Narrow Results

Population growth has increased the demand for goods and services, resulting in a higher demand for water. Income inequality can affect water conservation through differences in water consumption patterns by income group. This paper examines the effects of income inequality and consumption patterns on household blue water footprint (BWF). We evaluate the BWF disparity over time driven by the European Union, including UK (EU) households by income quintiles. For this purpose, we develop an environmentally (blue water) and socially (income) extended multi-regional and multi-sectoral input–output (ES-MRIO) model for the EU countries. We study the main drivers contributing to the evolution of the BWF inequality from 1999 to 2015 through a structural decomposition analysis (SDA). The results show the heterogeneity among EU countries, with relevant inequalities between and within countries in relation to groups of income. This leads us to the challenge of reducing this BWF disparity in Europe. Additionally, Mediterranean and South-Eastern Europe are the only areas with reductions in the BWF for all income groups during the studied period. Our findings show the relevance of consumption patterns and per capita consumption, as well as domestic technology, as relevant factors explaining observed changes in water footprints. These factors moderate the positive effect expected by technology improvements, which leads to strengthening domestic producer–consumer links and responsibilities.

In this paper, we attempt to shed light on whether Japanese households are rational or if their behavior is influenced by culture and social norms by examining their saving and bequest behavior. To summarize our main findings, we find that Japan’s household saving rate showed great volatility, was often low and even negative and was high only during the 25-year period from around 1960 until the mid-1980s (if we exclude the war years) and that we can explain the high level of, and trends over time in, Japan’s household saving rate via various socioeconomic and policy variables. This seems to suggest that the Japanese are not a saving-loving people and that their saving behavior is not governed by culture and social norms. Moreover, the bequest behavior of the Japanese suggests that they are less altruistic toward their children and less reliant on their children than other peoples, suggesting that the alleged social norm of strong family ties in Japan is largely a myth, and that the Japanese do not appear to be appreciably more concerned about the continuation of the family line or the family business than other peoples, suggesting that the influence of the “ie” (family) system is apparently not so pervasive either. However, we argue that these findings do not necessarily mean that culture and social norms do not matter.

How do demographic factors influence the environmental impacts of households? A major two year study used the ecological footprint technique to measure the environmental impacts of over 1000 UK households. Energy and transport were the biggest contributors to the 'footprint' of households. Rural, and adult households and households with few members had significantly larger per capita ecological footprints than urban/suburban households, households with children and households with several members. Although 11% of these UK households could be regarded as environmentally sustainable, the majority would require a reduction of 60% in ecological footprint to achieve a globally sustainable footprint per person. Consideration is given to the policy implications of demographic influences on household ecological footprints, including personal carbon allowances and house planning and design.

How do demographic factors influence the environmental impacts of households? A major two year study used the ecological footprint technique to measure the environmental impacts of over 1000 UK households. Energy and transport were the biggest contributors to the ‘footprint’ of households. Rural, and adult households and households with few members had significantly larger per capita ecological footprints than urban/suburban households, households with children and households with several members. Although 11% of these UK households could be regarded as environmentally sustainable, the majority would require a reduction of 60% in ecological footprint to achieve a globally sustainable footprint per person. Consideration is given to the policy implications of demographic influences on household ecological footprints, including personal carbon allowances and house planning and design.