The Ecological Impact of Anticonsumption Lifestyles and Environmental Concern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsustainable consumption is an important cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment. The authors compare the ecological impact of anticonsumption lifestyles and environmental concern. Findings indicate that high scores on anticonsumption lifestyles (voluntary simplicity, frugality, and tightwadism) and environmental concern are associated with lower ecological impact. More precisely, the findings show that these lifestyles are not associated with a reduction in consumption, as their stereotypes would imply. Voluntary simplicity (β = −.286) and tightwadism (β = −.216) show a stronger association with lower ecological impact (i.e., are less harmful to the environment) than environmental concern (β = −.190), whereas frugality (β = −.089) is not associated with reduced impact after demographic variables were controlled for. The findings pertaining to voluntary simplicity and tightwadism suggest that resisting consumption is an alternative path toward more sustainable consumption. Public policy makers and marketers can build on these findings and include reduced consumption and sufficiency in their sustainability strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".