Several studies have been developed to show the importance of household carbon emissions and further investigate their sources and driving factors. These studies have paid attention to the impact of household behaviour with regard to energy use and introduced the concept of lifestyle into the study of personal carbon emissions including income, household size, and household structure. Despite the abundance of studies in the literature, it is quite surprising to note the scarcity of studies in France that address the impact of lifestyle on the environment and climate change. We use a nationwide dataset that provides a high-quality nationwide comprehensive survey of French lifestyle and their behaviour towards the environment. The results of this paper highlight the important and significant impact of the lifestyle of French citizens on transport, energy use, consumption, food waste, and clothing. Moreover, they allow assessing the impact of lifestyle on environmental factors in order to manage the harmful effect of climate change on French citizens. Therefore, this study provides decision-makers with extensive valuable information for promoting environmentally sustainable lifestyles and consumption.
AnderssonDNässénJLarssonJ, et al. (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions and subjective well-being: an analysis of Swedish households. Ecological Economics102: 75–82.
2.
AshmoreDPChristieNTylerNA (2017) Symbolic transport choice across national cultures: theoretical considerations for research design. Transportation Planning and Technology40(8): 875–900. DOI: 10.1080/03081060.2017.1355882.
3.
AuffhammerM (2022) Climate Adaptive Response Estimation: short and long run impacts of climate change on residential electricity and natural gas consumption. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management114: 102669.
4.
BaiYLiuY (2013) An exploration of residents’ low-carbon awareness and behavior in Tianjin, China. Energy Policy61: 1261–1270.
5.
BaiocchiGMinxJHubacekK (2010) The impact of social factors and consumer behavior on carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom: a regression based on Input−Output and geodemographic consumer segmentation data. Journal of Industrial Ecology14(1): 50–72.
6.
BiesiotWNoormanKJ (1999) Energy requirements of household consumption: a case study of The Netherlands. Ecological Economics28(3): 367–383.
7.
BinSDowlatabadiH (2005) Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy33: 197–208.
8.
BøhlerengenMWiiumN (2022) Environmental attitudes, behaviours, and responsibility perceptions among Norwegian youth: associations with positive youth development indicators. Frontiers in Psychology13: 1664–1678.
9.
BohringerCRosendahlKE (2022) Europe beyond coal – an economic and climate impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management113: 102658.
10.
BrobakkJ (2017) Klima for endring ? Norske bønders holdninger til klimaendring og klimapolitikk. Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift333/4: 272–291.
11.
BüchsMSchnepfSV (2013) Who emits most? Associations between socio-economic factors and UK households' home energy, transport, indirect and total CO2 emissions. Ecological Economics90: 114–123.
12.
ButtelFH (1987) New directions in environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology13: 465–488.
13.
CarterDM (2011) Recognizing the role of positive emotions in fostering environmentally responsible behaviors. Ecopsychology3: 65–69.
14.
De BoerJde WittAAikingH (2016) Help the climate, change your diet: a cross-sectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society. Appetite98: 19–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.12.001.
15.
DruckmanAJacksonT (2009) The carbon footprint of UK households 1990–2004: a socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-multi-regional input-output model. Ecological Economics68(7): 2066–2077.
16.
DuchinF (1998) Structural Economics: Measuring Changes in Technology, Lifestyles and the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
17.
DunlapRECattonWR (1994) Struggling with human exemptionalism: the rise, decline and revitalization of environmental sociology. The American Sociologist25(1): 5–30.
18.
FazeyIKProustKNewellBJA, et al. (2006) Eliciting the implicit knowledge and perceptions of on-ground conservation managers of the Macquarie Marshes. Ecology and Society11(1): 25.
19.
GadenneDSharmaBKerrD, et al. (2011) The influence of consumers' environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy39(12): 7684–7694.
20.
GeelsFW (2005) Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change72(6): 681–696.
21.
GerslAHermanekJ (2007) Financial Stability Indicators: Advantages and Disadvantages of Their Use in the Assessment of Financial System Stability. Prague: Czech National Bank. Occasional Publications-Chapters in Edited Volumes, 69–79.
22.
GjerstadØFløttumK (2021) Climate change lifestyle narratives among Norwegian citizens: a linguistic analysis of survey discourse. European Policy Analysis7(2): 386–404.
23.
GkargkavouziAHalkosGMatsioriA (2019) A Multi-dimensional Measure of Environmental Behavior: Exploring the Predictive Power of Connectedness to Nature, Ecological Worldview and Environmental Concern. Social Indicators Research143(1): 859–879. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-018-1999-8.
24.
GorgesTHolz-RauC (2021) Transition of mobility in companies – a semi-systematic literature review and bibliographic analysis on corporate mobility and its management. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives11: 100462.
25.
HolianMJKahnME (2015) Household carbon emissions from driving and center city quality of life. Ecological Economics116: 362–368. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102658.
26.
JolliffeIT (2002) Principal Component Analysis for Special Types of Data. New York: Springer, 338–372.
27.
JolliffeITCadimaJ (2016) Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences374(2065): 20150202. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0202.
28.
KaidaNKaidaK (2016) Pro-environmental behaviour correlates with present and future subjective well-being. Environment, Development and Sustainability18(1): 1–17.
29.
KerkhofACBendersRMJMollHC (2009) Determinants of variation in household CO2, emissions between and within countries. Energy Policy37(4): 1509–1517.
30.
LazaricNLe GuelFBelinJ, et al. (2020) Determinants of sustainable consumption in France: the importance of social influence and environmental values. Journal of Evolutionary Economics30: 1337–1366.
31.
LiJZhangDSuB (2019) The impact of social awareness and lifestyles on household carbon emissions in China. Ecological Economics160(2): 145–155.
32.
MaloneyMPWardMP (1973) Ecology: let's hear from the people: an objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist28(7): 583–586.
33.
MenzelS (2013) Are emotions to blame? - the impact of non-analytical information processing on decision-making and implications for fostering sustainability. Ecological Economics96: 71–78.
34.
NelsonWRPerliR (2007) Selected indicators of financial stability. Risk Measurement and Systemic Risk4: 343–372.
35.
NicholsonWSnyderC (2011) Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions. Toronto: Nelson Education.
36.
OlssonPFolkeC (2001) Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of lake racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems4: 85–104. DOI: 10.1007/s100210000061.
37.
PaddockJ (2017) Household consumption and environmental change: rethinking the policy problem through narratives of food practice. Journal of Consumer Culture17(1): 122–139.
38.
PearceWBrownBNerlichB, et al. (2015) Communicating climate change : conduits, content, and consensus. WIREs Climate Change6(6): 613–626.
39.
PetevIDDemoliYSvenE, et al. (2017) Styles de vie et Environnement. Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques (FNSP). Paris: Centre de données Socio-Politiques (CDSP).
40.
PojaniDSteadD (2017) Sustainable Urban Transport in the Developing World: Beyond Megacities.Sustainability7: 7784–7805. DOI: 10.3390/su7067784.
41.
PojaniDSteadD (2018) Policy design for sustainable urban transport in the global south. Policy Design and Practice1(2): 90–102.
42.
PoortingaWStegLVlekCPoortingaN (2004) Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior - A study into household energy use.Environment and Behavior36(1).
43.
QuJZengJLiY, et al. (2013) Household carbon dioxide emissions from peasants and herdsmen in northwestern arid-alpine regions, China. China. Energy Policy57(6): 133–140.
44.
RaymondCMFazeyIReedMS, et al. (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management91(8): 1766–1777.
45.
ReesWE (1995) Reducing the ecological footprint of consumption. The Workshop on Policy Measures for Changing Consumption Patterns. Seoul, South Korea: www.earthsummit2002.org/roadmap/consumpt.htm.
46.
ReidWFBerkesTJWilbanks, et al. (2006) Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and. Washington, DC: Island Press.
47.
RouabahA (2007) Mesure de la vulnérabilité du secteur bancaire luxembourgeois. Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg.
48.
SaariUADambergSFrömblingL, et al. (2021) Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: the influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecological Economics189: 107155. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107155.
49.
SchipperLBartlettSHawkDV, et al. (1989) Linking life-styles and energy use: a matter of time?Annual Review of Energy14: 273–320.
50.
ŞimşekoğluONordfjærnTRundmoT (2015) The role of attitudes, transport priorities, and car use habit for travel mode use and intentions to use public transportation in an urban Norwegian public. Transport Policy42: 113–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.05.019.
51.
SuBAngBW (2017) Multiplicative structural decomposition analysis of aggregate embodied energy and emission intensities. Energy Economics65: 137–147.
52.
SundbladE-LBielAGärlingT (2014) Intention to change activities that reduce carbon dioxide emissions related to worry about global climate change consequences. European Review of Applied Psychology64(1): 13–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.erap.2011.12.001.
53.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021) Climate Change Synthesis Report 2021. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
54.
TilburyD (1995) Environmental education for sustainability: defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research1(2): 195–212.
55.
TranK (2006) Public perception of development issues: public awareness can contribute to sustainable development of a small island. Ocean & Coastal Management49(5): 367–383.
56.
TvinnereimEFlottumKGjerstadO, et al. (2017) Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions. Global Environmental Change46: 34–41.
57.
UnderwoodAZahranS (2015) The carbon implications of declining household scale economies. Ecological Economics116: 182–190.
58.
Von BorgstedeCAnderssonMJohnssonF (2013) Public attitudes to climate change and carbon mitigation – implications for energy-associated behaviours. Energy Policy57: 182–193.
59.
WeiYMLiuLCFanY, et al. (2007) The impact of lifestyle on energy use and CO2 emission: an empirical analysis of China's residents. Energy Policy35(1): 247–257.
60.
WhitmarshLSeyfangGO’NeillS (2011) Public engagement with carbon and climate change: to what extent is the public ‘carbon capable’? Global Environmental Change21: 56–65.
61.
WilsonJTyedmersPSpinneyJE (2013) An exploration of the relationship between socioeconomic and well-being variables and household greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Industrial Ecology17(6): 880–891.
62.
World Bank (2007) Growth and CO2 Emissions: How Do Different Countries Fare?Washington, DC: Environment Department.
63.
XuXHanLLvX (2016) Household carbon inequality in urban China, its sources and determinants. Ecological Economics128: 77–86.
64.
YahooMOthmanJ (2017) Employing a CGE model in analysing the environmental and economy-wide impacts of CO 2 emission abatement policies in Malaysia. The Science of the Total Environment584–585: 234–243.
65.
YangZFanYZhengS (2016) Determinants of household carbon emissions: pathway toward eco-community in Beijing. Habitat International57: 175–186.
