Do we accurately measure what we consume?

Author:

Goldstein Benjamin PORCID,Gounaridis DimitriosORCID,Newell Joshua PORCID,Pelton RylieORCID,Schmitt JenniferORCID

Abstract

Abstract Understanding how consumption patterns affect the environment and shape well-being hinges on the rationale that the data collected on what is consumed, who consumes it, and where it is consumed are indeed accurate. To identify these consumption patterns and recommend corresponding policies, researchers and policy makers often rely on national surveys. Studies have explored the accuracy of individual surveys and the level of agreement across surveys of the same type (e.g. household expenditures), but no studies have compared representative national surveys measuring consumption in different ways. This study compares household consumption measured as expenditures and as material consumption (i.e. physical units) to assess how well we currently measure what we consume. We use multiple rigorous, national surveys to estimate meat consumption, household energy use, and private automobile use in the United States, with consumption profiles parsed by affluence, race/ethnicity, and education. Our results indicate that commonly used surveys may not accurately track important aspects of household consumption. For meat consumption, which included 30 consumption profiles detailing the consumption patterns across different demographic characteristics and meat types (e.g. kilograms beef consumed/capita for Caucasians), there is considerable disagreement between data sources for 20 profiles. By contrast, national surveys accurately measure household energy and transport (disagreement for four profiles). Our findings indicate that national surveys more accurately measure consistently tracked, standardized consumables like electricity than irregularly tracked, variable goods such as food. These results cast doubt on studies that use national surveys to draw conclusions about the how the environmental impacts of food, and, potentially, other goods (e.g. manufactured goods) vary across demographic groups. Overcoming this challenge will necessitate new surveys, updating legacy databases, and harnessing breakthroughs in data science.

Funder

Directorate for Engineering

Publisher

IOP Publishing

Reference66 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3