Is there a trade-off between individuals’ subjective well-being and their ecological footprint?

Well-being and Public Policy Conference – June 10-12, 2014 – New York

Is there a trade-off between individuals’ subjective well-being and their ecological footprint?

Elsy Verhofstadt, Luc Van Ootegem, Bart Defloor & Brent Bleys

World Happiness Report, 2013 (p.108) “The analytical community needs to help us understand which policies would raise well-being in a sustainable way”.

Lenzen & Cummins, 2013 (p.57) “To our knowledge, there exist at present no survey data, and hence also no assessment, in which SWB and carbon footprint of household consumption can be investigated for one and the same population”

Elsy Verhofstadt June 12, 2014 2

Research goals

Combine information on individual well-being with information on the ecological footprint of that individual

Investigate the relation between Subjective Well-Being (SWB) and the Ecological Footprint (EF):

direct relation between SWB and EF impact of variables on SWB and EF


Existing literature

Environment in SWB literature state of the environment (e.g. temperature, air pollution) attitudes towards the environment (e.g. concern for

pollution)

In studies explaining the environmental impact or footprint of individuals the focus is on household characteristics but there is no link to subjective well-being



Structure

1. Introduction2. Concepts & measurement3. Correlation between well-being and footprint4. Analysis of determinants5. Summary and policy implications

WWF, 2012 6

Ecological footprint: the concept

The Ecological Footprint tracks humanity’s demands on the biosphere.

It does so by calculating the area required to produce the resources people consume, the area occupied by infrastructure, and the area of forest required for sequestering CO2 not absorbed by the ocean.

WWF, 2012 7

Ecological footprint: measurement We included the questions necessary to calculate the Ecological

Footprint for each respondent: ‣ family composition, food intake, energy use (heating and

electricity), paper use, car and public transportationuse, travel behaviour

Calculations by Ecolife, partner of WWF in Belgium

Average: 6,94 (st.dev. 1,85) / minimum: 2,87 – maximum: 17,00


Subjective well-being: measurement Life Satisfaction “All things considered how satisfied are you with your life in general? “scale from 0 ‘very unsatisfied’ to 10 ‘very satisfied’

Primary measure for SWB as suggested by OECD in their guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being (2013)

Average: 7,24 (st.dev. 1,50) / Median: 7


Data: LEVO 2013

Self-reported information from a survey (N=1291) in Flanders Data are weighted to obtain a representative sample according to

personal situation, gender and age distribution Socio-economic characteristics Self-evaluations for health, social life and living environment Personality traits and expectations Attitude towards the environment



Structure


Pearson correlations No significant correlation between ecological footprint and life

satisfaction (p=0.719) Correlations of satisfaction with the different components:

Food nsHeating nsElectricity -,066*Paper nsCar use nsPublic transport nsHolidays ,108**



Structure

1. Introduction2. Concepts & measurement3. Correlation between well-being and footprint4. Analysis of determinants

4.1 Effect of EF aspects on SWB4.2 Effect of SWB determinants on EF

5. Summary and policy implications

4.1 Effect of EF aspects on SWB (1) Including all questions of the EF calculation in one stepwise OLS

regression of SWB For dummies, the reference is always a category for which the

impact on the EF is on average Components that are not significant for SWB:


Number of persons living in the houseElectricity behaviourType of paper usedUse of public transport

4.1 Effect of EF aspects on SWB (2)Unstandardized coefficients for significant dummies (p<0,05)


Food 1 Kind and origin of productsmainly local and seasonal products 0,222mainly fresh products (ref)mainly frozen vegetables and fruit preserves -0,862

Food 2 Consumption of meat or fishmaximum 3 times a week -0,297 4-5 times a week (ref)


Heating 1 House typesmall apartment or terraced house -0,598

average (semi-)detached house (ref)Heating 2 Insulation of the houseHeating 3 Fuel for heating

oil fuel (ref)electricity -0,295



Car use Car use

no car (or never use car) -0,511

daily for less than 50km (ref)

Holidays Spending holidaysat home -0,479

less than 200 km of home -0,320

in Europe with car (ref)


4.2 Effect of SWB determinants on EF (1) Including all available well-being determinants in a stepwise OLS

regression of SWB (adj. R2= 0,276) and EF (adj. R2= 0,100) Standardized coefficients for significant variables (p<0,05)

Socio-economic position EF SWBWorking (ref)StudentPensioner 0,209

Unemployed -0,080

Incapable to work -0,066

Househusband/wife -0,080

4.2 Effect of SWB determinants on EF (2) Standardized coefficients for significant variables (p<0,05)

Socio-economic characteristics EF SWBAge / Age2Gender (female) -0,095

Being religiuos (yes) 0,064

Having a relation (yes) -0,156 0,167

Fraction of free time spent alone (vs spent with family, friends or in associations)

-0,122

Lower educatedHigher Secondary degree( ref)Higher educated 0,101


Socio-economic characteristics EF SWBFamily incomeHouse owner (yes) -0,084 0,094

ResidenceCity center (ref)Center of municipalityRural 0,120

Outskirts of town



EF SWBSelf-evaluationsHealth 0,142

Social life 0,097

Pleasant environment 0,172

Personality traitsPositive attitude 0,161

Altruistic and conscientious 0,071

Emotionally concerned -0,089

Expectant


Attitudes towards the environment EF SWBMember of an environmental associationKnowledge about environmental problemsConcern about environmental issues -0,136



Structure


Win-Win variables


i.e. reducing the ecological footprint and at the same time positive impact on subjective well-being

Increase consumption of local and seasonal products and decrease consumption of frozen vegetables and fruit preserves

Avoiding electricity for the heating of houses Making homeownership appealing Providing pleasant living environments in city centers

Win-neutral variables


i.e. reducing the ecological footprint with no impact on subjective well-being

Using recycled paper and no advertising Stimulate green electricity and advice on saving electricity Insulate houses Increase concern about environmental issues Co –housing

Trade off variables


Some variables create a trade off: they are beneficial for one outcome but have an adverse effect on the other outcome.

Examples: having no or not using a car stay at home or nearby during holidays living in a small house or apartment

Reduce EF, but are at the same time harmful for SWB

Long-term effects


Policy objectives should also consider the long-term effects:

Extreme climate events caused by an increased ecological footprint will very likely have a negative impact on well-being through reduced health and feelings of safety and security.

Investments in education are necessary for R&D (eg for alternative energy) - although higher educated have a higher EF

Thank you!

[email protected]@UGent.be

Documents

Is there a trade-off between individuals’ subjective well-being and their ecological footprint?