideologically motivated expectations for freedom of choice or unlimited spatial

mobility all cast doubt over whether people can be persuaded to act in more

environmentally and socially responsible ways, even if they do express environmental

concern (Jackson 2006).1

Sociological and socio-psychological

Socio-psychological drivers for consumption can include a range of factors fromthe influences of the social environment to personal motivations (UNEP 2004).

Consumers purchase products as much for their symbolic role as their function and

practical qualities (Jackson 2006) and indeed such products can be perceived as

a measure of success and happiness.

Questions have been raised about the fairness of interventions attempting to

shape behaviour as well as their effectiveness in bringing about meaningful and

lasting behavioural change. Several studies (reviewed in Guagnano et al. 1995) have

suggested that while such fiscal incentives can play a valuable role in initiatingbehaviour changes, prolonged transformations in behaviour require intrinsic

motivation, that is, motivation which comes from inside an individual rather than

from any external force. Others have suggested that focusing on individual

consumption behaviour ignores the social nature of consumption and wider

Irish Geography 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

structural forces that affect people’s choices (Wilhite and Lutzenhiser 1999, Cohen

and Murphy 2001). Yet others have criticised these ‘citizen-as-consumer’ models for

failing to challenge assumptions about the inherent benefits of (over)consumption

and economic growth for individual well-being and quality of life (Gatersleben 2001,

Rugkasa et al. 2007, Woodcock et al. 2007, Fahy and O Cinneide 2008). Indeed

proponents of sustainable development often suggest that the maintenance, and even

improvement, of quality of life for all is essential to its programme (Meister and Japp1998). This reflects a pragmatic perspective, as measures to promote sustainable

development are unlikely to be widely supported if they are perceived to impinge too

severely on the perceived benefits of comfort, cleanliness and convenience that

modern life has brought to many in developed countries (Bell and Morse 2003).

However, the assumption that direct linkages always exist between increased

consumption, better health and improved quality of life is also being challenged

(Jackson 2005, 2006).2

As regards food consumption (and particularly fast food consumption), alarming

messages about levels of obesity and health concerns in western societies clearly

indicate an inversion of the presumed win-win relationship between consumption and

health. Of course it is not simply eating more poor quality food that is the problem;

there are related issues such as reduced levels of exercise due to increased car usage and

labour-saving appliances. More indirectly, greater consumption of resources can lead

to pressures on systems of supply (e.g. water) or systems of management (e.g. waste),

which in turn can degrade the environment and lead to health fears and a reducedquality of life for those affected. A key problem here is that it may not be those who

generate most stresses on the environment through consumption who end up being

affected by the consequences of their actions. Inequities can occur across space, at

different scales and through time (Davies 2006). Fairness and equity issues are thus

central to sustainable consumption matters; whether sustainable consumption policies

are seen as (un)just or (un)fair will influence people’s reaction to them now and in the

future. Unmet mobility needs as well as fuel and food poverty continue to concern both

consumers and governments alike (Healey 2004, McDonagh 2006, Shaw 2006,

Molcho et al. 2007, Rau and Hennessy 2009).

Debates about consumption, health and well-being reveal many tensions and

contradictions. Some argue that being able to consume at will permits the

satisfaction of wants and needs which ensures a sense of fulfilment and a good

quality of life. This contrasts with contributions by social scientists that challenge

uncritical assumptions of a positive link between (consumer) choice and fulfilment,

including recent work on the ‘paradox of choice’ (Schwartz 2004). Amongst other

factors the conflation of quality of life with economic standard of living ignores thenon-material qualities that also contribute to a sense of self and social identity. Soper

and Thomas (2006) argue strongly for more attention being given to the benefits of

alternative ways of living and consuming. Similarly Jackson’s (2009) radical agenda

setting discussions in Prosperity without Growth makes a convincing case for

alternative conceptions of positive societal and environmental development.

Especially in times of global economic crises, the challenge is to combine

questions of economic growth with the broader goals of achieving sustainable

development and consumption. Jackson (2009) addresses this question by arguing

that two components will be necessary to change this dilemma, which he calls ‘. . . the

biggest challenge ever faced by human society’ (Jackson 2009, p. 158). First, he

66 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

suggests to ‘fix the economics’ by developing a new type of macro economics which

should place economic activity within ecological limits and at the same time reduce

the structural reliance on consumption growth by finding a different mechanism to

achieve stability. Second, he suggests to ‘shift the social logic of consumerism’ byproviding real, credible alternatives through which people can act more sustainably.

These alternatives should go beyond making basic systems of provision more

sustainable but should rather provide capabilities for people to ‘participate fully in

the life of society, without recourse to unsustainable material accumulation and

unproductive status competition’ (Jackson 2009, p. 158). Acknowledging the

dilemma that ongoing economic growth is unsustainable but that declining economic

growth might lead to political and societal instability, Jackson develops ideas and

concepts on how a ‘ecological macroeconomic model’ incorporating limits of a finiteearth might look like (see Jackson 2009, pp. 121�142).

At the same time, particular ways of living (and consuming) are robustly

engraved into structures of society and tend to resist transformation, even when

people recognise them as damaging. The persistent problem of car dependency and

its social and material consequences for Irish society illustrates this. The availability

of funds to engage in consumption remains a central issue. As mentioned above, lack

of access to basic goods and services can create problems for health and well-being

such as food and fuel poverty. In certain circumstances, and the current economicrecession may be a case in point, the inability to purchase goods and services in a

conventional way may stimulate alternative means of consumption and interaction,

for example through Local Economic Trading Schemes (LETS) (Seyfang 2006),

sustainability enterprises (Davies 2009) and demand for more durable commodities

that can be repaired (Hinton and Goodman forthcoming). Here potentially positive

outcomes, from a sustainable consumption perspective, depend on the availability of

alternative mechanisms and products or the motivation of communities to establish

or demand them. On the other hand, mainstream goods which are perceived to bemore sustainable, but which retail at a premium, such as organic fruit and vegetables

or fair trade tea, coffee and chocolate, may find their niche in the market place

squeezed and replaced by budget products of questionable quality and production

methods. Any outcome is likely to be shaped by a combination of both consumption

practices and governance mechanisms.

Situated analysis of sustainable household consumption and mobility

The critical review of areas of contention within sustainable consumption provided

above has outlined some generic issues for consideration. This section argues that

consumption practices and governance mechanisms in Ireland (and elsewhere) are

often context-specific and require in-depth empirical investigation. It provides asituated sectoral analysis of how we run our homes, what we eat and how we get

around; all areas of high environmental impact in relation to household consump-

tion (OECD 2001, Michaelis and Lorek 2004, Tucker et al. 2005).

How we move around: transport and the unsustainable consumption of distance

Recent debates on the challenges of sustainability have identified carbon-intensive

transport choices and spatial mobility patterns and the unsustainable ‘consumption

Irish Geography 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

of distance’ as key areas of concern (Whitelegg 1997, Chambers 2002). The

environmental consequences of car-based transport such as GHG emissions, air

and noise pollution, habitat fragmentation and the decimation of green spaces have

been noted both in public discourse and in academic literature (Bohm et al. 2006,

Sloman 2006, EPA 2007a). Moreover, mobility-related issues such as lack of access to

basic services and employment opportunities for people without a car have been

linked to patterns of social exclusion in rural and urban areas (see Hine and Mitchell2003, Pickup and Guiliano 2005 and Donaghy et al. 2005 for international evidence).

Sustainable consumption debates have hitherto paid little attention to the

‘consumption of distance’ associated with the production and use of goods and

services. Similarly, few contributions to the sustainable consumption debate have

focused on the key role of transport in connecting members of households with sites

of consumption. This seems rather surprising given the centrality of spatial mobility

in world trade relations and its relevance to patterns of consumption in an

increasingly globalised economy. For example, the onset of the recent global

economic recession in 2008 made visible the inseparability of corporeal and virtual

mobility and economic activity, with ‘bad debts’ spreading rapidly across the globe

and international shipping of goods decreasing dramatically within a few days.

Transport and mobility issues thus deserve much greater prominence in sustainable

consumption research.

Transport policy both shapes and reflects people’s views and practices, and publicreactions to transport planning and policy measures can only be properly under-

stood if placed in their wider socio-economic, political and cultural context (Urry

2000, Gartman 2004, Wright and Curtis 2004, Rau 2008). It has been claimed that

recent shifts in EU transport policy are promoting more sustainable transport

options, and the development of a European high speed rail network is held up as an

example of this, although of course such infrastructures are not without environ-

mental impact. This contrasts with a strong focus on car-based mobility which

continues to shape national transport policies in many EU member-states, including

Ireland. This said, the publication in 2009 of Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport

Future - A new transport policy for Ireland 2009�2020, aimed to integrate key

sustainability goals into Irish transport policy. The measurement and evaluation of

‘smarter’ travel options, however, continues to pose considerable challenges,

including the need to integrate natural-scientific, engineering and social-scientific

research efforts and to adopt multi-method research designs that facilitate the

collection and relational analysis of qualitative and quantitative data.

Irish policy makers, planning practitioners and academic commentators havehighlighted the robust appeal of individualised mobility afforded by the car which

can act as a powerful barrier to sustainable, low-carbon transport and mobility

patterns (McDonald and Nix 2005, Comhar 2007). Recent transport policy decisions

aimed at increasing road safety such as the introduction of the National Car Test

(NCT) and stricter enforcement of road traffic laws revealed the consequences of car-

dependency for Irish society in general, and vulnerable groups such as car-less

households and the rural elderly in particular (McDonagh 2006, O’ Shea 2009). Car

dependency impacts significantly on people’s health, well-being and quality of life.

Health risks associated with increased car use include obesity due to lack of exercise,

respiratory illnesses caused by traffic-related air pollution, irregular sleep patterns

due to road and air traffic noise as well as injuries and fatalities caused by traffic

68 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

accidents. Research carried out in Galway City has shown that the walkability of

local areas impacts significantly on people’s health and social capital (Leyden 2003).

In addition, the lack of alternatives to the car, in particular in remote rural areas, and

the comparatively marginal role of public transport, walking and cycling in the

modal mix continue to produce significant exclusionary effects. The lack of

alternatives to owning and driving a car impacts most severely on more vulnerable

social groups, including low-income households, young people, the elderly andpeople with disabilities, among others (Lohan and Wickham 1999, Wickham 2006,

Rau and Hennessy 2009).

These health and social risks are often seen as acceptable trade-offs for the

benefits of automobility, with the possible exception of road deaths. However, it is

important to note that the shared risks of various carbon-dependent mobility

options often fail to register with the public and that this influences the introduction

and implementation of sustainable transport policies. Recent negative reactions by

members of the public to proposals to restrict traffic in Dublin City Centre and to

introduce a car parking space levy illustrate this. Moreover, it is possible to observe a

strong ‘value-action-gap’ regarding people’s transport choices and mobility habits.

While many people in Ireland acknowledge the need for more sustainable transport

and a reduction in the ‘consumption of distance’, few are willing to avoid trips or

switch to alternatives to the car. This is partly due to structural inadequacies, in

particular in relation to public transport but also concerning the provision of

facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. However, we can also observe considerablediscrepancies between what people describe as appropriate mobility behaviour and

what they actually do that cannot be solely explained by a lack of alternatives. This

matches research findings from other areas of consumption.

Given the centrality of transport and mobility in promoting sustainable

consumption, there is an urgent need for reliable data on people’s mobility habits

in Ireland, their culture-specific views of different modes of transport and the

effectiveness of policy measures and practical solutions aimed at reducing car

dependency. The measurement of mobility trends and modal split patterns and the

evaluation of sustainable transport initiatives to reduce the consumption of distance

in Ireland remains an important task. While large-scale transport and mobility

indicators such as miles travelled per annum, fuel consumption and money raised

through road tolling can yield insights into broader trends, it is also essential to

complement them with qualitative data on people’s transport decisions and mobility

choices. A strong argument can be made for the adoption of case study designs that

focus on the social, cultural, material and political conditions of spatial mobility in a

particular local area and that monitor the effectiveness of policy interventions usingdocumentary and observational data. These can be complemented with expert

interviews with policy makers to identify possible tensions between policy and

practice. Event-centred and narrative interviews and focus groups can help elicit

information about mobility decisions of individuals, families and groups.

According to Vigar (2002, p. 15), ‘[t]ransport planning that meets the ecological

and social demands [of our time] requires changes in user behaviour, rather than

government merely responding to established user behaviour patterns.’ Proposals for

reducing Ireland’s car dependency include information campaigns and fiscal options.

Recent road safety campaigns on Irish television, the promotion of mobility

management plans for large organisations and the introduction in 2008 of a motor

Irish Geography 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

taxation system that takes into account CO2 emissions levels represent such policy

initiatives. Recent developments of a bike-sharing scheme in Dublin do, however,

illustrate the possibility for innovative solutions to mobility being developed (see

http://www.dublinbikes.ie).More recently, virtual mobility options have been discussed as a low-carbon

alternative to corporeal mobility involving cars and planes. The term ‘virtual

mobility’ describes the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to

replace actual physical mobility. However, virtual mobility options such as telework,

e-governance and e-business and technology to facilitate more sustainable corporeal

travel (e.g. car-pooling websites and real-time travel information for public transport

via mobile phone) present many challenges, some of which relate to resilience of

established consumption practices. To date the social, cultural and environmentalimpacts of virtual mobility remain poorly understood. In summary the collection of

qualitative evidence is an essential requirement in addressing existing gaps in

knowledge regarding a) the role and significance of different modes of transport in

Irish society, b) people’ views of alternative technologies and infrastructures such as

virtual mobility tools for e-commerce and teleworking and c) reactions by members

of the public to different economic (dis)incentives (e.g. road and parking taxes, bike

schemes).

How we live: heating, cooling, washing, cleaning and eating

According to the OECD (2001), housing accounts for around 25% of total

consumption expenditure in Europe. Energy and water consumption are increasing

due to larger homes being built for fewer people who are using more electrical

appliances. Within the household, space heating (and cooling) is the largest end use

of energy, followed by water heating (Shove 2003). Domestic water consumption has

risen dramatically in many developed countries over the past century, with bathing,showering and washing clothes accounting for around a third of domestic water

consumption across Europe (EEA 2001). Environmental impacts within the house-

hold are exacerbated as the frequency of appliance replacement increases due to

lower durability, declining costs of replacement (vis-a-vis costly and time-consuming

repairs) and rapid fashion changes. While there have been some gains made in terms

of appliance efficiency, this has been cancelled out by the increasing numbers of

appliances being used (Faiers et al. 2007). According to Shove (2003), these patterns

of household consumption can be linked to the transformation of everyday habitsand commonplace understandings of comfort, cleanliness and convenience.

In Ireland the residential sector’s Total Primary Energy Requirement (TPER)

increased by 31% (2% per annum on average) between 1990 and 2004 and accounts

for 25% of Ireland’s Total Final Consumption (TFC) (SEI 2005, p. 2). The residential

sector’s energy-related CO2 emissions represented 27% of the total attributable to

energy in Ireland in 2004, making it the second largest sector after transport (32%).

In 1999/2000 those in the lowest income decile spent on average 10% of their

disposable income on energy while the highest earners spent 2%, raising concernsabout fuel poverty (Healey 2004). Ireland has had a higher average energy

consumption per dwelling than most other EU countries, with electricity use 19%

above and CO2 emissions (climate corrected) 97% above the EU-15 average (SEI

2005, p. 3). Irish homes use around a quarter of all energy used nationally, which is

70 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

even more than industry, and the average home consumes almost 40% more

electricity than it did in 1990. These figures are partially attributable to the increase

in dwelling size since the mid-1990s and the property boom, at least until the

economic downturn in 2008. While some improvements have been made in recent

times regarding insulating newer homes, these statistics illustrate the enormous

challenges for reducing energy consumption in the home.Similar challenges lie ahead for the arena of domestic water consumption, with

increasing numbers of households using more water consuming technologies more

frequently. Over time comfort requirements have markedly changed. According to

some estimates, only 5% of water consumption is for drinking with the remainder

being relatively equally split between washing and cleaning, showering and bathing,

and using the WC. Estimates for daily water consumption in Ireland vary because of

a paucity of information on levels of water consumption due to low levels of water

metering and the removal of water charges for domestic usage in 1997. The OECD

(2000) have recommended the reintroduction of domestic water charges and the

installation of water meters in new dwellings as key mechanisms for reducing

household water consumption. Similarly, the EU Water Framework Directive, which

will be transposed into Irish law at some point in the future, aims to protect available

water resources and encourage sustainable water use. Although much of the activity

on the Directive in Ireland has to date focused on water quality issues, it is likely that

consideration of more sustainable household water consumption will come to play a

bigger role during implementation (see Lam 1999, Syme et al. 2000, Gilig and Barr2006).

The OECD (2001) estimates that food consumption constitutes one third of

household’s consumption impact (and between 10�35% of household consumption

expenditure) mainly relating to production processes such as emissions from

livestock, over-fishing, food miles and packaging waste (see also Tukker et al.

2005). The Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) defines sustainable food

consumption as a preference for: food with high resource efficiency (e.g. open-ground

cultivation); regional instead of imported food; organically instead of conventionally

produced food; lower amounts of bottled beverages; and meatless or reduced meat

diets based on the specific emissions in CO2 equivalents per food category as a proxy

for the environmental effects of different vegetable and meat categories (Friedl et al.

2006). However, there is still considerable controversy over what makes the food

sector more sustainable both in terms of production methods (e.g. the contrasting

costs and benefits of conventional, organic or genetically modified agriculture) and

consumption practices (e.g. buying local or imported food, purchasing from farmers

markets or supermarkets, buying standard or fair-trade products). Despite this,concerns about rising food-related emissions and the existence of food poverty

despite (and in some cases as a result of) increasing calorie intake in Europe persist

(Carlsson-Kanyama 1998, Kramer et al. 1998, Faist et al. 2001, OECD 2001, Shaw

2006). In Ireland food consumption has attracted considerable attention of late, with

Molcho et al. (2007) and Friel et al. (2006) examining issues of food poverty and Sage

(2003) and Tovey (2002, 2006) examining the emergence of alternative food networks

(primarily in rural locations). The North/South Ireland Food Consumption Survey

focused on people’s awareness of issues relating to diet and nutrition (Flynn 2001,

Strain 2001). In contrast, interactions between regulation, production and household

food consumption remain under-researched.

Irish Geography 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

Despite some technological improvements in product design in relation to some

household appliances and greater awareness among householders (at least in the area

of energy consumption), environmental impacts of consumption in the home

continue to grow. Alternative approaches to examining the related arenas of

production and consumption, as well as identifying appropriate governing mechan-

isms are required. Calls to conserve energy and water emanating from policy circles,

for example, often do not connect with the needs, experiences and day-to-day

practices of householders. As Shove (2003) has identified people tend to focus on

meeting needs and desires such as keeping warm (or cool), keeping themselves and

their belongings clean and generally making their lives more manageable. Further

research examining the production-consumption-regulation interface of household

consumption activities is overdue. This research will need to focus on the many

stakeholders that make up complex consumption chains today, from producers and

regulators to the householders themselves.

Conclusion: an agenda for Ireland

Sustainable development, and the integrally related matter of sustainable consump-

tion, has been on the policy agenda for more than 20 years (WCED 1987), yet its

meaning and implications are still far from agreed. The evocation of ‘sustainable’

in the consumption context certainly remains a site of negotiation in governance

arrangements between different actors and interests. Despite this, much work has

been conducted on the supply side of the production of goods: sustainable

technologies for energy generation, materials mining and processing, and product

manufacture have been developed, innovated and diffused in the last decade.

However, consumption continues to rise and consumers have been a notoriously

difficult target for policy makers seeking to induce more sustainable practices, not

least as a result of the political difficulties inherent in constraining how people

should live. This paper has suggested that there are four key reasons for this: a lack of

appropriate data, weak understanding of behavioural dynamics, crude governing

technologies, a lack of integration between production, consumption and regulatory

stakeholders.While these issues have a global resonance they are particularly stark within an

Irish (both Northern Ireland and the Republic) context and, despite the recent

economic downturn which has affected some components of conspicuous consump-

tion, further research within this geographical context is urgently required. Certainly

in terms of setting an agenda of priority issues and practices the following issues

should be addressed. First, and most fundamentally, detailed, comprehensive and

coherent baseline information about the form of basic consumption patterns is

essential. Currently relevant data, if it is collected at all, is fragmentary. For example,

the 2008 UNEP Global Survey on Sustainable Lifestyles was a voluntary online

survey and hence a self-selecting population. The Greendex 2009 Consumer Choice

and the Environment survey claimed to be a worldwide tracking survey and was

conducted in January 2008 and repeated in January 2009 in order to establish any

changes in behaviour as a result of the economic crisis, but was based on 14 countries

only, and did not include Ireland.

72 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

Following on from this consolidation of information collection, more consistent

and comparable mechanisms for continued monitoring of consumption patterns

need to be developed and resourced. Second, an improved understanding of why

people act the way that they do in the particular, and changing, socio-economic and

environmental circumstances within the island of Ireland is also essential. Gathering

such information will require in-depth analysis of particular consumption practices

as they are enacted by different people with diverse lifestyles and living contexts.

Priority areas for Ireland, as identified by the recent OECD Report on Ireland’s

environmental performance (OECD 2009), include water, energy and transport. In

the area of transport, for example, this might involve investigating the role and

significance of different modes of transport in Irish Society. Certainly people’s views

of alternative technologies and infrastructures such as virtual mobility tools for

e-commerce and teleworking would be useful, as would a greater understanding of

reactions by members of the public to different economic instruments (such as road

and parking taxes or bicycle schemes).

Third, while it is increasingly recognised that behaviour has many drivers that

may ebb and flow over time, current policy mechanisms intended to shape behaviour

employed across Ireland have tended to be rigid in application (e.g. waste charging

mechanisms) and insensitive to difference (e.g. general mass media awareness

campaigns). There needs to be more reflection on the impacts of these policy tools

on sustainable consumption and more attention to wider governance processes that

affect how these policies are generated, shaped and implemented. For example, what

alternative tools could be developed and how might they resonate with the people

that are being targeted? Multi-stakeholder practice-oriented scenario building may

be one such approach. Drawing on European-led design-focused research (Quist

et al. 2001) there are possibilities for bringing together actors with various roles in the

consumption process, including supply side actors (from manufacturing, business

and retail) as well as the demand side stakeholders (including consumers and

consumer organisations) with regulators, environmental non-governmental organi-

sations and other relevant contributors (such as researchers, sustainability entrepre-

neurs, designers and communication consultants) to discuss, develop and evaluate

innovative alternative scenarios for practice-oriented household consumption such

as heating, cooling, washing, lighting and eating.

Fourth, and finally, there is space for work in Ireland that adopts a more holistic,

but still grounded, approach to sustainable consumption; work that integrates rather

than isolates all those involved in production processes, consumption practices and

regulation formation and implementation. In essence this suggestion implies a

particular form of governance, rather than governmental, activity for the realm of

sustainable consumption where actors from a range of governing spheres (public,

private and civil society) as well as across tiers of governing activity (supra-national,

national and local) engage in defining and resolving consumption issues. Of course

such multi-stakeholder interaction will not necessarily develop agreed or compre-

hensive solutions at the outset. Sustainable consumption will remain a highly

political issue. However, allowing diverse groups of social actors to come together as

part of the research process and directly confront sustainability challenges may

stimulate creative visions about desired future scenarios that move beyond the

territories of discipline, business scope or backyard.

Irish Geography 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on research conducted as part of CONSENSUS: a cross border householdanalysis of consumption, environment and sustainability (http://www.consensus.ie), funded bythe EPA STRIVE Programme 2007�2013 Science, Technology, Research & Innovation for theEnvironment (STRIVE) � An Environmental Protection Agency Programme 2007�2013. Theauthors would like to thank the EPA and the Advisory Board of CONSENSUS: a crossborder household analysis of consumption, environment and sustainability for their support.

Notes

1. This has also been addressed as the so-called ‘value-action gap’, whereby a considerablegap can often be observed between people’s attitudes, which are often pro-environmental,and their everyday behaviours (Doran 2007, p. 33).

2. There are a large number of diverse definitions of quality of life. For example, Cutter (1985)defines it as ‘an individual’s happiness or satisfaction with life and environment includingneeds and desires and other tangible and intangible factors which determine overall well-being’. For Kline (2001) quality of life, at a minimum, needs to measure the ability ofcitizens to get adequate health care, housing, child care, public safety and education.

References

Allen, P., ed. 1993. Food for the future: conditions and contradictions of sustainability. NewYork: John Wiley and Sons.

Arkes, H.R. and Hutzel, L., 1997. Waste heuristics: the desire not to waste versus the desire fornew things. In: M.H. Bazerman, D.M. Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel and K.A. Wade-Benzoni,eds. Environmental ethics and behaviour. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press, 154�170.

Ayres, R., 2004. On the life cycle metaphor: where ecology and economics diverge. EcologicalEconomics, 48 (4), 425�438.

Bamberg, S., 2003. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally relatedbehaviours? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1),21�32.

Bamberg, S. and Moser, G., 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A newmeta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 27 (1), 14�25.

Bell, S. and Morse, S., 2003. Measuring sustainability: learning by doing. London: Earthscan.Blake, J., 1999. Overcoming the ‘value�action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between

national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4 (3), 257�278.Bohm, S., Jones, C., Land, C. and Paterson, M., eds. 2006. Against Automobility. Oxford:

Blackwell.Burgess, J., Bedford, T., Hobson, K., Davies, G. and Harrison, C.M., 2003. (Un) sustainable

consumption. In: M. Leach, F. Berkhout and I. Scoones, eds. Global environmental change:review and prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 261�291.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 1998. Climate change and dietary choices � how can emissions ofgreenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy, 23 (3/4), 277�293.

Chambers, L., 2002. Sustainable transport: a background paper prepared for the statesustainability strategy [online]. Available from: http://www.sustainability.dpc.wa.gov.au/docs/BGPapers/LanceChambers.pdf [Accessed 9 November 2007].

Clancy, K.L., 1993. Sustainable agriculture and domestic hunger: Rethinking a link betweenproduction and consumption. In: P. Allen, ed. Food for the future: conditions andcontradictions of sustainability. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Cohen, M.J. and Murphy, J., eds. 2001. Exploring sustainable consumption: environmentalpolicy and social sciences. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Comhar (The National Sustainable Development Partnership), 2007. Towards sustainability inthe National Development Plan 2007�2013. Dublin: Comhar.

74 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

Cutter, S.L., 1985. Rating Places: A Geographer’s View of Quality of Life. Washington, DC:Association of American Geographers.

Davies, A.R., 2003. Mass-mediated environmental awareness campaigns towards a researchframework. Trinity Papers, 8, 25�42.

Davies, A.R., 2006. Environmental justice as subtext or omission: examining discourses ofanti-incineration campaigning in Ireland. Geoforum, 37 (5), 708�724.

Davies, A.R., 2008. The geographies of garbage governance: interventions, interactions andoutcomes. London: Routledge.

Davies, A.R., 2009. Does sustainability count? Environmental policy, sustainable developmentand the governance of grassroots sustainability enterprise in Ireland. Sustainable Develop-ment, 17 (3), 174�182.

Davies, A.R. and O’Callaghan-Platt, A., 2008. Does money talk? Waste charging in theRepublic of Ireland: government, governance and performance. Journal of EnvironmentalPolicy and Planning, 10 (3), 1�17.

De Young, R., 1993. Changing behaviour and making it stick. Environment and Behavior,25 (4), 485�505.

Dingworth, K., 2008. North-South parity in global governance: the affirmative procedures ofthe forest stewardship council. Global Governance, 14 (1), 53�71.

Dolan, P., 2002. The sustainability of ‘SC’. Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 170�181.Donaghy, K.P., Poppelreuter, S. and Rudinger, G., 2005. Social aspects of sustainable transport:

transatlantic perspectives. London: Ashgate.Doran, P., 2007. Sustainable consumption & production � ‘the art of the state’. Dublin: UCD.EC, 2000. The Lisbon Strategy. Brussels: EC.EC, 2001. The European sustainable development strategy. Brussels: EC.EC, 2004. Sustainable production and consumption in the EU. Brussels: EC.EC, 2006. The renewed European sustainable development strategy 2006: a Platform for Action.

Brussels: EC.EC, 2008. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on thesustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan. Brussels:EC.

EEA, 2001. Environmental information [online]. Available from: http://www.environment-agency.tv/nwdmc/being_waterwise_home/index.htm [Accessed 1 January 2008].

EEA, 2005. Household consumption and the environment. EEA Report, 11 (2005), Copenhagen:EEA.

EPA, 2006. Environment in focus: environmental indicators for Ireland. Dublin: EPA.EPA, 2007a. The state of climate change [online]. Available from: http://www.epa.ie/

environment/climate/ [Accessed 9 November 2007].EPA, 2007b. STRIVE programme 2007�2013 sustainable development and socio-economics.

Dublin: EPA.EPA, 2007c. STRIVE programme 2007�2013, programme overview. Dublin: EPA.EPA, 2009. National waste prevention programme outline workplan 2009�2012. Dublin: EPA.Fahy, F. and O Cinneide, M., 2008. The reality of the locality: exploring spatial aspects of

quality of life in Galway City, Ireland. International Journal of Sustainable Development andPlanning, 3 (1), 29�44.

Faiers, A., Cook, M. and Neame, C., 2007. Towards a contemporary approach forunderstanding consumer behaviour in the context of domestic energy use. Energy Policy,35 (8), 4381�4390.

Faist, M., Kytzia, S. and Baccini, P., 2001. The impact of household food consumption onresource and energy management. Environment and Pollution, 15 (2), 183�199.

Flynn, A., 2001. The North/South Ireland Food Consumption Survey � Conclusion. PublicHealth Nutrition, 4 (5A), 1127.

Friedl, B., Giljum, S., Lorek, S., Jager, J. and Omann, I., 2006. Sustainable food production:trends and opportunities. Cologne: SERI.

Friel, S., Walsh, O. and McCarthy, D., 2006. The irony of a rich country: issues of financialaccess to and availability of healthy food in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Epidemiologyand Community Health, 60 (12), 1013�1019.

Irish Geography 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

Gartman, D., 2004. Three ages of the automobile: the cultural logics of the car. Theory,Culture and Society, 21 (4/5), 169�195.

Gatersleben, B., 2001. Sustainable household consumption and quality of life: the accept-ability of sustainable consumption patterns and consumer policy strategies. InternationalJournal of Environment and Pollution, 15 (2), 200�216.

Gatersleben, B. and Vlek, C., 1998. Household consumption, quality of life, and environ-mental impacts: a psychological perspective and empirical study. In: K.J. Nooman and T.S.Uiterkamp, eds. Green households? domestic consumers, environment and sustainability.London: Earthscan, 141�183.

Geyer-Allely, E. and Zacarias-Farah, A., 2003. Policies and instruments for promotingsustainable household consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (8), 923�926.

Gilig, A. and Barr, S., 2006. Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from astudy of environmental actions. Ecological Economics, 57 (3), 400�414.

Green, K. and Vergragt, P., 2002. Towards sustainable households: a methodology fordeveloping sustainable technological and social innovations. Futures, 34 (5), 381�400.

Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C. and Dietz, T., 1995. Influences on attitude-behaviour relation-ships. Environment and Behavior, 27 (5), 699�718.

Haberl, H., Erb, K-H. and Krausmann, F., 2001. How to calculate and interpret ecologicalfootprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926�1995. Ecological Economics,38 (1), 25�45.

Healey, J., 2004. Housing, fuel poverty and health: A Pan-European analysis. Aldershot:Ashgate.

Hine, J. and Mitchell, F., 2003. Transport disadvantage and social exclusion: exclusionarymechanisms in transport in urban Scotland. London: Ashgate.

Hinton, E.D. and M.K. Goodman (forthcoming). Sustainable consumption: developments,considerations and new directions. In: M. Redclift and G. Woodgate, eds. Internationalhandbook of environmental sociology (2nd edition), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hobson, K., 2003. Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process inquestioning household consumption practices. Local Environment, 8 (1), 95�112.

Jackson, T., 2005. Live better by consuming less? Is there a ‘double dividend’ in sustainableconsumption? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (1�2), 19�36.

Jackson, T., ed. 2006. Handbook of sustainable consumption. London: Earthscan.Jackson, T., 2009. Prosperity without growth. London: Sustainable Development Commission.Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W., Zito, A.R. and Bruckner, L., 2004. Consumer responsibility-

taking and eco-labelling schemes in Europe. In: M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal and D. Stolle,eds. Politics, products and markets � exploring consumerism past and present. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Press, 161�180.

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W. and Zito, A.R., 2005. The rise of new policy instruments incomparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53 (4),477�496.

Karp, D.G., 1996. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment andBehavior, 28 (1), 111�133.

Kline, E., 2001. Indicators for sustainable development in urban areas. In: D. Devuyst,L. Hens and W. De Lannoy, eds. How green is the city? New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 275�298?

Kooiman, J., 2003. Governing as governance. London: Sage.Kramer, K.J., Moll, H.C., Nonhebel, S. and Wilting, H.C., 1998. Greenhouse gas emissions

related to Dutch food consumption. Energy Policy, 27 (4), 203� 216.Lam, S., 1999. Predicting intentions to conserve water from the theory of planned behaviour,

perceived moral obligation, and perceived water right. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,29 (5), 1058�1071.

Lammers, A., Moles, R., Walsh, C. and Huijbregts, M., 2008. Ireland’s footprint: a time seriesfor 1983�2001. Land Use Policy, 25 (1), 53�58.

Latham, R, 1999. Politics in a floating world: toward a critique of global governance. In:M. Hewson and T. Sinclair, eds. Approaches to global governance theory. New York: StateUniversity of New York Press, 23�53.

76 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

Leyden, K. (2003) Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkableneighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1546�1551.

Linden, A. and Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 2003. Environmentally friendly disposal behaviour.Local Environment, 8 (3), 290�301.

Lohan, M. and Wickham, J., 1999. The Transport Rich and the Transport Poor: CarDependency and Social Class in Four European Cities. Paper presented at Urbanism andSuburbanism at the End of the Century Conference, 26�27 November, NUI, Maynooth,Ireland. Available from: http://www.tcd.ie/ERC/pastprojects/carsdownloads/Transport%20Rich.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2007].

McDonagh, J., 2006. Transport policy instruments and transport-related exclusion in ruralRepublic of Ireland. Journal of Transport Geography, 14 (5), 355�366.

McDonald, F. and Nix, J., 2005. Chaos at the crossroads. Dublin: Gandon.McManus, P. and Haughton, G., 2006. Planning with ecological footprints: a sympathetic

critique of theory and practice. Environment and Urbanization, 18 (1), 113�127.Meister, M. and Japp, P., 1998. Sustainable development and the global economy: rhetorical

implications for improving the quality of life. Communication Research, 25 (4), 399�421.Michaelis, L. and Lorek, S., 2004. Consumption and the Environment in Europe � trends and

futures, Environmental Project no. 904. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental ProtectionAgency.

Molcho, M., Nic Gabhainn, S., Kelly, C., Friel, S. and Kelleher, C., 2007. Food poverty andhealth among schoolchildren in Ireland: findings from the Health Behaviour in School-agedChildren (HBSC) study. Public Health Nutrition, 10 (4), 364�370.

Noland, R. and Lem, L., 2002. A review of the evidence for induced travel and changes intransportation and environmental policy in the US and the UK. Transportation Research:Part D � Transport and the Environment, 7 (1), 1�26.

O’ Shea, E., 2009. Rural ageing and public policy in Ireland. In: J. McDonagh, T. Varley andS. Shortall, eds. A living countryside? The politics of sustainable development in rural Ireland.Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 269�285.

OECD, 2000. Environmental performance review: Ireland. Paris: OECD.OECD, 2001. Household food consumption: trends, environmental impacts and policy responses.

Paris: OECD.OECD, 2009. Ireland’s environmental performance. Paris: OECD.Owens, S., 2000. Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy.

Environment and Planning A, 32 (7), 1141�1148.Padgett, J., Steinemann, A., Clarke, J. and Vandenbergh, M., 2008. A comparison of carbon

calculators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2�3), 106�115.Pender, A., Dunne, L. and Convery, F.J., 2007. The use and regulation of environmental claims

as a means for promoting sustainable consumption in Ireland. Final report to theEnvironmental Protection Agency under ERTDI Programme 2000�2006. Wexford: EPA.

Pickup, L. and Guiliano, G., 2005. Transport and social exclusion in Europe and the US. In:K.P. Donaghy, S. Poppelreuter and G. Rudinger, eds. Social aspects of sustainable transport:transatlantic perspectives. London: Ashgate, 38�49.

Price, J.L., 2001. The landfill directive and the challenge ahead. Resources, Conservation andRecycling, 32 (3), 333�348.

Princen, T., 1999. Consumption and environment: some conceptual issues. EcologicalEconomics, 31 (3), 347�363.

Quist, J., Knot, M., Young, W., Green, K. and Vergragt, P., 2001. Strategies towardssustainable households using stakeholder workshops and scenarios. International Journal ofSustainable Development, 4 (1), 75�89.

Rau, H., 2008. Environmental arguing at a crossroads? Cultural diversity in Irish transportplanning. In: R. Edmondson and H. Rau, eds. Environmental argument and culturaldifference: locations, fractures and deliberations. Oxford: Peter Lang, 95�124.

Rau, H. and Hennessy, C., 2009. The road to sustainable transport? rural transportprogrammes and policies in Ireland. In: J. McDonagh, T. Varley and S. Shortall, eds. Aliving countryside? The politics of sustainable development in rural Ireland. Aldershot:Ashgate, 361�380.

Irish Geography 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., Bras, B., Robins, N. and Roberts, S., 2008. A survey ofunresolved problems in life cycle assessment - Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13 (4), 290�300.

Ropke, I., 1999. The dynamics of willingness to consume. Ecological Economics, 28 (3), 399�420.

Rugkasa, J., Shortt, N. and Boydell, L., 2007. The right tool for the task: ‘boundary spanners’in a partnership approach to tackle fuel poverty in rural Northern Ireland. Health andSocial Care in the Community, 15 (3), 221�230.

Sage, C., 2003. Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative’good food’ networksin south-west Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (1), 47�60.

Schwartz, B., 2004. The Paradox of choice: why more is less. New York: HarperCollins.SEI (Sustainable Energy Ireland), 2005. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the

residential sector: 1990�2004. Dublin: SEI.Seyfang, G., 2006. Sustainable consumption, the new economics and community currencies:

developing new institutions for environmental governance. Regional Studies, 40 (7), 781�779.

Shaw, H., 2006. Food deserts: towards the development of a classification. GeografiskaAnnalar Series B: Human Geography, 88B (2), 231�247.

Shove, E., 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social organization of normality.Oxford: Berg.

Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M. and Ingram, J., 2007. The design of everyday life. Oxford:Berg.

Sloman, L., 2006. Car sick: solutions for our car-addicted culture. Foxhole: Green Books.Soper, K. and Thomas L., 2006. Alternative hedonism and the critique of consumerism.

Working paper 31, Cultures of Consumption [online]. Available from: http://www.consume.bbk.ac.uk/publications.html#workingpapers [Accessed 21 July 2009].

Spangenberg, J. and Lorek, S., 2002. Environmentally sustainable household consumption:from aggregate environmental pressures to priority fields of action. Ecological Economics,43 (2�3), 127�140.

Stoeglehner, G. and Narodoslawsky, M., 2008. Implementing ecological footprinting indecision making processes. Land Use Policy, 25 (3), 421�431.

Strain, J., 2001. The North/South Ireland food consumption survey � introduction. PublicHealth Nutrition, 4 (5A), 1027�1028.

Sustainable Northern Ireland, 2007. The sustainable development duty and your district council:a strategic overview. Belfast: Sustainable Northern Ireland.

Syme, G., Nancarrow, B. and Seligman, C., 2000. The evaluation of information campaigns topromote voluntary household water conservation. Evaluation Review, 24 (6), 539�578.

Tovey, H., 2002. Alternative agriculture movements and rural development cosmologies.International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 10 (1), 1�11.

Tovey, H., 2006. New movements in old places? The alternative food movement in ruralIreland. In: L. Connolly and N. Hourigan, eds. Social movements and Ireland. Manchester:Manchester University Press, 168�189.

Trentmann, F., 2007. 4 ½ lessons about consumption: a short overview of the cultures ofconsumption research programme [online]. Available from: http://www.consume.bbk.ac.uk[Accessed 16 June 2009].

Tucker, A., Huppes, G., Geerken, T. and Nielsen, P., 2005. Environmental impact of products(EIPRO). Draft report of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) andthe European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO). Brussels: IPTS.

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), 1992. Agenda 21 �Action Plan for the Next Century. Rio de Janeiro: UNCED.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2008. Annual report � empowering peopleand institutions. New York: UNDP.

UNDSD (United Nations Division of Sustainable Development), 2002. Report of the WorldSummit of Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa. New York: UnitedNations Division of Sustainable Development.

UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), 2004. Sustainable consumption andproduction in the European Union. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.

78 A. Davies et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016

Urry, J., 2000. Sociology beyond Societies: mobilities for the 21st Century. London: Routledge.Vigar, G., 2002. The politics of mobility: transport, the environment and public policy. London:

Spon Press.WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our common future

(Brundtland Report). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wheeler, S., 2004. Planning for sustainability. London: Routledge.Whitelegg, J., 1997. Critical mass: transport, environment and society in the twenty-first century.

London: Pluto Press.Wickham, J., 2006. Gridlock: Dublin’s transport crisis and the future of the city. Dublin: TASC

at New Island.Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J., 2008. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In: C. C. Pertsova, ed.

Ecological economics research trends: Chapter 1. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 1�11.Wilhite, H. and Lutzenhiser, L., 1999. Social loading and sustainable consumption. Advances

in Consumer Research, 26 (1), 281�287.Woodcock, J., Banister, D., Edwards, P., Prentice, A. and Roberts, I., 2007. Energy and

transport. Lancet, 370 (9592), 1078�1088.Wright, C. and Curtis, B., 2004. Reshaping the motor car. Transport Policy, 12 (1), 11�22.

Irish Geography 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lea

bhar

lann

Cho

láis

te n

a T

ríon

óide

/Tri

nity

Col

lege

Lib

rary

& I

ReL

] at

05:

26 2

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

016