4.7 Article

Measuring fossil resource inequality-A case study for the UK between 1968 and 2000

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Volume 68, Issue 4, Pages 1213-1225

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.014

Keywords

Sustainable consumption; Fossil resource inequality; Income groups; Gini coefficient; Fossil resource consumption

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [RES-152-25-1004] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper quantifies fossil resource inequalities amongst income quintiles in the UK between 1968 and 2000. it calculates a resource-based Gini coefficient using an input-output based resource allocation model. The results show that the Gini coefficient for total fossil resource consumption grew by 24% over the time period. By comparison the Gini coefficient for overall household expenditure rose by only 13%. The increase in resource inequality was prompted by the rising demand by high income quintiles for goods and services such as: fuel and light (heating and lighting the home),car use (private transportation), recreation, travel and other services. The analysis shows further that the Gini coefficient for direct fossil resources (fuel and light and car use) was lower and rose less steeply than the Gini coefficient for fossil resources embodied in other goods and services (indirect fossil resource requirements). Investigation into the drivers behind direct and indirect resource inequalities suggests a number of policy conclusions. Firstly, it is clear that policy initiatives to reduce fossil resource requirements (and the associated climate change impacts) must pay careful attention to distributional differences. Additionally, increased attention needs to be paid to the inequalities associated with indirect fossil resources consumption as well as the more visible direct resource inequalities. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available