individual assignment sustainability

News from the Columbia Climate School

The Role of Individual Responsibility in the Transition to Environmental Sustainability

Steven Cohen

We New Yorkers live in a city that is on a gradual transition toward environmental sustainability, but we are a long way from the place we need to end up. A circular economy where there is no waste and where all material outputs become inputs is well beyond our technological and organizational capacity today. But that does not mean we shouldn’t think about how to get from here to there. Much of the work in building environmental sustainability requires the development of systems that enable us to live our lives as we wish while damaging the planet as little as possible. Large-scale institutions are needed to manage sewage treatment and drinking water, to develop renewable energy and build a modern energy grid. Government policy is needed to ensure the conservation of forests, oceans, and biodiversity. Pandemic avoidance requires global, national and local systems of public health. Climate change mitigation and adaptation also require collective action. What then can individuals do?

As individuals, we make choices about our own activities and inevitably, they involve choices about resource consumption. I see little value in criticizing people who fly on airplanes to travel to global climate conferences. (I assume you do remember airplanes and conferences, don’t you?) But I see great value in considering the importance of your attendance at the conference and asking if the trip is an indulgence or if you will have an important opportunity to learn and teach. This year has taught us how to attend events virtually. There is little question that live presence at an event enables a type of communication that can’t be achieved virtually. Many times, you will judge that the financial and environmental cost of the trip is far outweighed by the benefits. Those are the times you should travel. My argument here is that it is the thought process, the analysis of environmental costs and benefits, that is at the heart of an individual’s responsibility for environmental sustainability. Individuals are responsible for thinking about their impact on the environment and, when possible, minimize the damage they do to the planet.

Everyone needs to turn on the lights at night, start the shower in the morning, turn on the air conditioning and possibly drive somewhere on Mother’s Day. I would never argue that you should give up these forms of consumption. Instead, I believe we should all pay attention to the resources we use and the impact it has. We are responsible for that thought process and the related analysis of how we, as individuals, might accomplish the same ends with less environmentally damaging means.

Some say that the fixation on individual responsibility is a distraction from the more important task of compelling government and major institutions to implement systemic change. This perspective was forcefully argued in 2019 in The Guardian by Professor Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. According to Professor Levermann:

“Personal sacrifice alone cannot be the solution to tackling the climate crisis. There’s no other area in which the individual is held so responsible for what’s going wrong. And it’s true: people drive too much, eat too much meat, and fly too often. But reaching zero emissions requires very fundamental changes. Individual sacrifice alone will not bring us to zero. It can be achieved only by real structural change; by a new industrial revolution. Looking for solutions to the climate crisis in individual responsibilities and actions risks obstructing this. It suggests that all we have to do is pull ourselves together over the next 30 years and save energy, walk, skip holidays abroad, and simply ‘do without.’ But these demands for individual action paralyse people, thereby preventing the large-scale change we so urgently need.”

Perhaps, but I do not see it that way. I consider individual responsibility and the thought process and value shift that stimulates individual action as the foundation of the social learning process required for effective collective action. In other words, individual change and collective system-level change are interconnected. The fact is that on a planet of nearly 8 billion people, it is too late for many of us to get back to the land and live as one with nature. There’s too many of us and not enough nature. There is an absolute limit to our ability as individuals to reduce our impact on the planet. Therefore, system-level change is absolutely needed. But system change requires individuals to understand the need for change along with a well-understood definition of the problem. The cognitive dissonance of identifying a problem but never acting on it is difficult to live with. If you see a poor child on the street begging for food, you can provide that child with food and money while continuing to support public policy that addresses the child poverty issue at the systems level. In fact, the emotional impact of that child’s face may well provide the drive that leads you to fight harder for the policy that would prevent that child from needing to beg. We learn by example, and vivid experiences and cases can lead to transformative systemic change.

While I consider individual and collective responsibility connected, without collective systems and infrastructure supporting environmental sustainability, there are distinct limits to what individual action can achieve. That is why I see no value in shaming individuals for consuming fossil fuels, eating meat, or buying a child a Mylar birthday balloon. I believe an attitude of moral superiority is particularly destructive in any effort to build the political support needed for systemic change.

As my mentor, the late Professor Lester Milbrath, often argued, the only way to save the planet is through social learning that would enable us to “learn our way to a sustainable society.” He made this argument in his pathbreaking work: Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out . In Milbrath’s view, the key was to understand environmental perceptions and values and to build on those values and perceptions to change both individual behavior and the institutions their politics generated. To Milbrath, the human effort to dominate nature had worked too well, and a new approach was needed. As he observed in Envisioning a Sustainable Society :

“Learning how to reason together about values is crucial to saving our species. As a society we have to learn better how to learn, I call it social learning; it is the dynamic for change that could lead us to a new kind of society that will not destroy itself from its own excess.”

My view is that one method to pursue social learning is learning by doing — in other words by encouraging the individual behaviors we might each take to reduce our environmental impact. Those behaviors remind us to think about the planet’s wellbeing along with our own. They reinforce and remind us and as they become habit, they impact our values and our shared understanding of how the world works.

There is, therefore, no tradeoff between individual and collective responsibility for protecting the environment unless we insist on creating one. Additionally, in a world of extreme levels of income inequality, wealthy people who have given up eating meat have the resources to consume alternative sources of nourishment. They do not occupy the moral high ground criticizing an impoverished parent proudly serving meat to their hungry child. In our complex world, we should mistrust simple answers and instead work hard to understand the varied cultures, values and perceptions that can contribute to the transition to an environmentally sustainable global economy. The path to environmental sustainability is long and winding and will require decades of listening and learning from each other.

Can Digital Payments Help Countries Adapt to Climate Change?

Alumni Spotlight: A Journey From Climate Conservation to Corporate Consulting

Finding Public Space in a Crowded New York City

Steve, I appreciate your perspective on individual responsibility. I am developing a similar position and submitted an “OpEd” piece to Times about a month ago but alas it didn’t get published. I would like to share and develop the conversation with you so please reach out.

What are the responsibilities of individuals, governments and the international community in helping people have access to water?

While this highly educated society continues the GDP rat race and decimating all other patterns that create balance in the world we live in, here’s a little story of obvious stupidity for fun and profit. In 1975 my wife and I after several years of college chose to listen to scientists’ warnings about continued expansionism economically. We simplified our lives and did without things like electricity, fancy new vehicles and useless bling. We did without as a plausible direction for a template of living lightly and securing a viable future for more than just humans. We endured countless slurs ( tree huggers, eco-terrorists, hippies,) and were subjected to verbal and realistic abuse . Now at 72 and 68 we are wondering where the hell were the rest of you? Read the book “Small is Beautiful ” to see the wrongheaded direction your politicians and some clergy and certainly all greedy vulture capitalist have led the general public. I have no patience for obvious stupidity .Yeah, we were WOKE long before most people and feel no compulsion to be apologetic as all of you are to blame if you help continue the narrative of GDP unlimited growth and the population explosion. nats remark

“perhaps, but i do not see it that way” sorry but that kinda just means your guile is weak and you’re extremely credulous and succeptable to propeganda, dunno what to tell ya bud but this perspective is a total nothingburger. Of Course we must needs rely on some great measure of personal choice here, but if my choices are: Waste, Waste, Out of my Budget well i dont REALLY have a choice then Do I? which means that for the majority of americans there is no ethical choice list they can follow to fix the problem, only by compelling legislation can those choices be made available to them.

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter

KPMG Personalization

First-time reporting under ESRSs

European regulator highlights key focus areas for sustainability statements

Share Share close
1000 Save this article to my library
Home ›
Insights ›

Global IFRS Institute

Which companies are affected?

What are ESMA’s key focus areas?

What’s next – Key actions for companies

To support the first wave of companies in applying European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRSs), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has issued a statement highlighting:

the guidance already available or under development that companies are expected to consider; and
the key areas to assess when preparing sustainability statements under ESRSs for the first time.

In addition, the European Commission has issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to support companies in scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

The speed of implementing the CSRD, its scope and the detailed data requirements of ESRSs mean that many companies may find reporting sustainability information challenging, even those that have prior experience – e.g. those that have previously reported under the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD).

The publication of the first sustainability statements prepared under ESRSs will be a significant milestone in the journey towards mandatory sustainability reporting. Companies implementing the new standards are on a learning curve, but ESMA reminds companies that this does not relieve them of their responsibility to ensure compliance with ESRSs.

Ramon Jubels Partner KPMG EMA Department of Professional Practice

ESMA’s statement is directed at those companies that are required to:

prepare sustainability statements under ESRSs for the first time – i.e. for their 2024 year-end reporting; and
those applying ESRSs for their 2025 year-end reporting.

It does not cover reporting required by the EU Taxonomy Regulation 1 .

ESMA’s key focus areas include the following.


	Companies need to have robust governance and controls to enable them to: Companies also need to carefully assess whether their existing processes, systems and controls remain fit-for-purpose and to be transparent when disclosing information about them under ESRS 2 .
	When undertaking their double materiality assessment (DMA) process, companies need to: ;
	Companies need to be transparent when using the transition relief available under ESRSs. Specifically, ESMA highlights the following. – companies are expected to provide transparency on the uncertainties, data limitations, methodologies and significant assumptions used. –companies are expected to disclose which sustainability-related matters they assess as material and provide information about targets, policies, actions and metrics relating to those matters, as required by ESRS . – companies need to consider whether any disclosures provided in prior periods meet the requirements of material information under ESRSs.
	– companies need to carefully assess whether their historical approach to presenting their information is consistent with the CSRD and ESRSs, and to plan to make adjustments. – a company’s financial and sustainability reporting needs to provide a coherent, connected and integrated picture.

Read ESMA’s statement and understand how your company will meet ESMA’s expectations.
Read EFRAG’s implementation guidance , ESRS Q&A technical explanations and FAQs published by the European Commission and understand how they can help when implementing ESRSs.
Consider the joint interoperability guidance issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board and EFRAG in conjunction with EFRAG’s implementation guidance if you are a dual reporter and consider if the differences are relevant for your reporting.
Monitor further guidance from ESMA, EFRAG and the European Commission. ESMA will publish its European Common Enforcement Priorities (ECEP) on sustainability reporting later in 2024.

1 Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (EU Taxonomy Regulation) is the EU’s framework to facilitate sustainable investment.

2 European Reporting Advisory Group’s (EFRAG) IG 1: Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Individual assignment on sustainability reporting of companies

Organizing for sustainability success: Where, and how, leaders can start

Sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues affect how all companies do business —and increasingly so in recent years. More companies, and their investors, are recognizing sustainability as a strategic priority that involves significant business risks and opportunities. But historically, few companies have organizational structures that are designed to treat sustainability as a material business issue. Instead, sustainability activities—and the organizations that support them—have focused primarily on investor relations, PR, and corporate social responsibility.

The “sustainability organizations” that still operate that way (and there are many) are tasked with managing stakeholder communications, target setting, and reporting. While those tasks are important, they are also insufficient for sustainability organizations to be successful. Our experience suggests that success is more likely when executives empower sustainability organizations to engage proactively and strategically hold them responsible for creating measurable impact. Only then will companies be able to maximize the value at stake from their sustainability initiatives (see sidebar, “A leader’s guide to embedding sustainability in corporate strategy”).

A leader’s guide to embedding sustainability in corporate strategy

To make sustainability a true organization-wide issue and a pillar of company strategy, CEOs and senior executives must be leading from the front. In our experience, leaders are most effective at doing so when they follow these three strategies (usually in this order):

Embed sustainability in the company’s strategy-setting process. This is a prerequisite for the effective management of sustainability—and something that senior leaders are best positioned to do. The goal is not simply to have a great sustainability strategy but rather a corporate strategy that includes sustainability as a core component.
Shape the portfolio to reflect an integrated strategy. Once a company’s sustainability-related priorities are clear, companies must make decisions on capital allocation, R&D funding, and portfolios accordingly.
Scale up sustainable business practices through a full transformation. To incorporate sustainability in business planning and to empower and motivate the whole organization to take action on these issues, leaders should approach sustainability as they would any other new large-scale change effort. To ensure buy-in across the organization, it’s important to be clear about which sustainability topics the company will and won’t prioritize.

To get sustainability programs right, companies have big decisions to make. To start, they should choose which issues under the broader sustainability umbrella should be the responsibility of their sustainability organizations and which issues should be left to other parts of their businesses. The issues range widely, from building new low-carbon businesses and commercializing green products to managing environmental compliance and ESG reporting more proactively. As companies mobilize to respond to increasing sustainability concerns, many have struggled with the differences between sustainability and other business issues in the trade-offs involved, decision-making and governance processes, and even employee and leader mindsets.

So how do executives build sustainability organizations that are well placed and empowered to help their companies meet stakeholders’ increasing expectations, manage sustainability-related risks, and capture business opportunities? In this article, we outline four ways that leaders can guide the organizational redesign of their sustainability work and why they must think differently about sustainability compared with other, more traditional business issues (Exhibit 1).

Design according to sustainability topics , not sustainability overall

Sustainability is often used as a catchall term covering a great many topics. But for any given company, few topics will be of equal importance. Our work shows that companies address sustainability issues more effectively when they design their sustainability organizations to focus on each sustainability topic the company is prioritizing (for example, green hydrogen or its subtopic, operational decarbonization).

To do this well, companies should define the list of sustainability topics that matter for the organization, either because they are important to the business or because they are the areas in which the company is uniquely positioned to make a difference. One way to do so is with evergreen materiality assessments, 1 A materiality assessment is the process of identifying and prioritizing the potential sustainability topics that are most important for a company to address because of their potential impact on the business or its stakeholders. The process requires the engagement of both internal and external stakeholders, especially business-unit leaders with profit-and-loss responsibilities, investors, customers, nongovernmental organizations, regulators, and other key partners to the business. which account for the potential impact from, and likelihood of, a range of issues that could affect the company. Based on its materiality assessment, a company can then develop a short list of priority topics for its sustainability organization to cover. This will help companies make better decisions on resourcing and organizing around the issues that matter to their business.

When it comes to supporting sustainability work at the topic level, our experience suggests that a modular organizational design—rather than one holistic, central sustainability organization—often works best. A modular design gives companies the nimbleness to address emerging topics in a more agile way. Indeed, many sustainability topics arise quickly: for example, in 2018, the number of earnings calls that mentioned “plastic waste” increased 340 percent year over year. 2 Audrey Choi, “The business case for investing in sustainable plastics,” World Economic Forum, January 20, 2020, weforum.org. In practice, even if there’s a dedicated center of excellence for a certain topic, it doesn’t necessarily need to be part of the central team. Instead, it could be embedded in a business unit that has particular expertise on the topic or will be primarily responsible for leading the company’s response to it.

To support sustainability work at the topic level, our experience suggests that a modular organizational design—rather than one holistic, central sustainability organization—often works best.

One company we worked with built a carbon-management organization that distributed initiatives among different parts of the company, rather than relying on a central organization that covered all sustainability topics or that managed all of the organization’s carbon initiatives. The R&D department, for example, focused on researching and developing new low-carbon innovations. A separate business unit was created to commercialize low-carbon offerings to customers. Meanwhile, manufacturing sites set their own carbon-reduction targets, embedded their decarbonization initiatives in line with site-level turnaround schedules, and were held accountable for implementing those initiatives. The procurement team focused on decarbonizing the company’s supply chain. Finally, a lean central team coordinated carbon-emissions reporting and other carbon-related activities across the company.

Give your central sustainability team the decision rights to execute change

In our experience, it’s important for companies to have a central sustainability team to coordinate their work on these topics. Our experience also suggests that companies don’t need large central teams to implement their sustainability agendas successfully. While we have seen many companies start their sustainability transformations by allocating more central resources to these issues, we have also seen that having a smaller central team and more dedicated resources in the business lines that execute the detailed planning and implementation of sustainability can be most effective. In fact, among the companies we have worked with, some of those with highly effective sustainability programs have lean central sustainability organizations whose mandate is to incubate new sustainability ideas and integrate sustainability initiatives across the company.

What makes the central team particularly effective is having the decision-making authority to execute change, particularly regarding priority sustainability topics that affect multiple functions or that have a material impact on the overall organization. This authority has several dimensions. First, the central group should also engage the board of directors on critical sustainability topics, since the board holds the ultimate decision rights on such issues and the company’s strategic direction. The central team should also be empowered to hold others accountable, which it can do by setting centralized targets. Individual sites or businesses then come up with specific initiatives, timelines, and plans for pursuing those targets, and the central team tracks their progress while also maintaining a corporate-wide view of the company’s performance on the topic.

To ensure broad engagement in and commitment to common sustainability goals, the central team can enlist the company’s leaders to develop and define a corporate-level sustainability agenda. When the central team has a clear mandate from the business, it can better see that the sustainability agenda cascades through the organization and that business units have clear guidance on which priorities to take on.

At one company with a successful sustainability organization, an existing business unit worked closely with the central sustainability team to incubate a new business for end-of-life products. Once the idea reached a defined financial milestone and level of technological maturity, the responsibility of business building shifted away from the central team to that business unit. Since the business unit was involved in the effort from the start, the transition of the business’s decision rights was smooth.

To be clear, not all decisions need to be made by the central team, which could overstretch it (especially if it’s a small group) and divert attention from specific priorities. Rather, cross-functional decisions and those that are highly material to the full company are best suited for central-team oversight. 3 For more on how to classify and make decisions appropriately, see Aaron De Smet, Gerald Lackey, and Leigh M. Weiss, “ Untangling your organization’s decision making ,” McKinsey Quarterly , June 21, 2017. The right to make other decisions, such as those that involve single functions, can be assigned to leaders or teams that are more closely associated with those units.

Find the structure that best fits your sustainability agenda—and your organization as a whole

Reporting structure is usually the first topic that comes to mind when companies consider organizational redesigns, and so the first question we are often asked is, “Which organizational structure is ideal for capturing the full potential of sustainability?” In reality, there is no single “right” answer for the design of a sustainability organization and no one-size-fits-all approach, beyond the general principle that the structure should be well integrated into—and compatible with—the rest of the company’s setup.

There is no single ‘right’ answer for the design of a sustainability organization beyond the general principle that the structure should be well integrated into—and compatible with—the rest of the company’s setup.

That said, we do see that some organizational models tend to be more effective than others at elevating sustainability as a true strategic priority (Exhibit 2).

Compared with two other models that we see most often today in which sustainability is embedded in a support function or fully decentralized within business units, these three models help link sustainability to an overall strategy and give a sustainability organization real decision rights:

Large central team with few business-unit resources. In this model, a large central team plans—and maintains the decision rights to—most sustainability initiatives and also coordinates with individual business units that are actively working on specific sustainability issues or have expertise related to the topic. The central team incubates sustainability initiatives before handing them off to the business units and supports activities that have no other natural owners in the organization. It also ensures that sustainability priorities across the company have sufficient budgets and staff and that the organization stays focused on its priority topics. A central team may also have the best view of broader sustainability trends and stakeholder demands, though it’s likely less equipped than business units to respond to new sustainability-related market opportunities and risks. As an example, Newmont Goldcorp (a leading gold-mining company) was prompted by shareholders and its board to improve its management of sustainability issues after completing a merger. It responded quickly, creating a centralized sustainability group from 2002 to 2007 to design and drive the implementation of global environmental standards across its operational sites. This central group also managed decision making and the allocation of execution resources to sustainability issues.
Lean central team with decision rights and many business-unit resources. In this structure, the prioritization of sustainability topics is largely a top-down process, led by the lean central team, to ensure that a common company-wide agenda and targets are in place. Business units have a mandate to develop specific initiatives to achieve company-wide goals, which they do by deploying their own resources. Business units also have the flexibility and resources to set up and work on sustainability initiatives of their own, in line with the central team’s guidance. In our experience, this structure can be most effective at companies that have already embedded sustainability in the organizational culture, which increases the likelihood that sustainability becomes a true cross-functional effort. Since 2019, this model has been in place at International Paper, a leading pulp-and-paper company. Its lean central team sets the company-wide sustainability agenda and focuses on both managing external relationships and integrating internal efforts. Meanwhile, business-line leaders drive the sustainability agenda. They set targets, develop the company’s sustainability initiatives, assume responsibility for delivering on those initiatives (including the coordination of resources), and embed sustainability into day-to-day operations.
Central team that deploys agile or SWAT teams to business units. This structure puts a central team in charge of deploying sustainability-focused task forces to individual business units. Once a task force is embedded in a business unit, it helps with the planning and initial execution of that unit’s priority sustainability initiatives and builds capabilities so that the business can eventually run its own initiatives, once the task force leaves to support another unit. This facilitates the deployment of sustainability expertise and the sharing of best practices across the company, as well as the nimble reallocation of resources in response to the rapidly changing sustainability landscape. From a talent-development perspective, this model (what we call the “helix organization ”) also allows for a clearer separation of leaders—between those who help individuals develop capabilities and those who oversee employees’ day-to-day work. The result is that sustainability talent can be developed both ways.

Prioritize the design of processes and governance—rather than reporting lines—that account for sustainability’s complexity and dynamic nature

In our work on organizational redesign, we have found that many companies’ default mode is to focus solely on reporting structure. But we know from experience and research that going beyond “lines and boxes” corresponds with a much higher chance for redesign success: in a McKinsey Global Survey on organizational redesigns , respondents were nearly three times more likely to report successful redesigns if they focused on improving multiple elements of the organization (for example, performance management, business processes, and culture), not just on changing reporting lines. With respect to sustainability, which involves reorganizations that are more complicated and multifaceted than those of a typical function—and priorities that can shift much more quickly than in other areas of the business—we have found that it’s critical to think about redesigning sustainability-related processes and governance early on. Several guiding principles can help with this kind of effort.

For one, companies’ processes for making sustainability-related decisions should be robust and clearly define when an issue or decision should be escalated from the business unit to the central sustainability team. Decision-making processes should also include frequent discussions among stakeholders and fast decision cycles so that cross-functional or high-level topics can be identified and resolved quickly.

In most cases, the central team should be empowered to make decisions on topics that individual business units can’t resolve on their own. If the central team, in turn, finds it can’t resolve high-priority issues, it can escalate them to the executive team or a C-suite sustainability council. We have seen many companies fail to adapt their cadence on engaging with sustainability issues as they would with other topics. But that’s what sustainability necessitates, since many of these topics require quicker decision making and responses than other business issues. For many companies in traditional and mature sectors (for example, petrochemicals, cement, steel, and other heavy industrials) that are used to longer decision-making cycles, this may require a significant mindset shift. The executive team can help effect such a shift by clarifying that sustainability is a strategic priority that requires different decision-making approaches.

Another principle of effective sustainability processes and governance pertains to capital allocation. Sustainability investments often have different risk–return profiles and greater uncertainty than other, more traditional investment types. In our experience, many companies that lead on sustainability have set aside a separate pool of funds dedicated to sustainability initiatives, defined different hurdle rates for sustainability investments, introduced an internal carbon price to account for carbon impact and related risks, and put in place integrated financial and sustainability criteria to facilitate capital-allocation and M&A decisions.

Finally, it’s valuable for companies to develop sustainability-specific performance metrics. While the specific metrics will vary depending on the topic, the same principles of good performance management of other business activities also apply to sustainability: setting measurable targets (both financial and nonfinancial), establishing incentives (such as linking compensation to sustainability performance), and putting in place regular performance reviews of sustainability.

Sustainability is no longer an issue of compliance for most companies but rather a strategic and operational one. Once senior leaders integrate sustainability into their corporate strategy, they will benefit from having a dedicated organization to support their sustainability efforts. There is no right structure that applies to every company; each will need a structure of its own and will likely need to adjust this structure as business conditions and requirements change. A well-designed sustainability organization, we find, can give the company the capabilities that it needs to capture value and manage risks from sustainability in a systematic and even transformational way.

Aaron De Smet is a senior partner in McKinsey’s New Jersey office; Wenting Gao is an associate partner in the Houston office, where Thomas Hundertmark is a senior partner; and Kimberly Henderson is a partner in the Washington, DC, office.

This article was edited by Daniella Seiler, a senior editor in the New York office.

Explore a career with us

The secrets of successful organizational redesigns: McKinsey Global Survey results

Five ways that ESG creates value

Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

The potential of individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through their own actions: a case of a suburb in Finland

Open access
Published: 14 August 2024
Volume 5 , article number 191 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Vilma Halonen 1 ,
Anna Claudelin 1 ,
Ville Uusitalo 1 ,
Jarkko Levänen 1 &
Suvi Konsti-Laakso 2

24 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Household consumption accounts for 65–72% of total greenhouse gas emissions globally, and therefore, a change in current consumption patterns has the potential to mitigate climate change and provide emission reductions. There is knowledge on the consumption options with a high mitigation potential, but this information has not been combined with a consumer behavior information . This study examines the emission-reduction potential of suburban residents in Finland through a survey that assesses their willingness to adopt climate actions, and by calculating the potential impact of various actions. Finnish suburban households have already implemented low-impact climate actions (recycling, reducing food waste), but the implementation of high-impact actions in households could also be increased. Transitioning to a vegetarian diet, reducing air travel and limiting consumption are identified as the most effective mitigation actions when the potential increase in the implementation rate and impact on greenhouse gas emissions are considered. However, the results suggest that voluntary individual efforts alone are not sufficient to achieve the 1.5 °C carbon budget. Thus, alongside behavioural changes, strong policy measures and technological advancements are necessary. These findings emphasise the specific individual actions that should be prioritised when formulating climate policies at the national or city levels.

Adjusting food practices to climate prescriptions: vegetable gardening as a way to reduce food-related greenhouse gas emissions

Green roles at home: exploring the impact of household social dynamic processes on consumption at the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

System-level change in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission production and resource use is required to achieve safe operating level of planetary boundaries [ 1 , 2 ]. To limit global warming to 1.5 °C, rapid reductions in GHG emissions are needed in all sectors and systems in this decade [ 3 ]. The majority of global GHG emissions (65–72%) are related to household consumption [ 4 , 5 ], and the main consumption categories are mobility, shelter and food [ 5 ]. Previous studies highlight the need for systemic change in consumption patterns and lifestyles to achieve immediate reductions in GHG emissions [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. The latest IPCC assessment report emphasised that greater awareness is needed of the importance of implementing behavioural change measures [ 3 ].

Changes in household consumption are considered an inexpensive and rapid climate change mitigation measure [ 10 ]. To meet the global 1.5 °C reduction target, global consumption-based GHG emissions per capita must be reduced to 2.5 t CO 2 eq a −1 by 2030 and to 0.7 t CO 2 eq a −1 by 2050 [ 8 ]. The most significant emission reductions are needed in wealthier countries, as the carbon footprints per capita are unevenly distributed across nations [ 5 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. With effective climate policies and efficient technologies, individuals’ consumption-based carbon footprints (CBCF) can be reduced to some extent without requiring significant behavioural changes [ 14 , 15 ]. However, the current policy measures are not sufficient to guarantee adequate emission reductions to achieve the 1.5 °C target, and therefore, individual climate change mitigation actions and changes in consumption patterns are also needed [ 7 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].

Individual climate change mitigation actions can be divided into high-impact and low-impact actions. Household-level actions with the highest potential to reduce GHG emissions are living car-free [ 8 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], changing from a combustion engine car to an electric vehicle [ 8 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 ], avoiding intercontinental air travel [ 8 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 ], eating a plant-based diet [ 8 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ] and shifting to renewable energy in the household [ 8 , 17 , 18 , 21 ]. Collectively, these actions can decrease the personal carbon footprint by approximately 500–3000 kg CO 2 eq a −1 , depending on the assumptions and calculation methods.

The low-impact climate actions at household level have a minor effect on reducing personal carbon footprints. Previous studies have shown that individuals’ knowledge related to high-impact climate mitigation actions is relatively low, as people estimate the GHG emissions of high-impact actions lower than they are and the GHG emissions of low-impact actions higher than they are [ 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 ]. Low-impact climate actions at the household level include, for instance, recycling, reducing food waste and using local products, and they typically reduce personal consumption-based emissions by 40–400 kg CO 2 eq a −1 [ 18 , 21 ]. According to Dubois et al. [ 19 ], households prefer low-impact climate actions, for example, recycling, buying products with less or greener packaging and eco-driving. Food- and recycling-related actions are the most popular among households and that people prefer climate actions that are easy to implement [ 25 ]. The ease of implementing climate actions is likely one of the most important factors explaining why low-impact actions are more popular than high-impact actions. Low-impact actions do not require major changes and financial investments in the same way that high-impact actions do. High-impact actions are generally implemented at once and result in permanent lifestyle changes (e.g., changing to an electric vehicle, shifting to renewable energy, or living car-free). These “permanent actions” provide more certainty in emission reductions, as the decision to implement lifestyle change is not revisited daily. In contrast, the most popular low-impact actions, such as recycling and reducing food waste, can be described “ongoing actions” because they require continuous decisions to maintain climate-friendly behaviors. Therefore, ongoing actions may also be uncertain in terms of their emission reduction potential.

To reduce consumption-based GHG emissions and achieve sustainable systemic change at the household level, it is crucial to understand the willingness of individuals to reduce emissions. Previous studies have found that the greater the GHG emission-reduction potential of a mitigation action, the less willing a household and individuals are to implement that action [ 19 , 20 , 26 ]. In addition, car ownership, long travel distances, income level, household size and heating are considered as high consumer lock-ins, which mean these factors hamper the implementation of GHG emission-reduction measures in households [ 27 ]. Household living situations, sociodemographic characteristics (household size, ownership status) and life circumstances (childhood, adulthood, illness) can also affect the potential to reduce GHG emissions [ 19 ]. In a systematic review of factors influencing the pro-sustainable behaviour of adolescents by Bhattarai et al. [ 28 ], the authors identified the most important factors as demographic (e.g., age, gender), internal (e.g., self-efficacy, interest, awareness, attitude, and beliefs) and external (e.g., norms, cultural and institutional) factors.

Huang et al. [ 29 ] identified a connection between the perceived effectiveness of climate actions and pro-environmental behaviour. Awareness of climate and environmental issues [ 29 , 30 , 31 ], environmental concerns and risk perceptions [ 32 ] and biospheric values [ 33 ] also affect pro-environmental behaviour and sustainable consumption. In the Nordic country context (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland), the high level climate-sustainability perception promotes low carbon footprint [ 34 ]. In Nordic countries, where CBCFs are generally relatively high, the higher pro-environmental behaviour and climate concern mean a lower carbon footprint [ 30 ]. In addition, pro-environmental attitudes are more strongly linked to pro-environmental behaviour when the financial costs of the climate actions are low [ 31 ].

Since households are currently willing to conduct mostly low-impact climate actions, it is necessary to identify the high-impact climate actions that household are considering and willing to implement. While there is some knowledge on which individual emission reduction actions are the most effective and which factors affect individuals’ willingness to perform these actions, there is a lack of information on which individual climate actions have the greatest potential for reducing emissions considering actual implementation . Identifying the potential of increasing the implementation of climate actions is crucial to recognise the key areas of focus for climate change mitigation efforts in the future. The novelty of this paper is that it considers GHG emission-reduction calculations along with the level of implementation of certain climate actions . We contribute to previous studies on household carbon footprints by combining information on high-impact individual climate actions, the willingness of individuals to implement these actions and the potential to increase the implementation of these actions. Our results provide information on the effect of behavioural change on reducing personal carbon footprints and which individual actions have the greatest mitigation potential, considering the implementation rate and emission-reduction potential. The results of this study give insights into which individual climate actions could be politically supported to increase their level of implementation. In addition, the effect of individual climate actions on personal CBCF is assessed through behavioural change carbon footprint scenario.

The study is based on two quantitative approaches. Consumer willingness to engage in specific climate actions and the degree of implementation of these actions are examined through a survey. The individual mitigation potential of the climate actions is calculated using GHG emission data for one year. Detailed information on the survey data and assumptions as well as the GHG emission calculations is presented in the materials and methods section. The quadrant analysis, which is presented in the second section, combines the results of the survey and emission-reduction calculations. Next, individuals’ willingness to implement specific climate actions and the climate mitigation potential of individual actions are combined and discussed. In addition, the reduction potential of voluntary behavioural changes is assessed. Subsequently, the results and the effects of behavioural change on consumption-based emissions are discussed. Finally, the paper ends with a brief discussion of the conclusions.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 study area.

This research was conducted in the city of Lahti in Finland, specifically in the neighbourhood of Mukkula. Lahti is located in southern Finland with 120,000 residents. Mukkula is located approximately 5 km from the Lahti city centre and has a population of 7676 (in 2020), including 47% men and 53% women. The Mukkula area was selected for this study because of its socio-economic status and housing stock. The average income level in Mukkula (35,027 €/year/household) is lower than the average Finnish income level (41,651 €/year/household), and more than 70% the housing stock is apartment buildings. The majority of the population is middle aged or retired, and the average age is 46 years (Finnish average is 43 years). In the area, the majority of residential buildings are 1960s apartment buildings, and the household size is 1.8 persons on average [ 35 ].

The consumption-based carbon footprint of Mukkula residents [ 36 ] and the development of their carbon footprint for the years 2010–2030 [ 15 ] have been calculated previously. The average carbon footprint of Mukkula residents (6.2 tCO 2 eq a −1 ) is lower than the average Finnish consumption-based carbon footprint (9.7 tCO 2 eq a −1 ) and the average consumption-based carbon footprint of Lahti citizens (7.2 tCO 2 eq a −1 ) [ 8 , 36 , 37 ]. This lower level of consumption-based GHG emissions in Mukkula may be due to the lower income level of the local residents, in line with the findings of previous studies [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ] and the higher average age [ 36 ].

Data for consumer readiness to implement climate actions was collected through a survey. The survey of the Mukkula residents’ readiness to perform specific climate actions was conducted online in April 2022 in the Finnish language. A link and a QR code to the digital survey was sent to a random sample of 2000 Mukkula residents via post letters. To ensure the representativeness of the sample, a random sample was provided by the Finnish Digital and Population Data Services Agency, which was limited to residents who lived in the postal code area of 15,240, who were aged 18–80 and whose native language was Finnish. Five participants answered the paper version of the survey. The total number of survey respondents was 218, and the response rate was 11%. Consent was obtained from all the participants prior to the survey. The data were collected using the Webropol 3.0 survey and reporting tool and analysed using the SPSS 26 statistical program. The survey questions were related to household-level climate actions in the mobility, food, housing and other consumption sectors (recycling, sharing economy). The respondents evaluated the degree of implementation of each climate actions on a scale with the following response options: ‘implemented’, ‘partially implemented’, ‘considered but not implemented’ and ‘not implemented’. A copy of the questionnaire translated into English is presented in Appendix I.

The reliability of the survey was analysed by comparing the socio-economic characteristics of the sample (a number of acceptable survey participants) and those of the population of Mukkula (Table 1 ). Information on the Mukkula inhabitants was acquired from Statistics Finland’s online database Paavo, which provides open data by postal code area [ 35 ]. Despite the relatively low response rate, the sample was sufficiently representative of the population of Mukkula. However, there were a few differences between the sample and the population of Mukkula. For example, individuals who were over 60 years of age, highly educated (bachelor’s and master’s degree) and in the highest income category were overrepresented in the sample (Table 1 ).

2.3 Calculation of GHG emission reductions

The GHG emissions reduction of each climate action in the survey was calculated using emission data from different international, national and local sources. The calculations were based on assumptions and national and city-level estimations and were divided by consumption sectors: mobility, food, housing and other consumption. The emissions reduction of each action were calculated for one year per capita in the unit of kg CO 2 eq a −1 . All GHG were defined as the sum of GHG emissions in the same unit carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 eq). More detailed calculations and assumptions for each climate action are presented below and in Appendix II.

2.3.1 GHG emissions reduction related to mobility-related actions

Mobility-related emissions and their reduction are typically linked to distance, modal shares and mobility mode-related GHG emissions. The emission factors used in the assessment are presented in Appendix II. The factors were defined for the city of Lahti for 2021 [ 15 ]. On average, people in Mukkula travel 6248 km by passenger cars, and there are 1.7 persons per car [ 15 ].

Seven possible actions for reducing mobility-related GHG emissions were assessed: ‘travelling less than 3 km on foot or by bike’, ‘replacing most car trips with public transport’, ‘prefer carpooling when possible’, ‘have changed from a combustion engine car to an electric or biogas car’, ‘have reduced private driving’, ‘have been completely giving up using own car’ and ‘have reduced air travel’. The calculation assumptions and GHG impacts are presented in Appendix II.

2.3.2 GHG emissions reduction related to food-related actions

Food-related emission-reduction actions are typically linked to the reduction of meat eating and replacing emission-intensive proteins with less-intensive protein options, as avoiding animal-based foods has the greatest emission-reduction potential related to an individual’s diet [ 5 , 42 ]. The calculations were based on national nutritional recommendations and Finnish average dietary GHG emission calculations. We assessed six food-related emission-reduction actions: ‘have reduced meat eating’, ‘have reduced consumption of dairy products’, ‘shifting to a vegetarian diet’, ‘shifting to a vegan diet’, ‘replacing red meat with chicken and fish’ and ‘reducing food waste’. The assumptions, GHG emission factor information and the reduction potential of each action are presented in Appendix II.

2.3.3 GHG emissions reduction related to housing-related actions

The housing-related emission-reduction calculations were based on local energy production data and assumptions. In the energy emission calculations, only direct emissions are considered. This means that emissions from energy infrastructure are excluded. Most of the GHG emission factor information was specific to the city of Lahti. For instance, the GHG emissions of district heating production were provided by the local energy company Lahti Energia.

The following housing-related GHG emission-reduction actions were assessed: ‘lowering the room temperature at home’, ‘moving to smaller apartment’, ‘shifting to green electricity’, ‘producing renewable energy’, ‘reducing the use of hot water’ and ‘using eco-programs with home electrical appliances’. More detailed assumptions and GHG emission factors are presented in Appendix II.

2.3.4 GHG emissions reduction related to other consumption-related actions

The following GHG emission-reduction actions related to consumption were assessed: ‘recycling household waste’, ‘repairing garments’, ‘utilising the sharing economy instead of buying new items’ and ‘reducing consumption related to goods and leisure’. The assumptions and GHG emission information were obtained from national and global sources. There is limited information on GHG emissions available in the local context, and thus it was more reliable to use national and global data in the calculations. However, it is reasonable to assume that the data from national and global sources are in line with suburban consumption. The calculation assumptions and GHG emission information are presented in Appendix II.

2.4 Quadrant analysis

To combine the results of survey results and GHG emission calculations, the quadrant analysis is used. The potential of increasing the implementation of specific climate actions was evaluated by adding the share of respondents who have implemented reduction-related actions partially to those who have considered implementing such actions. This factor shows the number of people who have not implemented climate actions but would be willing to implement them in the future. The following equation is used to calculate the potential of increasing the implementation rate of specific climate actions:

where ${IP}_{potential}$ is the potential implementation rate of specific climate action, ${e}_{part.}$ is the share of respondents who have partially implemented the specific climate action and ${e}_{cons.}$ is the share of respondents who have considered but not implemented the specific action.

To analyse the mitigation potential of climate actions, we created a quadrant analysis chart divided into four sections: A, B, C and D (Fig. 2 ). In Fig. 2 , the y-axis represents the annual GHG emissions reduction of each individual action (from 0 to 1000 kg CO 2 eq a −1 ), while the x-axis shows the percentage of implemented actions (from 0 to 100%). Four sections are obtained by dividing the x- and y-axis in two parts at the midpoints of both axes (x-axis midpoint: 50%, y-axis midpoint: 500 kg CO 2 eq a −1 ). These four sections can be used to compare the mitigation potential of the actions. The size of the bubble indicates the mitigation potential of the action, i.e. how many respondents have partially implemented or have considered implementing the specific action (%). The bigger the bubble, the greater the mitigation potential. The actions with a high implementation rate (> 50%) and a high mitigation potential (> 500 kg CO 2 eq a −1 ) are considered the most potential and effective individual climate mitigation actions.

Section A is located in the upper left corner of the chart, which shows actions that have high emission-reduction potential but a low implementation rate. Actions with the highest mitigation potential are located in the upper right corner of chart (i.e. section B). Section B includes actions with high emission reduction potential and a high implementation rate. Section C is located in the lower left corner and includes actions that have the lowest emission-reduction potential and a low implementation rate. Finally, section D is located in the lower right corner and includes actions with low emission-reduction potential but a relatively high implementation rate. In this paper, high emission-reduction potential is considered as a reduction of more than 500 kg CO 2 eq per action, and a high implementation rate is more than 50%.

In this section, we present the implementation rates of climate actions based on the survey results. Then we combine the survey results of implemented actions, potential actions and the emission mitigation potential of climate actions into quadrant analysis. Based on the quadrant analysis and the highest mitigation potential of individual actions, we create behavioural change scenario for consumption-based carbon footprint of Mukkula resident.

3.1 The degree to which climate actions are implemented in households

Figure 1 presents the implementation rates of specific climate actions by Mukkula residents on the survey results. The actions were related to mobility, food, housing and other consumption sectors. Recycling household waste (86% implemented) and reducing food waste (58% implemented) had the greatest degree of implementation. Almost all of the survey respondents indicated that they have partially implemented these actions (98% of residents recycle household waste fully or partially, and 93% have reduced food waste fully or partially). This finding is line with the study conducted by Dubois et al. [ 19 ], which showed that the highest willingness to implement reduction actions was for actions with moderate emission-reduction potential related to food and recycling. Other actions that had a high implementation rate were reducing consumption (29% implemented), extending the life cycle of goods by repairing (41% implemented), reducing air travel (39% implemented) and travelling less than 3 km on foot or by bike (37% implemented) (Fig. 1 ).

The level of implementation of individual climate actions in the Mukkula neighbourhood, Finland (N = 218)

The majority of the Mukkula residents (more than 50%) reported that they have not implemented climate actions in their daily routines, including utilising the sharing economy instead of buying new (51%), producing renewable energy by themselves (62%), moving to a smaller apartment (68%), shifting to a vegan diet (69%), completely giving up the use of their own car (71%) and changing from a combustion engine car to an electric or biogas car (Fig. 1 ). These actions can be considered harder to implement because they require greater lifestyle-related changes. More detailed results are presented in Fig. 1 .

3.2 Potential GHG emissions reduction related to individual actions

As can be seen in Fig. 1 , the respondents indicated that they have partially implemented climate mitigation actions or that they have not implemented them but have considered doing so. Therefore, some actions could have a high mitigation potential if residents implemented the actions they have only partially implemented or have considered implementing. We calculated how much each individual action could reduce personal GHG emissions in one year (kg CO 2 eq) and compared that result with the level of climate action implementation (Appendix II).

The maximum mitigation potential of each action is presented in Fig. 2 , accounting for the share of implemented, partly implemented and considered actions and the GHG emissions reduction related to each action. Figure 2 shows the GHG emissions reduction related to each action (y-axis), how many respondents have fully implemented the specific climate actions (x-axis) and how many respondents have partially implemented or have considered implementing the specific action (bubble). The figure is divided into four sections (A, B, C and D), which indicate the mitigation potential of the actions in terms of emissions reduction and implementation rate.

The climate mitigation potential of individual actions in the Mukkula neighbourhood, Finland. The y-axis indicates the GHG emission-reduction potential of each action in kg CO 2 eq a −1 . The x-axis shows how many respondents have fully implemented the specific climate actions (%). The size of the bubble indicates the mitigation potential of the action, i.e. how many respondents have partially implemented or have considered implementing the specific action (%). The bigger the bubble, the greater the mitigation potential. The most significant mitigation potential is for actions in the upper right corner (the section B ) or in the upper portion of the figure with large bubbles (sections A and B ). Actions that result in moderate or low reductions are located in sections C and D . The percentage after the action indicates the share of residents who have partially implemented and considered implementing the action

Figure 2 presents an overview of which individual actions have the greatest mitigation potential, considering environmental impacts and behavioural change. Shifting to a vegetarian diet, reducing consumption and reducing air travel have the greatest GHG emission-reduction potential of more than 500 kg CO 2 eq annually per capita, and the majority of residents have already implemented or considered implementing these actions in their daily lives. These actions have the greatest climate mitigation potential because it is possible to increase their rate of implementation. For example, 51% of the respondents have partially shifted to a vegetarian diet or considered shifting to one, 55% are ready to reduce consumption and 21% are ready to reduce their air travel.

There are not any actions in section B (Fig. 2 ), which means that the implementation rates of high-impact climate mitigation actions are less than 50%. This finding is in line with study by Dubois et al. [ 19 ], who reported that households are less willing to implement actions that have a high climate mitigation potential. The actions outlined in section A (shifting to a vegan diet or vegetarian diet, reducing consumption reducing air travel and giving up using own car) have the greatest potential of moving to section B if their rate of implementation was increased by at least to 50%. Based on Fig. 2 , suburban residents are willing or interested in “reducing” actions, such as reducing consumption, reducing air travel or reducing meat eating and food waste. Actions, which need a comprehensive change in lifestyle, such as, completely giving up using own car, changing from a combustion car to an electric car or moving to smaller apartment have the lowest implementation rates.

The majority of the actions have relatively low emission-reduction potential and implementation rates (section C). However, there are actions that have the potential to increase the implementation rate to more than 50%, such as shifting to green electricity, carpooling, reducing meat eating, reducing private car driving, replacing red meat with chicken and fish, shifting from car driving to bike or walking for trips less than 3 km, using less hot water, using eco-programs at home, lowering the room temperature and extending the life cycle of goods by repairing them. While these actions have moderate emission-reduction potential, if their implementation rates were increased, the combined effect of the reductions would decrease the personal carbon footprint of the Mukkula residents considerably. The actions with low emission-reduction potential but high implementation rates are located in section D, including reducing food waste and recycling household waste.

3.3 Behavioural change carbon footprint scenario

To analyse the effect of behavioural change on mitigating climate change, we calculated how much the personal consumption-based carbon footprint (CBCF) of Mukkula residents would decrease if the actions with the highest mitigation potential were fully implemented (Fig. 3 ). This extreme behavioural change scenario would lead to reduced GHG emissions in each consumption category (housing, mobility, food, other consumption), with two climate actions with the most potential per category based on Fig. 2 . We selected actions that do not overlap. For example, shifting to a vegetarian diet and reducing meat eating are based on the same idea of avoiding meat eating, and thus they would overlap in the assessment.

The reduction of Mukkula residents’ consumption-based carbon footprint (CBCF) through extreme behavioural changes. The personal CBCF would be reduced by 40% from the baseline scenario if two climate actions from each consumption category are fully implemented. Baseline CF is based on the study by Halonen et al. [ 36 ], and GHG emission reductions are based on calculations from Appendix II

For the behavioural change scenario, the actions with the most potential in terms of emissions reduction and implementation are:

Housing: Shifting to green electricity (− 235 kg CO 2 eq a −1 ) and lowering the room temperature at home (− 22 kg CO 2 eq a −1 )

Mobility: Reducing air travel (− 552 kg CO 2 eq a −1 ) and preferring carpooling (− 403 kg CO 2 eq a −1 )

Food: Shifting to a fully vegetarian diet (− 576 kg CO 2 eq a −1 ) and reducing food waste (− 72 kg CO 2 eq a −1 )

Other consumption: Reducing consumption (− 585 kg CO 2 eq a −1 ) and extending the life cycle of goods by repairing them (− 40 kg CO 2 eq a −1 ).

The assumptions and more detailed emission-reduction calculations for each action are presented in Appendix II. The baseline CBCF of Mukkula residents was based on a previous study by Halonen et al. [ 36 ], which reported a total CBCF of 6245 kg CO 2 eq a −1 per capita.

Based on Fig. 3 , the specific individual actions would reduce the total CBCF of Mukkula residents from 6245 kg CO 2 eq a −1 to 3760 kg CO 2 eq a −1 when the implementation rate of the selected climate actions from each consumption category is 100%. This means that CBCF could be reduced approximately by 40% through major behavioural changes in the Mukkula neighbourhood. However, even with these actions and changes, the carbon footprint of Mukkula residents would not reach the 1.5 °C target (2500 kg CO 2 eq a −1 in 2030) [ 8 ]. Therefore, societal decarbonisation actions and technological development are also needed to reduce consumption-based GHG emissions. Further, the baseline CBCF of Mukkula residents is lower than the Finnish average CBCF, indicating that more climate actions and more extreme behavioural changes may be needed at a national level.

4 Discussion

4.1 policy instruments to support low-carbon lifestyles in suburban area.

The results of this study indicate that the implementation rate of certain climate actions can be increased in suburban households. Although not all high-impact actions can be easily increased, certain actions, such as shifting to a vegetarian diet and green electricity and reducing consumption and air travel, have the potential to surpass an implementation rate of 50%. In the suburban context, these actions have the greatest emission-reduction potential, and thus policies targeting emissions reductions should be focused on these actions.

There are different categories for policy instruments to support climate-friendly behaviour, such as information-based instruments, economic instruments, regulatory-based instruments and enabling instruments [ 43 ]. Nudging may also be used as an environmental policy instrument when other instruments are not in use [ 44 ]. Information-based instruments and nudging can be considered the most potential policy instruments to increase the implementation rates of climate actions in the suburban and the city context. For instance, the city can provide information campaigns about vegetarian food and repairing goods, offer energy advice for housing cooperatives [ 45 ], and demonstrate sufficient and sustainable lifestyles in the city’s marketing materials (nudging). Regulatory and economic-based instruments could also be used with studied high-impact climate actions but should be provided at the national level.

4.2 Increasing the implementation rates of climate actions

This study fills a gap in research on which individual climate actions have the greatest mitigation potential in terms of reducing GHG emissions and actual implementation. Similar to previous studies, our findings emphasise that households have implemented more low-impact climate actions than high-impact actions (e.g., recycling and reducing food waste) [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 ]. According to Ratinen et al. [ 21 ], most Finns mistakenly believe that recycling would decrease their carbon footprint significantly, which may explain the high rate of recycling in Mukkula.

On the other hand, suburban residents are also willing to implement some high-impact emission reductions measures, such as shifting to vegetarian diet, reducing consumption and reducing air travel. These actions may be popular among suburban residents because they do not restrict daily basic needs and require financial investments. As the income level of Mukkula area is lower than the average income level of Finland, affordable climate measures may interest residents. Suburban residents were more willing to implement actions focused on reducing consumption in different categories, e.g., meat eating, air travelling and food waste. Actions that demand financial investments and major changes in lifestyle were less popular (e.g., changing a combustion car to an electric car or moving to smaller apartment). Implementing high-impact actions and climate-friendly behaviour should be made easy to increase the perception of climate actions [ 46 ].

In addition to climate policy instruments, there is a need to increase the implementation rate of individual climate actions in other ways too. Developing the carbon numeracy and climate literacy of individuals could help to reduce emissions and increase the adoption rate of climate-related actions [ 24 , 47 ]. The development of system thinking competency in education can increase environmental knowledge, and thereby also climate actions [ 21 ]. Bothner et al. [ 25 ] suggested that providing households with information on the health benefits of climate actions could encourage behavioural changes. Specifically, knowledge about high-impact and low-impact climate actions could support more sustainable consumer behaviours. For example, Uusitalo et al. [ 48 ] found that information about personal mobility emissions encouraged users to adopt more sustainable mobility behaviours. Furthermore, climate change knowledge can support the acceptability of climate policies and societal actions to mitigate climate change [ 49 ].

4.3 The effect of individual climate actions in future

In high-income countries (e.g., Nordic countries, the US), the consumption-based GHG emissions per capita greatly exceeded the carbon budget needed to keep global temperature rise to 1.5 °C [ 8 , 13 , 17 ]. For example, in Finland, there is a need to reduce consumption-based emissions per capita by approximately 70% by 2030 to achieve the 1.5 °C target [ 8 , 15 ]. Based on the results of this study, suburban residents could reduce their CBCF by approximately 43% with major behavioural changes. Carlsson-Kanyama et al. [ 50 ] studied the emission-reduction potential of Swedish households based on shifting household expenditures to low-emitting, affordable and available food, holiday and furnishing alternatives, finding that the share of total consumption-based emissions per capita could be reduced by 36–38%. There is need for a shift from low-impact climate actions to high-impact actions at household level in order to achieve the carbon budget of 1.5 °C.

Bjelle et al. [ 7 ] and Halonen et al. [ 15 ] argued that relying solely on technology development to cut GHG emissions is inadequate and that changes in consumption patterns are also needed. However, Dubois et al. [ 19 ] noted that strong policy measures to enhance behavioural changes are mandatory because voluntary changes in consumption patterns will not be adequate to reach the climate goals. Based on our findings and those of previous studies [ 19 , 50 ], the reduction of CBCF through voluntary behavioural changes will not guarantee a sustainable level of CBCF. Our society has numerous lock-ins and challenges that hinder the achievement of a lifestyle within planetary boundaries only with behavioural changes. Therefore, there is a need for both individual and societal high-impact emission-reduction actions in affluent countries to accelerate the systemic change to more sustainable lifestyles.

4.4 Limitations

Finally, a number of important limitations need to be considered. First, the study area was a suburban area in a mid-sized city in Finland, and thus the sample size of the study was limited, and the assumptions made in the calculations might vary from those in previous studies on reducing household GHG emissions. The assumptions regarding GHG emissions reductions were made for suburban residents and specifically in the context of the city of Lahti and the Mukkula neighbourhood. Consequently, the results may differ from national-level CF calculations. For instance, housing-related emissions reductions are lower at the suburban level than at the national level because energy production is assumed to be low-emission district heating from the local energy company [ 51 ]. References used in the carbon footprint calculations are presented in Supplementary material Appendix II [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. The survey focused on climate issues, which could have influenced the respondents’ interest in participating in the survey. The topic might have driven away people who were not interested in climate-related issues or attracted people who were interested in the topic. Therefore, the respondents of the survey might have already made conscious consumption choices, and their implementation of different actions could be higher compared to a random sample of citizens.

The potential reduction of Mukkula residents’ CBCF (Fig. 3 ) is based on extreme voluntary behavioural changes, and therefore it is only a theoretical scenario for assessing the potential effects of behavioural change on climate change. The actions studied here for reducing personal CF are relatively extreme, with carpooling, shifting to a vegetarian diet and reducing consumption requiring major changes in individual’s life styles. It can be assumed that a more realistic emission-reduction scenario would be located between the baseline and the extreme behaviour change scenario. However, the current behavioural change scenario can provide a framework for future assessments in different city or country contexts. In the future, individual emission-reduction scenarios could focus on more realistic behavioural change options based on public policy actions and technological development.

4.5 Future research

This study provides a framework for assessing the potential for implementing high-impact individual climate actions. The study focused on suburban residents’ willingness to implement climate actions in their daily lives and actual implementation rates of climate actions. Further research is needed to identify individual factors that influence the ability and willingness to implement high-impact climate actions. The drives and barriers to implement these actions should be investigated across consumer groups, which would provide a deeper understanding of how the adoption of high-impact climate actions could be increased through policy instruments.

This study is based on self-reported climate behaviour, making it relevant to compare suburban residents’ responses with observed climate behaviour. Potential biases that might be derived from the climate-related survey were beyond the scope of this study. Future research could assess these biases and refine the methodology used.

Moreover, societal actions and technological developments in climate change mitigation should be considered in future studies. This study focused solely on individual behaviour in climate change mitigation. Future research should include the effect of societal climate actions on individuals’ willingness to adopt climate-friendly behaviour.

5 Conclusions

The emission-reduction potential of suburban residents can be increased. This study has shown that Finnish suburban households have already implemented low-impact climate actions (recycling, reducing food waste), but the implementation of high-impact actions in households could also be increased. This study extends the current knowledge on the individual climate actions that have the greatest emission-reduction implementation potential. Specifically, the actions with the most potential are shifting to a vegetarian diet, reducing consumption (consumer goods and leisure) and reducing air travel. Our study provides a framework for future assessments of the climate mitigation potential of households in different city or country contexts.

The findings confirm those of previous studies and provide additional evidence suggesting the future climate policies should focus on behavioural change and high-impact climate actions that individuals are willing to implement. However, the study also highlights that behavioural changes alone cannot decrease consumption-based emissions per capita enough to achieve the 1.5 °C target. Thus, strong decarbonisation policy measures and technological development in energy, transport and agriculture sectors are also required to reduce consumption-based GHG emissions. Future research could investigate the potential of reducing per capita CBCF through a combination of behavioural changes and technological measures. In addition, more research on how to increase the implementation rate of high-impact individual climate actions could be needed.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript and supplementary information files.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Rockström, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 2009;461(7263):472–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a .

Article CAS Google Scholar

Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. 2015;347(6223):1259855.

Article Google Scholar

IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Core Writing Team, Lee H, Romero J, editors. Climate change 2023: synthesis report. A report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland; 2023. p. 36. (in press)

Hertwich, Peters GP. Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(16):6414–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/es803496a .

Ivanova D, Stadler K, Steen-Olsen K, Wood R, Vita G, Tukker A, Hertwich EG. Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. J Ind Ecol. 2015;20(3):526–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12371 .

Girod, van Vuuren DP, Hertwich EG. Climate policy through changing consumption choices: options and obstacles for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;25:5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.004 .

Bjelle EL, Steen-Olsen K, Wood R. Climate change mitigation potential of Norwegian households and the rebound effect. J Clean Prod. 2018;172:208–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.089 .

Akenji L, Bengtsson M, Toivio V, Lettenmeier M, Fawcett T, Parag T, et al. 1.5-degree lifestyles: Towards a fair consumption space for all. Hot or Cool Institute; 2021. https://hotorcool.org/1-5-degree-lifestyles/

Matthews HD, Wynes S. Current global efforts are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 C. Science. 2022;376(6600):1404–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo3378 .

Stankuniene G, Streimikiene D, Kyriakopoulos GL. Systematic literature review on behavioral barriers of climate change mitigation in households. Sustainability. 2020;12(18):7369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187369 .

Chancel L. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nat Sustain. 2022;5:931–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00955-z .

IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie A, van Diemen R, McCollum D, Pathak M, Some S, Vyas P, Fradera R, Belkacemi M, Hasija A, Lisboa G, Luz S, Malley J, editors. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.001

Ala-Mantila S, Heinonen J, Clarke J, Ottelin J. Consumption-based view on national and regional per capita carbon footprint trajectories and planetary pressures-adjusted human development. Environ Res Lett. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acabd8 .

Cap S, de Koning A, Tukker A, Scherer L. (In)Sufficiency of industrial decarbonization to reduce household carbon footprints to 1.5°C-compatible levels. Sustain Prod Consump. 2024;45:216–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.12.031 .

Halonen V, Kareinen E, Uusitalo V, Claudelin A. How do actions to decarbonise the energy and mobility sectors affect consumption-based carbon footprints? A case of historic and predicted actions in a suburb in Finland. Environ Res Commun. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/acaaf7 .

Seppälä J, Ollikainen M, Savolainen H, Häkkinen T, Saarinen M, Liimatainen H, Vainio A, Kurnitski J, Niemistö J, Niva M, Weaver S. Kuluttajien mahdollisuudet Suomen päästövähennysten vauhdittamiseksi. Suomen ilmastopaneelin raportti 5/2022 (The Finnish Climate Change Panel); 2022. ISBN: 978-952-7457-15-3 https://doi.org/10.31885/9789527457153

Ivanova D, Barrett J, Wiedenhofer D, Macura B, Callaghan M, Creutzig F. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15(9): 093001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589 .

Wynes S, Nicholas KA. The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ Res Lett. 2017;12(7): 074024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 .

Dubois G, Sovacool B, Aall C, Nilsson M, Barbier C, Herrmann A, et al. It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2019;52:144–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.001 .

Tolppanen S, Claudelin A, Kang J. Pre-service teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of the impact of mitigative climate actions and their willingness to act. Res Sci Educ. 2021;51:1629–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09921-1 .

Ratinen I, Linnanen L, Claudelin A, Halonen V. Toward sustainable development: connecting systems thinking competency and carbon footprint knowledge. Sustain Dev. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2469RATINENETAL.11 .

Lacroix K. Comparing the relative mitigation potential of individual pro-environmental behaviors. J Clean Prod. 2018;195:1398–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.068 .

Truelove HB, Parks C. Perceptions of behaviors that cause and mitigate global warming and intentions to perform these behaviors. J Environ Psychol. 2012;32(3):246–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002 .

Wynes, Zhao J, Donner SD. How well do people understand the climate impact of individual actions? Clim Change. 2020;162(3):1521–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02811-5 .

Bothner F, Dorner F, Herrmann A, Fischer H, Sauerborn R. Explaining climate policies’ popularity—an empirical study in four European countries. Environ Sci Policy. 2019;92:34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.009 .

Sköld, Baltruszewicz M, Aall C, Andersson C, Herrmann A, Amelung D, Barbier C, Nilsson M, Bruyère S, Sauerborn R. Household Preferences to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint: a comparative study from four european cities. Sustainability. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114044 .

Ivanova D. Carbon mitigation in domains of high consumer lock-in. Glob Environ Change. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.06.006 .

Bhattarai PC, Shrestha R, Ray S, Knez R. Determinants of adolescents’ pro-sustainable behavior: a systematic literature review using PRISMA. Discov Sustain. 2024;5:112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00291-6 .

Huang SP, Ma SZ, Pan Y, Li Y, Yuan YH, Tsai SB. An empirical study on how climate and environmental issues awareness affects low carbon use behaviour. Ecol Chem Eng S. 2020;27(1):55–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/eces-2020-0003 .

Árnadóttir Á, Abdirova T, Olson S, Heinonen J, Czepkiewicz M. Does higher climate concern lead to a smaller carbon footprint? A study among the Nordic country residents. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107543 .

Wyss, Knoch D, Berger S. When and how pro-environmental attitudes turn into behavior: the role of costs, benefits, and self-control. J Environ Psychol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101748 .

Saari U, Damberg S, Frömbling L, Ringle CM. Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: the influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecol Econ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107155 .

Tolppanen S, Kang J. The effect of values on carbon footprint and attitudes towards pro-environmental behavior. J Clean Prod. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124524 .

Maczionsek MIJH, Dillman KJ, Heinonen J. Linking perception and reality: climate-sustainability perception and carbon footprints in the Nordic countries. J Clean Prod. 2023;430: 139750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139750 .

Statistics Finland. Paavo (Open data by postal code area). Statistics Finland’s free-of-charge statistical databases; 2023. https://pxdata.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/en/Postinumeroalueittainen_avoin_tieto/ . Accessed 21 June 2023.

Halonen V, Konsti-Laakso S, Uusitalo V, Claudelin A, Lemmetty L. Tulevaisuuden hiilineutraali ja omavarainen lähiö: koosteraportti (The final report of Future carbon neutral and self-sufficiency neighborhood -project). LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications. ISBN: 978-952-335-930-7; 2023b. https://lutpub.lut.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/165366/loppuraportti.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Sitowise. Kulutuksen päästölaskennassa otettiin jälleen kehitysaskelia (Emission calculation of consumption has been developed); 2023. Press release 3.5.2023. https://www.sitowise.com/fi/uutiset/kulutuksen-paastolaskennassa-otettiin-jalleen-kehitysaskelia . Accessed 18 June 2024.

Christis M, Breemersch K, Vercalsteren A, Dils E. A detailed household carbon footprint analysis using expenditure accounts—case of Flanders (Belgium). J Clean Prod. 2019;228:1167–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.160 .

Feng K, Hubacek K, Song K. Household carbon inequality in the U.S. J Clean Prod. 2021;278: 123994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123994 .

Kalaniemi S, Ottelin J, Heinonen J, Junnila S. Downscaling consumption to universal basic income level falls short of sustainable carbon footprint in Finland. Environ Sci Policy. 2020;114:377–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.006 .

Ivanova D, Vita G, Steen-Olsen K, Standler K, Melo PC, Wood R, Hertwich EG. Mapping the carbon footprint of EU regions. Environ Res Lett. 2017;12: 054013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6da9 .

Hallström E, Carlsson-Kanyama A, Börjesson P. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. J Clean Prod. 2015;91:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008 .

Grubb M, Crawford-Brown D, Neuhoff K, Schanes K, Hawkins S, Poncia A. Consumption-oriented policy instruments for fostering greenhouse gas mitigation. Clim Policy. 2020;20(sup1):S58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1730151 .

Nielsen ASE, Sand H, Sørensen P, Knutsson M, Martinsson P, Persson E, Wollbrant C. Nudging and pro-environmental behaviour. 1st ed. Nordisk Ministerråd; 2017. https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2016-553 .

Book Google Scholar

Nissinen A, Heiskanen E, Perrels A, Berghäll E, Liesimaa V, Mattinen MK. Combinations of policy instruments to decrease the climate impacts of housing, passenger transport and food in Finland. J Clean Prod. 2015;107:455–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.095 .

Thøgersen J. Consumer behavior and climate change: consumers need considerable assistance. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2021;42:9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.008 .

Heinonen J, Olson S, Czepkiewicz M, Árnadóttir Á, Ottelin J. Too much consumption or too high emissions intensities? Explaining the high consumption-based carbon footprints in the Nordic countries. Environ Res Commun. 2022;4(12): 125007. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/aca871 .

Uusitalo, Huttunen A, Kareinen E, von Wright T, Valjakka M, Pitkänen A, Levänen J. Using personal carbon trading to reduce mobility emissions: a pilot in the Finnish city of Lahti. Transp Policy. 2022;126(C):177–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.07.022 .

Drews, van den Bergh JC. What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim Policy. 2016;16(7):855–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240 .

Carlsson-Kanyama, Nässén J, Benders R. Shifting expenditure on food, holidays, and furnishings could lower greenhouse gas emissions by almost 40%. J Ind Ecol. 2021;25(6):1602–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13176 .

Lahti Energia. Origin of district heat; 2024. https://lahtienergia.fi/kaukolammon-alkupera/ . Accessed 18 Jun 2024.

Finnish Transport Agency. National Travel Survey 2016. Helsinki 2018. Statistics from the Finnish Transport Agency 1/2018. ISBN 978-952-317-513-6 (pdf); 2018. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-317-513-6

Acea. Vehicles on European roads in 2022; 2024. https://www.acea.auto/publication/report-vehicles-on-european-roads/ . Accessed 16 Jun 2024.

Claudelin A, Uusitalo V, Kareinen E, Callahan S, Biresselioglu ME, Demir MH. The carbon footprint calculation model for the CAMPAIGNers app. Deliverable 2.1 of the CAMPAIGNers project funded under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, GA No: 101003815; 2022. https://project.climate-campaigners.com/newspost/content-news/report/2022/0228/Carbon-footprint-calculator . Accessed 21 June 2023.

Ilmasto-opas. Ilmastonmuutosta voi hillitä ilmastoystävällisellä ruokavaliolla (Climate change can be mitigated with climate-friendly diet); 2020. https://www.ilmasto-opas.fi/artikkelit/ilmastonmuutosta-voi-hillita-ilmastoystavallisella-ruokavaliolla#ref_KAS19 . Accessed 16 June 2023.

Finnravinto. Nutrition in Finland-the National FinDiet 2017 Survey. THL Report 12/2018. ISBN 978-952-343-238-3; 2018. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-343-238-3

Saarinen M, Kurppa S, Nissinen A, Mäkelä J. Aterioiden ja asumisen valinnat kulutuksen ympäristövaikutusten ytimessä (The environmental impacts of meals and housing). The final report of ConsEnv project. ISSN 1796-170X; 2011. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/37037/SY_14_2011.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Saarinen M, Kaljonen M, Niemi J, Antikainen R, Hakala K, Hartikainen H, Heikkinen J, Joensuu K, Lehtonen H, Mattila T, Nisonen S, Ketoja E, Knuuttila M, Regina K, Rikkonen P, Seppälä J, Varho V. Ruokavaliomuutoksen vaikutukset ja muutosta tukevat politiikkayhdistelmät - RuokaMinimi-hankkeen loppuraportti. Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja, 47; 2019. p. 158. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161742/VNTEAS_47_Ruokavaliomuutoksen%20vaikutukset.pdf

Helen. Energy saving tips; 2023a. https://www.helen.fi/en/customer-service/energy-advice/energy-saving-tips . Accessed 18 Jun 2024.

Hietaniemi E, Kolehmainen J, Toivio V, Lettenmeier M. Sitran elämäntapatestin laskentaperusteet. Sitra – The Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra; 2021. https://elamantapatesti.sitra.fi/Sitran_elamantapatestin_laskentaperusteet_suomeksi.pdf . Accessed 18 June 2024.

Energiavirasto. Jäännösjakauma 2021; 2022. https://energiavirasto.fi/documents/11120570/112530553/J%C3%A4%C3%A4nn%C3%B6sjakauma+2021+julkaisu+FI.pdf/62b1b1d6-b05b-13de-5892-38d39a1bbb2f/J%C3%A4%C3%A4nn%C3%B6sjakauma+2021+julkaisu+FI.pdf?t=1656411314380 . Accessed 18 Jun 2023.

Energiavirasto. Guarantee of origin; 2024. https://energiavirasto.fi/en/guarantee-of-origin . Accessed 16 July 2024.

Helen. Aurinkolaskuri; 2023b. https://www.helen.fi/aurinkopaneelit/aurinkopaneelipaketit/aurinkolaskuri . Accessed 18 Jun 2024.

Motiva. CO 2 -päästökertoimet; 2024. https://www.motiva.fi/ratkaisut/energiankaytto_suomessa/co2-paastokertoimet . Accessed 18 Jun 2024.

Motiva. Vinkkejä fiksuun vedenkäyttöön; 2022. https://www.motiva.fi/files/17601/Vinkkeja_fiksuun_vedenkayttoon.pdf . Accessed 18 Jun 2024.

Direct Energy. How much electricity does my dishwasher use? 2022. https://www.directenergy.com/learning-center/how-much-energy-dishwasher-use . Accessed 18 Jun 2024.

Bosch. How eco mode saves energy; 2022. https://www.bosch-home.in/experience-bosch/living-with-bosch/fresh-reads/how-eco-mode-saves-energy . Accessed 18 Jun 2023.

WWF. WWF:n ilmastolaskurin kertoimet—Suomi 2018; 2018. https://wwf.fi/ilmastolaskuri_laskentaperusteet/ . Accessed 12 Jul 2024.

HSY. Jätemäärät ja kierrätysaste; 2021. https://www.hsy.fi/jatteet-ja-kierratys/jatemaarat-ja-kierratysaste/ . Accessed 12 Jul 2024.

Coscieme L, Akenji L, Latva-Hakuni E, Vladimirova K, Niinimäki K, Henninger C, Joyner-Martinez C, Nielsen K, Iran S, D´Itria E. Unfit, unfair, unfashionable: resizing fashion for a fair consumption space. Hot or Cool Institute, Berlin; 2022. https://hotorcool.org/resources/unfit-unfair-unfashionable-resizing-fashion-for-a-fair-consumption-space-2/ .

Claudelin A, Tuominen K, Vanhamäki S. Sustainability perspectives of the sharing economy: process of creating a library of things in Finland. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116627 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted as part of the Tulevaisuuden hiilineutraali ja omavarainen lähiö (VN/10644/2020) project funded by the Finnish Ministry of Environment.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sustainability Science, LUT University, Mukkulankatu 19, 15210, Lahti, Finland

Vilma Halonen, Anna Claudelin, Ville Uusitalo & Jarkko Levänen

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, LUT University, Mukkulankatu 19, 15210, Lahti, Finland

Suvi Konsti-Laakso

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: V.H., A.C., V.U., J.L., S.K.; Methodology: V.H., A.C., V.U., J.L.; Formal analysis and investigation: V.H., A.C., V.U. Writing—original draft preparation: V.H. and A.C.; Writing—review and editing: V.H., A.C., V.U., J.L.; Funding acquisition: V.U., S.K., A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vilma Halonen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was performed as per the guidelines for the responsible conduct of research by the Finnish Advisory Board for Research Integrity. In line with these guidelines, no ethics approval for the study was needed. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

All information regarding the involved people was treated anonymously throughout the research process.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Halonen, V., Claudelin, A., Uusitalo, V. et al. The potential of individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through their own actions: a case of a suburb in Finland. Discov Sustain 5 , 191 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00407-y

Download citation

Received : 19 June 2024

Accepted : 09 August 2024

Published : 14 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00407-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Consumption-based carbon footprint
Mitigation potential
Behavioural change
Climate change

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Search the United Nations

Sustainable Development
Peace and Security
Human Rights
Humanitarian Action
Climate Action
Women And Girls
Current Exhibits
For Visitors
For Exhibitors

Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform our World

Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and improve the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere.

The Goals were adopted by all United Nations Member States in September 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which sets out a 15-year plan to achieve the Goals and their related targets. Never before had world leaders pledged common action across such a broad and universal policy agenda.

The 17 Goals are interconnected, apply to all countries, and need to be carried out by all stakeholders – governments, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations system and others – in a collaborative partnership.

This year marks the midpoint of SDG implementation. However, on its current course, the world may miss many Sustainable Development Goals targets by 2030. For the first time in decades, development progress has stalled and even reversed under the combined weight of climate disasters, conflict, economic downturn and the lingering aftermath of COVID-19. The SDG Summit, held on 18 to 19 September 2023 at the UN Headquarters in New York is a unique opportunity for the world to pivot from crisis to development and deliver the breakthroughs needed to achieve the Goals.

This exhibit illustrates the Sustainable Development Goals through photos from around the world, bringing to life what the 17 Goals mean for people on the planet.

This exhibit was produced by the UN Department of Global Communications.

End poverty in all its forms everywhere

In 2020, the number of people living in extreme poverty (living on less than USD 2.15 a day) rose to 724 million. Those living in extreme poverty struggle to fulfill the most basic needs (health, education, access to water and sanitation).

Recovery from the pandemic has been slow and uneven, with extreme poverty dropping from 9.3 per cent in 2020 to 8.8 per cent in 2021. The conflict in Ukraine has disrupted global trade, leading to increased living costs that are disproportionately impacting the poor. Furthermore, climate change poses substantial threats to poverty reduction.

By the end of 2022, nowcasting suggests that 8.4 per cent of the world’s population, or as many as 670 million people, could still be living in extreme poverty.

Poverty affects developed countries as well. Right now, 30 million children are growing up poor in the world's richest countries.

Eradicating poverty in all its forms remains one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. While the number of people living in extreme poverty dropped by more than half between 1990 and 2015 – from 1.9 billion to 731 million – too many are still struggling for the most basic human needs.

A surge in action and investment to enhance economic opportunities, improve education and extend social protection to all, particularly the most excluded, is crucial to delivering on the central commitment to end poverty and leave no one behind.

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

In 2022, about 9.2 per cent of the world population was facing chronic hunger, equivalent to about 735 million people - 122 million more than in 2019. Hunger and malnutrition are barriers to sustainable development because hungry people are less productive, more prone to disease, and less able to improve their livelihoods.

To nourish today’s 735 million hungry people and the additional 2 billion people expected by 2050, a profound change of the global food and agriculture system is needed.

To achieve zero hunger by 2030, urgent coordinated action and policy solutions are imperative to address entrenched inequalities, transform food systems, invest in sustainable agricultural practices, and reduce and mitigate the impact of conflict and the pandemic on global nutrition and food security.

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Great strides have been made in improving people’s health in recent years. 146 out of 200 countries or areas have already met or are on track to meet the SDG target on under-5 mortality. Effective HIV treatment has cut global AIDS-related deaths by 52 per cent since 2010 and at least one neglected tropical disease has been eliminated in 47 countries.

However, inequalities in health care access still persist. The COVID-19 pandemic and other ongoing crises have impeded progress towards Goal 3. Childhood vaccinations have experienced the largest decline in three decades, and tuberculosis and malaria deaths have increased compared with pre-pandemic levels.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make a bold commitment to end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other communicable diseases by 2030. The aim is to achieve universal health coverage, and provide access to safe and affordable medicines and vaccines for all.

To overcome these setbacks and address long-standing health care shortcomings, increased investment in health systems is needed to support countries in their recovery and build resilience against future health threats.

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Progress towards quality education was already slower than required before the pandemic, but COVID-19 has had devastating impacts on education, causing learning losses in four out of five of the 104 countries studied.

Without additional measures, an estimated 84 million children and young people will stay out of school and approximately 300 million students will lack the basic numeracy and literacy skills necessary for success in life.

In addition to free primary and secondary schooling for all boys and girls by 2030, the aim is to provide equal access to affordable vocational training, eliminate gender and wealth disparities, and achieve universal access to quality higher education.

Education is the key that will allow many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved. When people are able to get quality education they can break from the cycle of poverty.

Education helps to reduce inequalities and to reach gender equality. It also empowers people everywhere to live more healthy and sustainable lives. Education is also crucial to fostering tolerance between people and contributes to more peaceful societies.

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Women and girls represent half of the world’s population and therefore also half of its potential. But gender inequality persists everywhere and stagnates social progress.

On average, women in the labor market still earn 23 percent less than men globally. On average, women spend about three times as many hours in unpaid domestic and care work as men.

Sexual violence and exploitation, the unequal division of unpaid care and domestic work, and discrimination in public office, all remain huge barriers. All these areas of inequality have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic: there has been a surge in reports of sexual violence, women have taken on more care work due to school closures, and 70% of health and social workers globally are women.

At the current rate, it will take an estimated 300 years to end child marriage, 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in positions of power and leadership in the workplace, and 47 years to achieve equal representation in national parliaments.

Political leadership, investments and comprehensive policy reforms are needed to dismantle systemic barriers to achieving Goal 5. Gender equality is a cross-cutting objective and must be a key focus of national policies, budgets and institutions.

Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world.

Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Access to water, sanitation and hygiene is a human right. Yet billions are still faced with daily challenges accessing even the most basic of services.

Water scarcity is projected to increase with the rise of global temperatures as a result of climate change. In 2020, 2.4 billion people lived in water-stressed countries.

In 2022, 2.2 billion people still lacked safely managed drinking water, including 703 million without a basic water service; 3.5 billion people lacked safely managed sanitation, including 1.5 billion without basic sanitation services; and 2 billion lacked a basic handwashing facility, including 653 million with no handwashing facility at all.

There has been positive progress. Between 2015 and 2022, the proportion of the world's population with access to safely managed drinking water increased from 69 per cent to 73 per cent.

Investments in infrastructure and sanitation facilities; protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems; and hygiene education are among the steps necessary to ensure universal access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030.

But we are still not on track to reach Goal 6 by 2030. To get back on track, key strategies include increasing sector-wide investment and capacity-building, promoting innovation and evidence-based action, enhancing cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders, and adopting a more integrated and holistic approach to water management.

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Our everyday life depends on reliable and affordable energy. And yet the consumption of energy is the dominant contributor to climate change, accounting for around 60 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions.

From 2015 to 2021, the proportion of the global population with access to electricity has increased from 87 per cent to 91 per cent. In 2021, developing countries installed a record-breaking 268 watts per capita of renewable energy-generating capacity. And yet, in 2021 there were still 675 million people around the world with no access to electricity.

Ensuring universal access to affordable electricity by 2030 means investing in clean energy sources such as solar, wind and thermal. Expanding infrastructure and upgrading technology to provide clean energy in all developing countries is a crucial goal that can both encourage growth and help the environment.

To ensure access to energy for all by 2030, we must accelerate electrification, increase investments in renewable energy, improve energy efficiency and develop enabling policies and regulatory frameworks.

Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Multiple crises are placing the global economy under serious threat. Global real GDP per capita growth is forecast to slow down in 2023 and with ever increasing challenging economic conditions, more workers are turning to informal employment.

Globally, labour productivity has increased and the unemployment rate has decreased. However, more progress is needed to increase employment opportunities, especially for young people, reduce informal employment and labour market inequality (particularly in terms of the gender pay gap), promote safe and secure working environments, and improve access to financial services to ensure sustained and inclusive economic growth.

The global unemployment rate declined significantly in 2022, falling to 5.4 per cent from a peak of 6.6 per cent in 2020 as economies began recovering from the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic. This rate was lower than the pre-pandemic level of 5.5 per cent in 2019.

A persistent lack of decent work opportunities, insufficient investments and under-consumption contribute to the erosion of the basic social contract: that all must share in progress. The creation of quality jobs remain a major challenge for almost all economies.

Achieving Goal 8 will require a wholesale reform of the financial system to tackle rising debts, economic uncertainty and trade tensions, while promoting equitable pay and decent work for young people.

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

The manufacturing industry's recovery from COVID-19 is incomplete and uneven. Global manufacturing growth slowed down to 3.3 per cent in 2022, from 7.4 per cent in 2021.

The share of manufacturing in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) remains low, posing a serious challenge to the target of doubling industry’s share of GDP by 2030. However, medium-high and high-technology industries demonstrated robust growth rates.

As of 2022, 95 per cent of the world’s population was within reach of a mobile broadband network, but some areas remain underserved.

Investments in infrastructure – transport, irrigation, energy and information and communication technology – are crucial to achieving sustainable development and empowering communities in many countries.

To achieve Goal 9 by 2030, it is also essential to support LDCs, invest in advanced technologies, lower carbon emissions and increase mobile broadband access.

Reduce inequality within and among countries

Inequality threatens long-term social and economic development, harms poverty reduction and destroys people’s sense of fulfillment and self-worth.

The incomes of the poorest 40 per cent of the population had been growing faster than the national average in most countries. But emerging yet inconclusive evidence suggests that COVID-19 may have put a dent in this positive trend of falling within-country inequality.

The pandemic has caused the largest rise in between-country inequality in three decades.

Reducing both within- and between-country inequality requires equitable resource distribution, investing in education and skills development, implementing social protection measures, combating discrimination, supporting marginalized groups and fostering international cooperation for fair trade and financial systems.

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Half of the world’s population live in cities. This is projected to reach 70 per cent by 2050.

In the developing world, the rapid growth of cities, along with the increasing rural to urban migration, has led to a boom in mega-cities. In 1990, there were ten mega-cities with 10 million inhabitants or more. In 2014, there are 28 mega-cities, home to a total of 453 million people.

This rapid urbanization outpaces the development of housing, infrastructure and services, which led to a rise in slums or slum-like conditions. In 2020, an estimated 1.1 billion urban residents lived in slums or slum-like conditions. Over the next 30 years, an additional 2 billion people are expected to live in such settlements.

Sustainable development cannot be achieved without significantly transforming the way urban spaces are built and managed.

Making cities safe and sustainable means ensuring access to safe and affordable housing, upgrading slum settlements, investing in public transport, creating green spaces, and improving urban planning and management in a way that is both participatory and inclusive.

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

If the global population reaches 9.8 billion by 2050, the equivalent of almost three planets will be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles.

Global crises triggered a resurgence in fossil fuel subsidies, nearly doubling from 2020 to 2021.

In 2021, governments spent an estimated $732 billion on subsidies for coal, oil and gas, nearly doubling the $375 billion spent in 2020.

In 2021, although 828 million people were facing hunger, 13.2 per cent of the world's food was lost after harvest along the supply chain from farm to consumer.

The trend towards sustainability reporting is on the rise, with around 70 per cent of monitored companies publishing sustainability reports in 2021.

In 2022, 67 national governments reported to the United Nations Environment Programme on the implementation of sustainable public procurement policies and action plans, a 50 per cent increase from 2020.

Support should be provided to developing countries to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption by 2030.

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Climate change affects every country on every continent. It is caused by human activities and threatens the future of our planet. With rising greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is occurring at rates much faster than anticipated and its effects are clearly felt world-wide.

The impacts include changing weather patterns, rising sea level, and more extreme weather events. If left unchecked, climate change will undo a lot of the progress made over the past years in development. It will also provoke mass migrations that will lead to instability and wars.

Between 2010 and 2020, highly vulnerable regions, home to approximately 3.3–3.6 billion people, experienced 15 times higher human mortality rates from floods, droughts and storms compared to regions with very low vulnerability.

Sea levels continued to rise in 2022, reaching a new record since satellite measurements in 1993.

Affordable, scalable solutions are now available to enable countries to leapfrog to cleaner, more resilient, and low-carbon economies.

Climate change is a global challenge that requires coordinated international cooperation.

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Oceans cover three-quarters of the Earth’s surface, contain 97 percent of the Earth’s water, and represent 99 percent of the living space on the planet by volume.

The world’s oceans provide key natural resources including food, medicines, biofuels and other products; help with the breakdown and removal of waste and pollution; and their coastal ecosystems act as buffers to reduce damage from storms.

However, marine pollution is reaching alarming levels, with over 17 million metric tons clogging the ocean in 2021, a figure set to double or triple by 2040.

Currently, the ocean’s average pH is 8.1, about 30 per cent more acidic than in pre-industrial times. Ocean acidification threatens the survival of marine life, disrupts the food web, and undermines vital services provided by the ocean and our own food security.

Careful management of this essential global resource is a key feature of a sustainable future. This includes increasing funding for ocean science, intensifying conservation efforts, and urgently turning the tide on climate change to safeguard the planet's largest ecosystem.

Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss

Terrestrial ecosystems are vital for sustaining human life, contributing to over half of global GDP and encompassing diverse cultural, spiritual, and economic values.

Global forest coverage decreased from 31.9 per cent in 2000 (4.2 billion hectares) to 31.2 per cent (4.1 billion hectares) in 2020.

In 2021, Official Development Assistance (ODA) in support of biodiversity increased by 26.2 per cent from $7.7 billion in 2020 to $9.8 billion.

In 2022, 21 per cent of reptile species are threatened.

Between 2015 and 2019, at least 100 million hectares of healthy and productive land were degraded every year, impacting the lives of 1.3 billion people.

Halting deforestation and restoring the use of terrestrial ecosystems is necessary to reduce the loss of natural habitats and biodiversity which are part of our common heritage.

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

People everywhere should be free of fear from all forms of violence and feel safe as they go about their lives whatever their ethnicity, faith or sexual orientation.

Civilian deaths directly related to 12 of the world’s deadliest conflicts increased by 53 per cent between 2021 and 2022, marking the first rise since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda in 2015. The year 2022 witnessed a more than 50 per cent increase in conflict-related civilian deaths.

High levels of armed violence and insecurity have a destructive impact on a country’s development.

Sexual violence, crime, exploitation and torture are prevalent where there is conflict or no rule of law, and countries must take measures to protect those who are most at risk.

As of the end of 2022, 108.4 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide – an increase of 19 million compared with the end of 2021 and two and a half times the number of a decade ago.

In 2021, there were approximately 458,000 intentional homicides – the highest number in the past two decades.

Governments, civil society and communities need to work together to find lasting solutions to conflict and insecurity. Strengthening the rule of law and promoting human rights is key to this process, as is reducing the flow of illicit arms, combating corruption, and ensuring inclusive participation at all times.

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is universal and calls for action by all countries – developed and developing – to ensure no one is left behind. It requires partnerships between governments, the private sector, and civil society.

The Sustainable Development Goals can only be realized with a strong commitment to global partnership and cooperation.

The total external debt of low- and middle-income countries reached $9 trillion in 2021, recording a 5.6 per cent increase from 2020.

In 2022, global exports increased sharply by 12.3 per cent, and global trade reached a record $32 trillion.

In 2022, net ODA flows by member countries of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) reached $206 billion.

To be successful, everyone will need to mobilize both existing and additional resources, and developed countries will need to fulfill their official development assistance commitments.

Now is the time for change. A confluence of multiple global crises have upended our lives. The way we work, the way we interact, the way we move about. This can be a turning point. Let's seize the moment and change course - toward more sustainable lifestyles. Small changes in your daily life can save you money, improve your health and help cut harmful pollution.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As such, the Agenda's Sustainable Development Goals aim not only to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – but also to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies, realizing the human rights of all.

They offer a blueprint for tackling the defining issues of our time, such as climate change, which requires urgent and transformative action that leaves no one behind.

The United Nations and its agencies, funds and programmes are working with Member States, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders to accelerate progress toward the Goals, in a spirit of global solidarity, focused in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Sustainable Development Goals
ActNow Campaign
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Infographics

This exhibit was launched in September 2020 and updated in August 2023

Sustainability Improves Student Learning in STEM

Key Components of Sustainability Assignments

These key components may be applied across the disciplines.

For examples of these core pedagogies, see Tools to Incorporate Sustainability into the Classroom .

This Power Point slideshow gives examples of applications in fields from chemistry to economics for each pedagogy of sustainability. Core Pedagogies PowerPoint (PowerPoint 2007 (.pptx) 182kB Oct28 12)

Students' Learning Outcomes

Students will be able to define sustainability.
Students will be able to explain how sustainability relates to their lives and their values, and how their actions impact issues of sustainability.
Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality
Students will be able to explain how systems -- ecosystems, individual humans in society -- are interrelated.
Students will learn change agent skills.
Students will learn how to apply concepts of sustainability to their campus and community by engaging in the challenges and solutions of sustainability on their campus.
Students will learn how to apply concepts of sustainability globally by engaging in the challenges and the solutions of sustainability in a world context.

Source: Magdalena Svanström, Francisco J. Lozano-García, Debra Rowe, (2008). "Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education," International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9 Iss: 3 pp. 339 - 351.

This more detailed table (http://www.myacpa.org/task-force/sustainability/docs/Learning_Outcomes_Sustainability_Map.pdf) presents specific dimensions of these learning outcomes and suggestions for students' developmental experiences. (Source: The College Student Educators International, in collaboration with the U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development.)

Service Learning

Service Learning helps students apply their knowledge and skills about Sustainability in practice through active engagement in their communities. Service learning can be an important means of moving from analysis to action. (The link is housed on a Geosciences page but applies to all disciplines.)

« Previous Page Next Page »

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Exploring food waste from a segmentation and intervention perspective—what design cues matter a narrative review.

1. Introduction

2. food waste segmentation, 3. food waste intervention delivery formats, 4. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

United Nations. The Sustainable Development Agenda. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/ (accessed on 6 May 2024).
United Nations. Goal 12: Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (accessed on 30 October 2023).
WRAP. UK Food Waste & Food Surplus—Key Facts. Available online: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/WRAP-Food-Surplus-and-Waste-in-the-UK-Key-Facts%20November-2023.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2024).
European Commission. Food Waste. Available online: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-waste_en (accessed on 26 July 2024).
Malik, X.; Smith, L.; Stewart, I.; Burnett, N. Food Waste in the UK. Available online: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7552/CBP-7552.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2024).
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. The State of Food and Agriculture—Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2024).
Principato, L.; Mattia, G.; Di Leo, A.; Pratesi, C.A. The household wasteful behaviour framework: A systematic review of consumer food waste. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021 , 93 , 641–649. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hebrok, M.; Boks, C. Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design—An extensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 151 , 380–392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Simoes, J.; Carvalho, A.; de Matos, M.G. How to influence consumer food waste behavior with interventions? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 373 , 133866. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Vittuari, M.; Herrero, L.G.; Masotti, M.; Iori, E.; Caldeira, C.; Qian, Z.; Bruns, H.; van Herpen, E.; Obersteiner, G.; Kaptan, G.; et al. How to reduce consumer food waste at household level: A literature review on drivers and levers for behavioural change. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023 , 38 , 104–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Roodhuyzen, D.M.A.; Luning, P.A.; Fogliano, V.; Steenbekkers, L.P.A. Putting together the puzzle of consumer food waste: Towards an integral perspective. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017 , 68 , 37–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Schanes, K.; Dobernig, K.; Gozet, B. Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 182 , 978–991. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
da Santos, J.I.A.S.; da Silveira, D.S.; da Costa, M.F.; Duarte, R.B. Consumer behaviour in relation to food waste: A systematic literature review. Br. Food J. 2022 , 124 , 4420–4439. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Aloysius, N.; Ananda, J.; Mitsis, A.; Pearson, D. Why people are bad at leftover food management? A systematic literature review and a framework to analyse household leftover food waste generation behaviour. Appetite 2023 , 186 , 106577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Visschers, H.M.; Wickli, N.; Siegrist, M. Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016 , 45 , 66–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gimenez, A.; Ares, G.; Jaeger, S.R. Exploration of individual factors influencing self-reported household food waste in Australia. J. Sens. Stud. 2023 , 38 , e12881. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
WRAP. Household Food and Drink Waste in the United Kingdom. Available online: https://www.wrap.ngo/resources/report/household-food-and-drink-waste-united-kingdom-2021-22 (accessed on 1 May 2024).
Stockli, S.; Niklaus, E.; Dorn, M. Call for testing interventions to prevent consumer food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018 , 136 , 445–462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Reynolds, C.; Goucher, L.; Quested, T.; Bromley, S.; Gillick, S.; Wells, V.K.; Evans, D.; Koh, L.; Kanyama, A.C.; Katzeff, C.; et al. Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions—What works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy 2019 , 83 , 7–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tian, X.; Xia, Z.; Xie, J.; Zhang, C.; Liu, Y.; Xu, M. A meta-analytical review of intervention experiments to reduce food waste. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022 , 17 , 064041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Casonato, C.; Garcia-Herrero, L.; Caldeira, C.; Sala, S. What a waste! Evidence of consumer food waste prevention and its effectiveness. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023 , 41 , 305–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Onwezen, M. Including Context in Consumer Segmentation: A Literature Overview Shows the What, Why and How ; Methods in Consumer Research—Volume 1, Woodhead Publishing Series; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 383–400. [ Google Scholar ]
Annunziata, A.; Muca, F.L.; Mariani, A. Preventing Household Food Waste in Italy: A Segmentation of the Population and Suggestions for Action. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 7005. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Aschemann-Witzel, J.; de Hooge, I.E.; Almli, V.L.; Oostindjer, M. Fine-tuning the fight against food waste. J. Macromark. 2018 , 38 , 168–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Aschemann-Witzel, J.; de Hooge, I.E.; Almli, V.L. My style, my food, my waste! Consumer food waste-related lifestyle segments. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021 , 59 , 102353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bilska, B.; Tomaszewska, M.; Kolozyn-Krajewska, D.; Piecek, M. Segmentation of Polish households taking into account food waste. Foods 2020 , 9 , 379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Borg, K.; Boulet, M.; Karunasena, G.; Pearson, D. Segmenting households based on food waste behaviours and waste audit outcomes: Introducing over providers, underplanners and considerate planners. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 351 , 131589. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Coskun, A. Identification of different user types for designing household food waste interventions. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2021 , 14 , 609–617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Delley, M.; Brunner, T.A. Foodwaste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the population and suggestions for preventive measures. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017 , 122 , 172–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Di Talia, E.; Simeone, M.; Scarpato, D. Consumer behaviour types in household food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 214 , 166–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Eicaite, O.; Alencikiene, G.; Pauliukaityte, I.; Salaseviciene, A. Eat or Throw Away? Factors Differentiating High Food Wasters from Low Food Wasters. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 10741. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Flanagan, A.; Priyadarshini, A. A study of consumer behaviour towards food-waste in Ireland: Attitudes, quantities and global warming potentials. J. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 284 , 112046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Funk, A.; Sutterlin, B.; Siegrist, M. Consumer segmentation based on stated environmentally friendly behaviour in the food domain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 25 , 173–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gaiani, S.; Caldeira, S.; Adorno, V.; Segre, A.; Vittuari, M. Food wasters: Profiling consumers attitude to waste food in Italy. Waste Manag. 2018 , 72 , 17–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kunszabo, A.; Szakos, D.; Dorko, A.; Farkas, C. Household food waste composting habits and behaviours in Hungary: A segmentation study. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2022 , 30 , 100839. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kutlu, M.B. A trait-based consumer segmentation for food waste reduction campaigns. Soc. Mark. Q. 2022 , 28 , 130–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Li, R.; Roe, B.E. Segmenting U.S. consumers by food waste attitudes and behaviours: Opportunities for targeting reduction interventions. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024 , 45 , 348–358. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mallinson, L.J.; Russell, J.M.; Barker, M.E. Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite 2016 , 103 , 17–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Marek-Andrzejewska, E.M.; Wielicka-Regulska, A. Targeting youths’ intentions to avoid food waste: Segmenting for better policymaking. Agriculture 2021 , 11 , 284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Masotti, M.; van der Haar, S.; Janssen, A.; Iori, E.; Zeinstra, G.; Bos-Brouwers, H.; Vittuari, M. Food waste in time of COVID-19: The heterogeneous effects on consumer groups in Italy and the Netherlands. Appetite 2023 , 180 , 106313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Merian, S.; Stoeckli, S.; Fuchs, K.L.; Natter, M. Buy Three to Waste One? How Real-World Purchase Data Predict Groups of Food Wasters. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 10183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Narvanen, E.; Mesiranta, N.; Saarijarvi, H.; Nevalainen, J. Examining consumer food waste through grocery retailers customer data: Segments and Practical Implications. J. Consum. Stud. 2023 , 47 , 1273–1290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nguyen, T.T.T.; Malek, L.; Umberger, W.J.; O’Connor, P. Food waste ‘warriors’, ‘strugglers’ and ‘slackers’: Segmenting households based on food waste generation and sorting behaviours. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023 , 112 , 10500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pandley, S.; Budhathoki, M.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Thomsen, M. Factors influencing consumers’ food waste reduction behaviour at university canteens. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023 , 111 , 104991. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pearson, D.; Amarakoon, U. Environmentally friendly social changes: Profiling individuals for household food waste reductions. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2019 , 26 , 311–327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pocol, C.B.; Pinoteau, M.; Amuza, A.; Burlea-Schiopoiu, A.; Glogovețan, A.I. Food waste behavior among Romanian consumers: A cluster analysis. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 9708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Richter, B. Knowledge and perception of food waste among German consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 166 , 641–648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Romani, S.; Grappi, S.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Barone, A.M. Domestic food practices: A study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste. Appetite 2018 , 121 , 215–227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Simoes, J.; Pinto-Varela, T.; de Matos, M.G.; Carvalho, A. What influences consumer food waste in urban households? Guidelines for communication strategies in Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 429 , 139577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Theodoridis, P.K.; Zacharatos, T.V. Food waste during COVID-19 lockdown period and consumer behaviour—The case of Greece. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2022 , 83 , 101338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Vittuari, M.; Falasconi, L.; Masotti, M.; Piras, S.; Segre, A.; Setti, M. ‘Not in my bin’: Consumer’s understanding and concern of food waste effects and mitigating factors. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 5685. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
van Herpen, E.; van der Lans, I.A.; Holtuysen, N.; Nijenhuis-de Vries, M.; Quested, T.E. Comparing wasted apples and oranges: An assessment of methods to measure household food waste. Waste Manag. 2019 , 88 , 71–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Melnyk, B.M.; Morrison-Beedy, D. Intervention Research and Evidence-Based Quality Improvement , 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
Stone, H.; Sidel, J.L. Sensory Evaluation Practices , 3rd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Bernstad, A.; Cour Jansen, J.L.; Aspegren, A. Door-stepping as a strategy for improved food waste recycling behaviour—Evaluation of a full-scale experiment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013 , 73 , 94–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bretter, C.; Unsworth, K.L.; Russell, S.V.; Quested, T.E.; Kaptan, G.; Doriza, A. Food waste interventions: Experimental evidence of the effectiveness of environmental messages. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 414 , 137596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cooper, A.; Lion, R.; Rodriguez Sierra, O.E.; Jeffrey, P.; Thomson, D.; Peters, K.; Christopher, L.; Zhu, M.J.H.; Wistrand, L.; van der Werf, P.; et al. Use-up day and flexible recipes: Reducing household food waste by helping families prepare food they already have. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023 , 194 , 106986. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Geislar, S. The new norms of food waste at the curb: Evidence-based policy tools to address benefits and barriers. Waste Manag. 2017 , 68 , 571–580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Leverenz, D.; Moussawel, S.; Maurer, C.; Hafner, G.; Schneider, F.; Schmidt, T.; Kranert, M. Quantifying the prevention potential of avoidable food waste in households using a self-reported approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019 , 150 , 104417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nisa, C.F.; Belanger, J.J.; Schumpe, B.M. Assessing the effectiveness of food waste messaging. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022 , 132 , 224–236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pelt, A.; Saint-Bauzel, R.; Barbier, L.; Fointiat, V. Food waste: Disapproving, but still doing. An evidence-based intervention to reduce waste at household. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020 , 162 , 105059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ramos, G.J.; Borges, J.A.R.; de Faria Domingues, C.H.; van Herpen, E. Reducing food waste by simply measuring it: Insights from interventions to reduce household food waste. Br. Food J. 2024 , 126 , 812–833. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Read, M.; Gregory, M.K.; Philips, P.S. An evaluation of four key methods for monitoring household waste prevention campaigns in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009 , 54 , 9–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Roe, B.E.; Qi, D.; Beyl, R.A.; Neubig, K.E.; Apolzan, J.W.; Martin, C.K. A randomised controlled trial to address consumer food waste with a technology-aided tailored sustainability intervention. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022 , 179 , 106121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rousta, K.; Bolton, K.; Lundin, M.; Dahlen, L. Quantitative assessment of distance to collection point and improved sorting information on source separation of household waste. Waste Manag. 2015 , 40 , 22–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Schmidt, K. Explaining and promoting household food waste-prevention by an environmental psychological based intervention study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016 , 111 , 53–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Septianto, F.; Kemper, J.A.; Northey, G. Thanks, but no thanks: The influence of gratitude on consumer awareness of food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 258 , 120591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Shaw, P.J.; Smith, M.M.; Williams, I.D. On the prevention of avoidable food waste from domestic households. Recycling 2018 , 3 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Shearer, L.; Gatersleben, B.; Morse, S.; Smyth, M.; Hunt, S. A problem unstuck? Evaluating the effectiveness of sticker prompts for encouraging household food waste recycling behaviour. Waste Manag. 2017 , 60 , 164–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Shu, Y.; Booker, A.; Karetny, J.; O’Keefe, K.; Rees, K.; Schroder, L.; Roe, B.E. Evaluation of a community-based food waste campaign using a national control group. Waste Manag. 2023 , 160 , 101–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Soma, T.; Li, B.; Maclaren, V. Food waste reduction: A test of three consumer awareness interventions. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
van der Werf, P.; Seabrook, J.A.; Gilliland, J.A. “Reduce food waste, save money”: Testing a novel intervention to reduce household food waste. Environ. Behav. 2021 , 53 , 151–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
van Herpen, E.; Wijnen, T.; Quested, T.; Reynolds, C.; Sharda, N. Convenient tools and social norms: Measuring the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce household food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 429 , 139604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wharton, C.; Vizcaino, M.; Berardy, A.; Opejin, A. Waste watchers: A food waste reduction intervention among households in Arizona. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021 , 164 , 105109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Herbes, C.; Beuthner, C.; Ramme, I. Consumer attributes toward biobased packaging—A cross-cultural comparative study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 194 , 203–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rodrigues Deliberador, L.R.; Batalha, M.O.; da Silva Cesar, A.; Azeem, M.M.; Lane, J.L.; Carrijo, P.R.S. Why do we waste so much food? Understanding household food waste through a theoretical framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 419 , 137974. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Sample Description	Food Waste Measures	Segmentation
n = 530—Italy [ ]	Food waste behaviour and psychological variables	Three segments: (1) proactive; (2) discouraged; and (3) self-indulgent
n = 848—Denmark [ ]	Food waste-related lifestyle dimensions	Five segments: (1) cooking involved and spontaneous; (2) price versus quality-oriented and disliking cooking; (3) very involved and cooking engaged; (4) good food-involved and price-dismissive; and (5) least concerned, normative and social
n = 4214—Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden & Netherlands [ ]	Food waste-related lifestyle patterns and self-reported food waste	Five segments: (1) uninvolved young male waster; (2) convenience/price-oriented low income; (3) well-planning cook/frugal food avoider; (4) young foodie; and (5) established
n = 1115—Poland [ ]	Food preparation, buying, frequency, package, storage and discarding	Three segments: (1) saving food; (2) wasting vegetables and fruit; and (3) wasting food
n = 2803—Australia * [ ]	Food waste behaviours (planning, shopping, storage, preparation, reason for non-eaten food, motivation, effort and acquisition)	Three segments: (1) over providers; (2) under planners; and (3) considerate planners
n = 150—Turkey [ ]	Food waste-related practices, attitudes, preferences and self-reported food waste	Four segments: (1) conservers; (2) considerates; (3) reluctants; and (4) prodigals
n = 681—Switzerland [ ]	Planning shopping, price/discount driven, thrift, food stock overview, leftover usage, environment impact, awareness and good providers identity	Six segments: (1) conservative; (2) self-indulgent; (3) short-termist; (4) indifferent; (5) consumerist; and (6) eco-responsible
n = 213—Italy [ ]	Spending/consumption habits, food waste and awareness	Three segments: (1) non-aware; (2) unaware but not wasteful; and (3) conscious
n = 1001—Lithuania [ ]	Food waste-related behaviours, attitudes and knowledge of date labelling	Two segments: (1) low food wasters; and (2) high food wasters
n = 2062—Ireland [ ]	Ethical, environmental, purchasing behaviour, food preparation and expiry dates	Two segments: (1) uncaring and (2) caring
n = 817—Switzerland [ ]	Food choice behaviour, food consumption frequency, food waste management, sharing behaviour and descriptive variables	Six segments: (1) meat and fish eaters; (2) origin-focused food savers; (3) ambiguous; (4) food waste reducing sharers; (5) renouncement aversives; and (6) consequent pro-environmental
n = 3087—Italy [ ]	Eating, shopping and storage behaviours	Seven segments: (1) conscious–fussy; (2) conscious–forgetful type; (3) exaggerating cook; (4) frugal consumer; (5) unskilled cook; (6) confused type; and (7) exaggerated shopper
n = 1002—Hungry [ ]	Pro-environmental/gardening attitude, food discard frequency, property type and composting practice	Four segments: (1) average composters; (2) uninterested urban citizens; (3) helpless apartment residents; and (4) active environmentalists
n = 301—Italy [ ]	Food waste aversion	Five segments: (1) frugal believers; (2) frugal seculars; (3) conscientious individuals; (4) casual females; and (5) casual males
n = 1086—USA [ ]	Household food waste (amount/type), food purchasing, storage, management and preparation skills	Four segments: (1) conscientious conservers; (2) harried profligates; (3) unrepentant drink wasters; and (4) guilty carb wasters
n = 928—UK [ ]	Food waste behaviour and lifestyle factors	Five segments: (1) epicures; (2) traditional consumers; (3) casual consumers; (4) food detached consumers; and (5) kitchen evaders.
n = 369—Poland [ ]	Food waste intention	Three segments: (1) control-conscious young men from urban areas; (2) positive attitude young women from urban areas; and (3) planning seeking young women from rural areas
n = 3000—Italy & Netherlands [ ]	Food waste-related behaviours	Four/five segments: (1) weakly adapting/unconcerned; (2) moderately adapting/unconcerned; (3) moderately adapting/concerned (Italy only); (4) strongly adapting/concerned; and (5) non-adapting/unconcerned (Netherlands only)
n = 165—Europe * [ ]	Food waste levels, intentions and behaviours	Three segments: (1) traditional; (2) time-constrained; and (3) convenience lovers
n = 12187—Finland * [ ]	Food waste emergence	Six segments: (1) no food waste; (2) trust in date labels; (3) safety first; (4) occasional wasters; (5) over purchasers/overprepares; and (6) family first
n = 939—Australia [ ]	Food waste generation and sorting behaviour	Three segments: (1) warriors; (2) strugglers; and (3) slackers
n = 438—Denmark [ ]	Food choice motives	Four segments: (1) familiarity sensitive; (2) unconcerned; (3) food for health/mood; and (4) unfamiliar
n = 944—Australia [ ]	Food waste behaviour and food quality aspects	Four segments: (1) self-centred; (2) uninvolved; (3) concerned; and (4) passionate
n = 2541—Romanian [ ]	Food waste habits and information	Three segments: (1) careless; (2) precautious; and (3) ignorant
n = 1023—Germany [ ]	Emotions, environment/ethic, purchase behaviour, handling food, expiration dates and household food waste	Three segments: (1) guilty food wasters; (2) unwitting food wasters; and (3) careless food wasters
n = 456 *—Italy [ ]	Food waste behaviour and intentions	Three segments: (1) virtuous; (2) moderate; and (3) waster
n = 376–Portugal [ ]	Food waste levels, knowledge, behaviours and motivations	Four segments: (1) impulsive waster; (2) planner; (3) young waster; and (4) fan of leftovers
n = 2205—Greece [ ]	Food waste awareness, behaviour and practices	Seven segments: (1) 20s–40s—food waste fighters; (2) 20–40s—food wasters; (3) unaware consumers—food wasters; (4) total food wasters fighters; (5) typical young female food wasters; (6) aware consumers—food waste fighters; and (7) typical young male food wasters
n = 983—Italy [ ]	Food waste (frequency/quantity), drivers, effects, factors and shopping habits	Three segments: (1) pragmatic consumers; (2) thrifty altruists; and (3) aware wasters

Summary	Content	Format *	Rationale
Door-stepping campaign—information strategies (food waste separation behaviour) [ ]	Waste separation and recycling	Visual and oral	Biogas production was introduced in the area
Effectiveness of messaging (food waste behaviour intentions) [ ]	Environment, taste and cost-based food waste messaging	Visual	Gap in the literature
Five-week randomised control trial (RCT)—self-reported food waste [ ]	Bonus meal—use up day	Visual, interactive and touch	Focus on recovery behaviours
Longitudinal field experiment—effectiveness of new curb-side collection and social innovations [ ]	Stimulate environmental changes	Visual, audio, interactive and touch	Experiments were designed based on implementation of curb-side collection
Coaching: face-to-face (F2F) vs online (avoidable food waste) [ ]	Improving awareness	Visual, interactive, oral and touch	Awareness and self-reflection to improve compliance
Best messaging strategies for tackling household waste (three studies) [ ]	Quick prompts, food waste consequences and combined messages	Visual	Aimed to test real-life situations
Three interventions focusing on food waste reduction: (1) information; (2) awareness; and (3) dissonance [ ]	Interventions for reducing food waste	Visual, interactive, oral and touch	Overcome self-reported concerns and behavioural focus
Measuring food waste via three groups: (1) control; (2) purchase planning; and (3) cooking planning [ ]	Food waste awareness via tips and reminders	Visual, interactive and touch	Role of measurement and modulating food waste over time
Measure/monitor food waste via four objectives: (1) weight-based monitoring; (2) data profiling; (3) measuring campaign activities; and (4) surveys/focus groups [ ]	Waste prevention	Visual, interactive, oral and touch	Inform next steps, raise awareness, guidance and opportunities for local involvement
Individually tailored pro-environmental behavioural interventions (RCT) focusing on food waste reduction in normal living conditions [ ]	Food waste reduction	Visual, interactive and oral	Evaluates in-home food waste reduction interventions
Education intervention (field experiment) improving perceived meal-planning skills [ ]	Tips and advantages of weekly menus	Visual and interactive	Positive focus and easy to implement
Source separation scheme: (1) short distance to drop-off point and (2) easy access to correct sorting information [ ]	Disposal focus (sorting)	Visual, interactive, oral and touch	Convenience and relevant information
Intervention strategy: (1) action knowledge; (2) public commitment; and (3) goal-setting technique [ ]	Improve performance of food waste behaviours	Visual and interactive	Improving performance of relevant food waste preventing behaviours
Three studies: positive emotion in messaging to promote change [ ]	Emotion, framing and food waste	Visual	Pilot study for establishing gratitude types
Two interventions with three groups (control, treatment: cost and environment) [ ]	Avoidable food waste—economic, cost and environmental impact	Visual	Build on existing recycling patterns
Effectiveness of stickers as visual prompts to encourage separation collection of household food waste [ ]	Waste separation	Touch	Encourage and remind consumers
Save more than food campaign (treatment vs. control) [ ]	Strategies for food waste reduction	Visual and touch	Recently launched food waste campaign
Food waste reduction via three interventions: (1) passive approach; (2) community-engagement; and (3) gamification [ ]	Educational campaigns	Visual, audio, interactive and touch	Raise awareness and change behaviour
Effectiveness of intervention—curb-side garbage [ ]	Encourage behaviour control to reduce food waste and save money	Visual, interactive and touch	Less research on changes in curb-side food waste disposal
Two interventions testing effectiveness: tool package + motivational message vs. tool package [ ]	Food waste reduction tool packages and motivation (social norms)	Visual, interactive and touch	Studies typically do not compare intervention types
Educational approach and role in food waste [ ]	Food waste generation	Visual, audio and interactive	Increase awareness to overcome lack of knowledge

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Norton, V.; Lignou, S.; Oloyede, O.O.; Vásquez, G.; Arreola, P.A.; Alexi, N. Exploring Food Waste from a Segmentation and Intervention Perspective—What Design Cues Matter? A Narrative Review. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167043

Norton V, Lignou S, Oloyede OO, Vásquez G, Arreola PA, Alexi N. Exploring Food Waste from a Segmentation and Intervention Perspective—What Design Cues Matter? A Narrative Review. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):7043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167043

Norton, Victoria, Stella Lignou, Omobolanle O. Oloyede, Geraldine Vásquez, Paulina Anguiano Arreola, and Niki Alexi. 2024. "Exploring Food Waste from a Segmentation and Intervention Perspective—What Design Cues Matter? A Narrative Review" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167043

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

IMAGES

(DOC) SUSTAINABILITY Individual Assignment
Individual Assignment #1 Sustainability Practices GSL275GBG 2 .docx
Sustainability assignment
Sustainable Practice Begins With The Individual in 2020
SUSTAINABILITY INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT.docx
AICE Sustainability Assignment.pdf

COMMENTS

The Role of Individual Responsibility in the Transition to
The path to environmental sustainability is long and winding and will require decades of listening and learning from each other.
First-time reporting under ESRSs
the key areas to assess when preparing sustainability statements under ESRSs for the first time. In addition, the European Commission has issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to support companies in scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
Individual assignment on sustainability reporting of companies
Sustainability is "an approach to creating long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental, and social trends and challenges. Sustainability reporting is not required or regulated in most part of the world.
Organizing for sustainability success: Where, and how, leaders can
To ensure broad engagement in and commitment to common sustainability goals, the central team can enlist the company's leaders to develop and define a corporate-level sustainability agenda. When the central team has a clear mandate from the business, it can better see that the sustainability agenda cascades through the organization and that ...
Designing Effective Sustainability Assignments: How and Why Definitions
Abstract The importance of, and interest in, sustainability in management education has increased significantly over the past three decades. However, the definition of sustainability remains complex and elusive, thus creating significant issues for sustainability instruction, assignment design, and student learning. We reviewed definitions and use of sustainability and corporate social ...
Sustainability engagement: importance and best practices
Sustainability engagement holds great significance for communities as it leads to improved quality of life, resilience, economic benefits, social equity, environmental stewardship, and community empowerment. By collaboratively working towards sustainability goals, communities can create more vibrant, inclusive, and resilient places to live.
An Introduction to Responsible Management: A Corporate Social
Responsible management extends beyond the environment, planet, and sustainability to include micro (individual ) ethical values and practices, and firm-level values of social equity, welfare, and ethical business practices (Nonet et al., 2016 ).
MGMT8420
11. Coca Cola Sustainability. Essays 100% (2) 7. CDEV8130 Keya Patel Career Management Assignment 4 Mock Interview. Mandatory assignments 100% (1) 9. MGMT8420 En- Roads Assignment CP5. Mandatory assignments 100% (1)
Sustainability: How Our Actions Affect the Environment
Engage (30 minutes) Start by telling students that this lesson will be about sustainability and the question of how we can live more sustainable lives. Probe students on their existing knowledge about sustainability. Ask them to write down in their worksheets what they think sustainability means.
The potential of individuals to reduce greenhouse gas ...
The results of this study give insights into which individual climate actions could be politically supported to increase their level of implementation. In addition, the effect of individual climate actions on personal CBCF is assessed through behavioural change carbon footprint scenario. The study is based on two quantitative approaches.
Sustainability
Natural disasters such as bushfires are a test of individual and group resilience, and in extreme cases, threaten the sustainability of communities. Bushfires have long been common in Australia, although anthropogenic climate change has exacerbated their prevalence and severity. The aim of the present study was to assess the individual resilience and disaster-specific adaptation and resilience ...
Sustainability Individual Assignment (docx)
Sustainability Individual Assignment Submitted to Prof. Georgia Kandias By Racheal Coutinho Student ID- 161557228 Introduction Sustainability is becoming a top priority in the global hospitality industry. Leading companies like Four Seasons, Marriott, and Hilton are actively engaging in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and implementing eco ...
Increasing clinicians' knowledge about climate change's impact on
A novel educational program for clinicians provided a foundation about climate change and the impact of fossil fuel-related pollution on individual health, and how healthcare systems contribute to ...
Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform our World
ActNow is the United Nations campaign for individual action on climate change and sustainability. Every one of us can help limit global warming and take care of our planet.
Key Components of Sustainability Assignments
The InTeGrate Project identified pedagogical themes that generalize to teaching the interdisciplinary subject of sustainability within any academic discipline. These involve using the grand challenges that society faces -- energy, food, water -- to help students improve their critical thinking skills, incorporate systems thinking, and make use of authentic and credible data in addressing problems.
SDG101
Assignment Overview This is an individual assignment. For this sustainability research project, you will be choosing an industry sector to focus on (agriculture, manufacturing, services telecommunications Information technology, etc.) You will be responsible to research the sustainability priorities and challenges for this sector.
Supply Chain Sustainability- Individual Assignment Parts 1 & 2
Supply Chain Sustainability- Individual Assignment Parts 1 & 2. April 2014 DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2863.1683 Conference: Supply Chain Sustainability At: UCD-Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School ...
Sustainability
Food waste is a global challenge and fits within the remit of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 12; hence, strategies to promote engagement, especially at an individual level, are key to maximise societal benefits. Accordingly, it is important to understand the relevant design cues from a segmentation and intervention viewpoint for food waste.
Sustainability-individual assingment
bus1s sustainability individual research assignment semester 2022 name: pham phuong anh student id: 21168287 wordcount: 1676 lecturer: ngo thi thuy linh table
Week 1.docx
Improving pg. 3 Week 1 Individual Assignment: Sustainability Initiative, Part 1 facility operations can help reduce operating costs, enhancing the patient experience, and encouraging community health. pg. 4 Week 1 Individual Assignment: Sustainability Initiative, Part 1 References Benefits of sustainability in healthcare facilities. (2017, June ...
Week 1 Individual Assignment.docx
View Week 1 Individual Assignment.docx from MHA 560 at University of Phoenix. Running Head: SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE, PART 1 Week 1: Individual Assignment: Sustainability Initiative, Part 1 Monica
ME^0L Ethics Sustainability Report1 (docx)
Sustainability Report - an Individual Assignment - Marketing Ethics and Law (BUSM14717) Sustainable Consumption The use of services and related products which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as emissions of waste and pollutants over the life ...
Revealing the mysteries within microbial genomes
A new technique will make it much easier for researchers to discover the traits or activities encoded by genes of unknown function in microbes, a key step toward understanding the roles and impact ...
MHA 560 Week 3 Individual Assignment Worksheet.docx
View MHA_560_Week_3_Individual_Assignment_Worksheet.docx from MHA 560 at University of Phoenix. 1 COURSE HERO SUBMISSION SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE: PART 3 IMPROVMENTS TO PATIENT CARE AND
Individual Assignment #1 Sustainability Practices GSL275GBG 2 .docx
GSL 275 Leading a Global Business Individual Assignment: Sustainability Practices Seneca Business Individual Assignment #1 : 15%DUE Week 7 Research the Sustainability Practices of a Global Business. Some topics are listed below. What is the organization you have chosen doing with regards to sustainable practices in one of the listed areas (topics) Carbon Emission Reduction Oil Industry Food ...
Week 3 Sustainability Initiative Part 3.docx
Wk 3 Individual Assignment: Sustainability Initiative, Part 3 Kanban System / Lean manufacturing and Patient Care Applying the principles of Kanban/Lean to health care brings to light what adds value from the patient's perspective and what does not.
Week 8
Week 8 - Individual Assignment - The 'Sustainability' of Sustainability: What Would You Do? Energy Consumption & Environmental Sustainability In order for an organization to improve its efforts toward creating and contributing to environmental sustainability, it should focus its attention toward its energy consumption.

The Role of Individual Responsibility in the Transition to Environmental Sustainability

Related Posts

Can Digital Payments Help Countries Adapt to Climate Change?

Alumni Spotlight: A Journey From Climate Conservation to Corporate Consulting

Finding Public Space in a Crowded New York City

KPMG Personalization

Individual assignment on sustainability reporting of companies

RELATED PAPERS

Organizing for sustainability success: Where, and how, leaders can start

A leader’s guide to embedding sustainability in corporate strategy

Design according to sustainability topics , not sustainability overall

Give your central sustainability team the decision rights to execute change

Find the structure that best fits your sustainability agenda—and your organization as a whole

Prioritize the design of processes and governance—rather than reporting lines—that account for sustainability’s complexity and dynamic nature

Explore a career with us

The secrets of successful organizational redesigns: McKinsey Global Survey results

Five ways that ESG creates value

The potential of individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through their own actions: a case of a suburb in Finland

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Adjusting food practices to climate prescriptions: vegetable gardening as a way to reduce food-related greenhouse gas emissions

Green roles at home: exploring the impact of household social dynamic processes on consumption at the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus

1 Introduction

2 Materials and methods

2.3 Calculation of GHG emission reductions

2.3.1 GHG emissions reduction related to mobility-related actions

2.3.2 GHG emissions reduction related to food-related actions

2.3.3 GHG emissions reduction related to housing-related actions

2.3.4 GHG emissions reduction related to other consumption-related actions

2.4 Quadrant analysis

3.1 The degree to which climate actions are implemented in households

3.2 Potential GHG emissions reduction related to individual actions

3.3 Behavioural change carbon footprint scenario

4 Discussion

4.2 Increasing the implementation rates of climate actions

4.3 The effect of individual climate actions in future

4.4 Limitations

4.5 Future research

5 Conclusions

Data availability

Code availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Additional information

Supplementary Information

About this article

Share this article

Pardon Our Interruption

Search the United Nations

Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform our World​

End poverty in all its forms everywhere

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Reduce inequality within and among countries

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Key Components of Sustainability Assignments

Students' Learning Outcomes

Service Learning

Information

Initiatives

Article Menu

JSmol Viewer

1. Introduction

Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform our World