Search

Evidence is lacking on how inequality in homeowner uptake of solar panels has changed over time. This paper assesses changes in inequality over time using four Australian household surveys from 2012 to 2020. There is evidence of an intuitive transition where average uptake for homeowners with net-wealth just below the median (the fourth and fifth deciles) improved first, with subsequent gains for homeowners in the third net-wealth decile. However, there were still some significant shortfalls by 2020, especially for the first (i.e. lowest) net-wealth decile. In particular, the lowest net-wealth decile had lower uptake by 9.4 percentage points in 2012 and there was a similar gap below the highest decile of 10.6 percentage points in 2019–20. With control variables these corresponding gaps were 8.0 and 8.3 percentage points respectively. Inequality and changes have been less pronounced based on other aspects like education, income, and welfare status. A new policy implication is that Australian support should primarily target the bottom two net-wealth deciles among homeowners. Australia's experience can inform policies for other countries and clean energy technologies. The general implication is that policy approaches should be dynamic and detailed to address inequality changes over time in each context. • We assess the changes in solar-uptake distributions for Australian homeowners. • Changes in solar uptake inequality are most pronounced with respect to net wealth. • Persistent inequality exists for the lowest net-wealth decile from 2012 to 2020. • Deciles 3 to 5 had higher solar uptake following 2012, relative to other deciles. • Policies should be dynamic to account for distributional changes over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Australian federal fisheries policy identifies maximising net economic returns as the primary objective of fisheries management. This has largely been interpreted as maximising the net economic yield (MEY) in fisheries. More recently, the influence of reducing yields to achieve MEY on prices and the transfer of consumer surplus to producers has been raised as a potential issue. Achieving fishery MEY may result in a reduction in net economic returns in a broader sense if the loss to consumers exceeds the gain to the industry. The transfer of consumer surplus to producers is also potentially undesirable, and may result in a dead weight loss. Similarly, the disutility associated with bycatch in fisheries may also affect our interpretation of “optimal” yields if non-monetary values are considered. These externalities are generally not considered in determining MEY. In this paper, we develop a generic multispecies bioeconomic model that is used to estimate the impact of broadening the consideration of net economic returns to include changes in consumer surplus as well as the inclusion of non-market values associated with bycatch. We find that traditional measures of MEY may not achieve maximum returns to society overall if these externalities exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tackling the overconsumption of discretionary foods (foods and drinks not necessary to provide the nutrients the body needs) is central to aligning human and planetary health. Whilst the adverse health impacts of discretionary foods are well documented, the environmental and broader sustainability impacts of these products deserve more attention, especially since their consumption has been increasing in recent decades, particularly amongst low income groups. This paper presents a quantitative case study analysis of discretionary food consumption and the associated environmental impacts for households from different income groups in Australia. Environmentally extended input-output analysis is used to estimate the full life cycle environmental impacts of discretionary food consumption on the basis of household expenditures. On average, discretionary foods account for a significant 35%, 39%, 33% and 35% of the overall diet-related life cycle water use, energy use, carbon dioxide equivalent and land use respectively. These significant percentages provide further support for the need to incentivise diets that are both healthier and more sustainable, including ‘divestment’ from discretionary food products. The study highlights the challenges ahead, including the need for further research on food substitutions to minimise environmental and social impacts whilst maximising nutritional quality – especially amongst poorer socioeconomic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental issues are becoming more urgent. Biodiversity loss, climate change, extreme events and global pressures on resources place increasing importance on decision making about how natural resources should be managed. Natural capital accounting (NCA) is gaining popularity as a systematic approach to recognise the full value of natural resources such as soil, vegetation, animals, water, and biodiversity. To understand perceptions and opportunities for awareness and behaviour change relating to the use of NCA, we conducted a discourse analysis of 57 interviews with stakeholders across Australia. Our aim is to promote discussion and reflection about perceptions of natural resources as forms of capital, and the role of NCA to underpin management practice change and support sustainability. We identify four key areas of contestation that relate to values, complexity, digital technology, and the desired future vision of NCA in society. Findings include conflicting views around whether NCA should have a diversity of tailored approaches or a consistent approach for all and that digital technology has and will continue to shape the way NCA is conducted. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to take a discourse analysis approach to perceptions of natural capital accounting. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Illegal firewood collection has a series of unintended environmental, economic, and public safety impacts associated with harvesting undermining the development of a sustainable firewood industry. In this paper, we present Tasmanian firewood consumers with a labelling system and explore their willingness to pay for labelled firewood. We employ a discrete choice experiment with 239 potential firewood consumers. We estimate consumers' willingness to pay for different sources of firewood, coming from different distances, and whether it is important for a share of the proceeds to be invested in social or environmental priorities. To account for preference heterogeneity, we estimate a two−class latent class model and mixed multinomial logit model. The results from the first class of the latent class model and mixed multinomial logit model suggest that consumers are willing to pay a premium for repurposed wood, firewood sourced from agroforestry−based operations, proceeds invested in wildlife conservation, or the firewood comes from sites closer to their residence. The second class from the latent class model is characterized by consumers who are concerned only with the cost. Our survey respondents prefer their firewood to be accredited and regulated by independent non − profit bodies such as the Firewood Association of Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses input–output analysis to model the environmental impacts of the weekly food consumption of Australia's households sorted by income quintile in 2003. We found that weekly food consumption of the relatively better off households caused greater environmental burden than that of the less well-off household. Meat and bakery products/flour/cereals were the categories that contributed the largest share of environmental impacts in an average household's food consumption footprint: 58% water, 26% energy, 29% CO 2 , and 31% wasted materials. Per dollar spent, fruit and vegetables generated 0.0874 m 3 of water, 0.0055 GJ of energy, 0.37 kg of CO 2 , and 0.0114 kg of wasted materials. This was lower than the per dollar impacts of bakery products (0.8482, 0.0067, 0.63, 0.0204), meat (0.3471, 0.0070, 0.65, 0.0203), dairy (0.0995, 0.0114, 0.98, 0.0192), and edible fats (0.2373, 0.0080, 0.70, 0.0165). Eating out and fast food consumption also had a low per dollar impact (0.1317, 0.0046, 0.38, 0.0141). We surmise that substituting fruit and vegetables at the expense of animal products, processed foods, and fats would decrease environmental impacts. Change at low income levels should be focused upon meat, bakery and dairy consumption, while higher incomes should be focused upon the consequences of eating food outside the home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]