The Experts below are selected from a list of 49551 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kristiina Aalto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
Sustainability, 2012Co-Authors: Michael Lettenmeier, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Senja Laakso, Satu Lähteenoja, Kristiina AaltoAbstract:The article assesses the material footprints of Households living on a minimum amount of social benefits in Finland and discusses the consequences in terms of ecological and social sustainability. The data were collected using interviews and a questionnaire on the consumption patterns of 18 single Households. The results are compared to a study on Households with varying Income levels, to average consumption patterns and to decent minimum reference budgets. The Low-Income Households have Lower material footprints than average and most of the material footprints are beLow the socially sustainable level of consumption, which is based on decent minimum reference budgets. However, the amount of resources used by most of the Households studied here is still at least double that required for ecological sustainability. The simultaneous existence of both deprivation and overconsumption requires measures from both politicians and companies to make consumption sustainable. For example, both adequate housing and economic mobility need to be addressed. Measures to improve the social sustainability of Low-Income Households should target reducing the material footprints of more affluent Households. Furthermore, the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.
-
material footprint of Low Income Households in finland consequences for the sustainability debate
Sustainability, 2012Co-Authors: Michael Lettenmeier, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Senja Laakso, Satu Lähteenoja, Kristiina AaltoAbstract:The article assesses the material footprints of Households living on a minimum amount of social benefits in Finland and discusses the consequences in terms of ecological and social sustainability. The data were collected using interviews and a questionnaire on the consumption patterns of 18 single Households. The results are compared to a study on Households with varying Income levels, to average consumption patterns and to decent minimum reference budgets. The Low-Income Households have Lower material footprints than average and most of the material footprints are beLow the socially sustainable level of consumption, which is based on decent minimum reference budgets. However, the amount of resources used by most of the Households studied here is still at least double that required for ecological sustainability. The simultaneous existence of both deprivation and overconsumption requires measures from both politicians and companies to make consumption sustainable. For example, both adequate housing and economic mobility need to be addressed. Measures to improve the social sustainability of Low-Income Households should target reducing the material footprints of more affluent Households. Furthermore, the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.
Syed Ali Fazal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Entrepreneurial Index for Low-Income Households in Malaysia
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 2021Co-Authors: Abdullah Al Mamun, Ramayah Thurasamy, Syed Ali FazalAbstract:Abstract Even though development organizations provide access to working capital and enterprise development training, they often fail to improve the socio-economic condition of Low-Income Households. One of the factors contributing to the failure of development programs is their lack of capacity to measure the entrepreneurial potentials among the Low-Income participants. This study focused on the development of an entrepreneurial index that measures the entrepreneurial potentials among Low-Income Households. Adopting a cross-sectional design, a total of 403 micro-entrepreneurs were approached from the list provided by ‘Majlis Amanah Rakyat’ and ‘Majlis Agama Islam Dan Adat Istiadat’, Kelantan. This study used formative hierarchial model to determine the local and global weights for all the items used to develop the index. Further, the nomological validity revealed a positive effect of entrepreneurial index on entrepreneurial competency, enterprise performance, and enterprise sustainability.
-
Green vehicle adoption behavior among Low-Income Households: evidence from coastal Malaysia
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019Co-Authors: Abdullah Al-mamun, Syed Ali Fazal, Muhammad Mehedi Masud, Rajennd MuniadyAbstract:In an attempt to mitigate the effects of extreme natural events caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs), a significant number of researchers and environmentalists have repeatedly stressed the importance of implementing protective measures, including the promotion of green consumption. This study examined the elements that motivated the willingness and the practice of green behavior (GB) among Low-Income Households in coastal Peninsular Malaysia. To meet the research objectives, this study adopted the survey questionnaire method to collect data from 380 Low-Income Households. The findings revealed that self-efficacy (SE) and environmental concerns (EC) have statistically significant effects on the attitude toward green products (ATT), while subjective norms (SN) and perceived behavioral control (PBC) have influence on the intention of green vehicles. Eventually, the study discovered the effects of the intention to adopt green vehicle on green vehicle adoption behavior. Hence, the findings of this study provide new insights for policymakers in Malaysia to place more emphasis on improving consumer attitudes, social standards, and PBC, which will ultimately contribute to the adoption of environment-friendly vehicles. In addition, car manufacturers should support this program by designing products and options that would encourage those in the Low-Income group to replace their conventional vehicles with green alternatives in Malaysia.
-
Recycling Intention and Behavior among Low-Income Households
Sustainability, 2018Co-Authors: Abdullah Al Mamun, Muhammad Mohiuddin, Ghazali Ahmad, Ramayah Thurasamy, Syed Ali FazalAbstract:To improve our knowledge of how to protect the environment, this study examined the factors that influence recycling intention and behavior among Low-Income Households. The study adopted a cross-sectional design that relied on 380 Low-Income Households who live in coastal Peninsular Malaysia. The findings revealed a positive effect of eco-literacy, environmental concern, and self-efficacy on the attitude towards environmentally friendly products. Subsequently, the findings also illustrated a positive effect of normative beliefs on subjective norms. Moreover, the results revealed a positive effect of attitude towards environmentally friendly products and perceived behavioral control (PBC) on recycling intention. Finally, there was a positive effect of both PBC and recycling intention on recycling behavior. Although this study’s focus on a specific Income group from a single country could limit generalizability; the findings nevertheless provide scholars and policymakers with significant insights into promoting recycling activities, which are expected to contribute to the environment and reduce the environmental and economic vulnerability among Low-Income Households. Therefore, environmental and socio-economic development organizations should assess the feasibility of recycling materials and develop a supportive system that facilitates and encourages recycling activities.
Michael Lettenmeier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
Sustainability, 2012Co-Authors: Michael Lettenmeier, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Senja Laakso, Satu Lähteenoja, Kristiina AaltoAbstract:The article assesses the material footprints of Households living on a minimum amount of social benefits in Finland and discusses the consequences in terms of ecological and social sustainability. The data were collected using interviews and a questionnaire on the consumption patterns of 18 single Households. The results are compared to a study on Households with varying Income levels, to average consumption patterns and to decent minimum reference budgets. The Low-Income Households have Lower material footprints than average and most of the material footprints are beLow the socially sustainable level of consumption, which is based on decent minimum reference budgets. However, the amount of resources used by most of the Households studied here is still at least double that required for ecological sustainability. The simultaneous existence of both deprivation and overconsumption requires measures from both politicians and companies to make consumption sustainable. For example, both adequate housing and economic mobility need to be addressed. Measures to improve the social sustainability of Low-Income Households should target reducing the material footprints of more affluent Households. Furthermore, the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.
-
material footprint of Low Income Households in finland consequences for the sustainability debate
Sustainability, 2012Co-Authors: Michael Lettenmeier, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Senja Laakso, Satu Lähteenoja, Kristiina AaltoAbstract:The article assesses the material footprints of Households living on a minimum amount of social benefits in Finland and discusses the consequences in terms of ecological and social sustainability. The data were collected using interviews and a questionnaire on the consumption patterns of 18 single Households. The results are compared to a study on Households with varying Income levels, to average consumption patterns and to decent minimum reference budgets. The Low-Income Households have Lower material footprints than average and most of the material footprints are beLow the socially sustainable level of consumption, which is based on decent minimum reference budgets. However, the amount of resources used by most of the Households studied here is still at least double that required for ecological sustainability. The simultaneous existence of both deprivation and overconsumption requires measures from both politicians and companies to make consumption sustainable. For example, both adequate housing and economic mobility need to be addressed. Measures to improve the social sustainability of Low-Income Households should target reducing the material footprints of more affluent Households. Furthermore, the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.
Noel Blisard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Thrifty Food Plan and Low-Income Households in the United States: What food groups are being neglected?
Food Policy, 2006Co-Authors: Hayden Stewart, Noel BlisardAbstract:Food assistance programs in the United States provide Low-Income Households with the resources to purchase a healthy, nutritious, and palatable diet, if they buy the market baskets of food outlined in the Thrifty Food Plan. This study compares the cost of these baskets with actual spending on food at home by Low-Income Households. Simulations reveal at-home food spending by Low-Income Households to represent only 86% of what is needed to folLow the Thrifty Food Plan. Married couples with children and female-headed Households with children spend only 73% and 82%, respectively, and just 43% and 50% for at-home fruits and vegetables.
-
How Low-Income Households Allocate Their Food Budget Relative to the Cost of the Thrifty Food Plan
Economic Research Report, 2006Co-Authors: Noel Blisard, Hayden StewartAbstract:By allocating their food budgets in accordance with USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which serves as a national standard for a Low-cost nutritious diet, Low-Income U.S. Households can meet recommended dietary guidelines. This study sought to determine whether selected types of Low-Income Households allocate their food budgets in accordance with the TFP. In addition to expenditures for total food and food-at-home, the study looked at four large food-at-home categories: meats, cereals and bakery goods, fruits and vegetables, and dairy products. The analysis found that Low-Income Households as a whole spent about 86 percent of the TFP costs for food at home. These Households spent slightly over the TFP amount (102 percent) on cereals and bakery goods, but only 53 percent of the TFP costs on fruits and vegetables. Simulations for specific types of Low-Income Households indicated that expenditures by female-headed Households with children and married couples with children were least likely to equal the TFP expenditures.
-
Low-Income Households' EXPENDITURES ON FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
2004Co-Authors: Noel Blisard, Hayden Stewart, Dean JolliffeAbstract:Both public and private organizations have noted that Americans generally eat less fruits and vegetables than is recommended in the Food Guide Pyramid. For example, the Produce for Better Health Foundation found that only 38 percent of Americans consume the recommended number of servings of vegetables, while only 23 percent consume the recommended number of servings of fruit. Even more troubling, Low-Income Households eat even less fruits and vegetables than higher Income Households.
-
Low-Income Households' Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables
Agricultural Information Bulletins, 2004Co-Authors: Noel Blisard, Hayden Stewart, Dean JolliffeAbstract:This report analyzes fruit and vegetable expenditures by Low-Income Households and higher Income Households, and compares the sensitivity of both groups' purchases to changes in Income. On average, Low-Income Households spent $3.59 per capita per week on fruits and vegetables in 2000 while higher Income Households spent $5.02-a statistically significant difference. In addition, a statistical demand model indicates that marginal increases in Income received by Low-Income Households are not spent on additional fruits and vegetables. In contrast, increases in Income received by higher Income Households do increase their fruit and vegetable expenditures. One interpretation of this finding is that Low-Income Households will allocate an additional dollar of Income to other food or nonfood items deemed more essential to the household such as meats, clothing, or housing.
-
Do Income Constraints Inhibit Spending on Fruits and Vegetables Among Low-Income Households?
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2003Co-Authors: Hayden Stewart, Noel Blisard, Dean JolliffeAbstract:This study assesses whether Income constraints inhibit spending on fruits and vegetables among Low-Income Households. If this is the case, then it is hypothesized that the distribution of expenditures on fruits and vegetables by Low-Income Households should be stochastically dominated by the distribution of expenditures on these same food items by other Households. Moreover, it must be the case that Low-Income Households would increase their spending on fruits and vegetables in response to an increase in their Income. Using household data from the 2000 Consumer Expenditure Survey, a test of stochastic dominance is performed. Censored quantile regressions are also estimated at selected points of the conditional expenditure distribution. LowIncome Households are found to spend less on fruits and vegetables than other Households, but they are not responsive to changes in Income.
Satu Lähteenoja - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate
Sustainability, 2012Co-Authors: Michael Lettenmeier, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Senja Laakso, Satu Lähteenoja, Kristiina AaltoAbstract:The article assesses the material footprints of Households living on a minimum amount of social benefits in Finland and discusses the consequences in terms of ecological and social sustainability. The data were collected using interviews and a questionnaire on the consumption patterns of 18 single Households. The results are compared to a study on Households with varying Income levels, to average consumption patterns and to decent minimum reference budgets. The Low-Income Households have Lower material footprints than average and most of the material footprints are beLow the socially sustainable level of consumption, which is based on decent minimum reference budgets. However, the amount of resources used by most of the Households studied here is still at least double that required for ecological sustainability. The simultaneous existence of both deprivation and overconsumption requires measures from both politicians and companies to make consumption sustainable. For example, both adequate housing and economic mobility need to be addressed. Measures to improve the social sustainability of Low-Income Households should target reducing the material footprints of more affluent Households. Furthermore, the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.
-
material footprint of Low Income Households in finland consequences for the sustainability debate
Sustainability, 2012Co-Authors: Michael Lettenmeier, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Senja Laakso, Satu Lähteenoja, Kristiina AaltoAbstract:The article assesses the material footprints of Households living on a minimum amount of social benefits in Finland and discusses the consequences in terms of ecological and social sustainability. The data were collected using interviews and a questionnaire on the consumption patterns of 18 single Households. The results are compared to a study on Households with varying Income levels, to average consumption patterns and to decent minimum reference budgets. The Low-Income Households have Lower material footprints than average and most of the material footprints are beLow the socially sustainable level of consumption, which is based on decent minimum reference budgets. However, the amount of resources used by most of the Households studied here is still at least double that required for ecological sustainability. The simultaneous existence of both deprivation and overconsumption requires measures from both politicians and companies to make consumption sustainable. For example, both adequate housing and economic mobility need to be addressed. Measures to improve the social sustainability of Low-Income Households should target reducing the material footprints of more affluent Households. Furthermore, the concept of what constitutes a decent life should be understood more universally than on the basis of standards of material consumption.
