Error message

Session cache directory /var/www/clients/client7/web35/private/session_cache could not be created.

Beyond Efficiency and Renewable: Sufficiency Matters to Limit Global Warming by the End of the Century to 1.5°C

  • Posted on: 3 April 2022
  • By: Yamina SAHEB

This blogpost is a slightly altered version of the sufficiency section included in the report entitled published by Hot or Cool Institute. 

Global warming is today’s reality in every region of the planet

Heatwaves, heavy precipitation, agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions, tropical cyclones, as well as reductions in Arctic Sea ice, snow cover and permafrost are unfortunately what 2021 will be remembered for. Changes of the global climate system became indisputable. Extreme weather and climate events driven by human-induced warming of the atmosphere, ocean and land is unequivocal (Masson-Delmotte 2021).  Every region across the planet has experienced in 2021 at least one climate and weather extreme event. The global climate system has changed because of the global warming caused by the continuous increase of greenhouse gas emissions driven by human activities. Carbon dioxide emissions, resulting from the use of fossil fuels, is the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. Over the period 1750-2019, global carbon dioxide concentration increased by 48% to 410 ppm (parts per million) (Global Carbon Budget 2021) leading to an increase of global surface temperature of 1.09°C compared to the pre-industrial temperature levels (Masson-Delmotte 2021).

Three decades of climate mitigation action failed in limiting global warming

Scientifically informed warnings about the potential catastrophic impacts of human-induced global warming were already included in the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report published in 1990. Political efforts have since triggered international collaborations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992, was the first step towards limiting global warming. The Kyoto protocol, which introduced the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, was adopted in 1997 with the aim to strengthen the UNFCCC. More recently, the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015 introduced the objective of holding the increase of global average temperature by the end of the century to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, while pursing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

These international agreements were all followed by countless action plans which included several policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels continued to increase during the last three decades and reached 36.4 Giga tonnes in 2019, which is 61% more than in 1990 (Global Carbon Budget 2021) (Figure 1). The only decrease of emissions observed was in 2020 due to the health crisis. However, given the lack of structural changes, this decrease is likely to be offset in 2021.

Global Fossil CO2 Emissions

Policymakers, scientists, and business leaders must admit that the current approach to climate change mitigation, which is driven by technological breakthrough, behaviour change of individuals and market-based instruments failed in limiting the effects of global warming. Importantly, limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as called for by the landmark Paris agreement, will be out of reach without a metamorphosis of the existing climate mitigation policy framework.

Sufficiency: the overlooked climate mitigation strategy

Sufficiency is about living within planetary boundaries. It is defined as a set of policy measures and daily practices which avoid the demand for energy, materials, land, water and other natural resources, while delivering a decent living standard for all within planetary boundaries (Saheb 2021). Decent living standards entail a set of essential material preconditions for human wellbeing which includes housing, nutrition, basic amenities, health care, transportation, information, education and public space (Rao, Min, and Mastrucci 2019); (Rao and Baer 2012); (Rao and Min 2018).

Sufficiency was introduced to the sustainability policy debate by Sachs (1993b) and to academia by Princen (2003a). With the adoption of the Paris Agreement (United Nations 2015) and the collective failure in curving global greenhouse gas emissions after three decades of climate mitigation policies (Stoddard, 2021) (Figure 1), sufficiency is emerging as a climate mitigation strategy to compensate for the unsuccessful efforts of efficiency and the supply with renewable energy sources in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Saheb 2021). 

Sufficiency is often conceptualised by contrast to efficiency. The latter is about the continuous short-term marginal technological improvements which allow doing more with less in relative terms without considering planetary boundaries, while the former is about long-term actions driven by non-technological solutions (i.e. land use management), which consume less in absolute-term and are determined by the biophysical processes (Princen 2003b). The focus of sufficiency is on human needs and the services required for human wellbeing (i.e., housing including thermal comfort, nutrition, mobility…) while the focus of efficiency is on human wants such as products and commodities (buildings, cars, appliances, energy). In that sense, efficiency is a supply-side strategy while sufficiency is a demand-side one.

Sufficiency questions the current approaches to climate change mitigation, such as the promise of technological breakthrough prioritised over lifestyle changes, behavioural change of individuals over systemic change of the economy and the organisation of the society, the cost-benefit analysis emphasised over the biophysical reality of the planet and the market-based instruments over redistributive ones. Moreover, sufficiency confronts the dominant individually-focused discourse which puts emphasis on trivial actions such as turning lights off when rooms are empty, and uses over-reliance on the technological improvements driven by efficiency, which ultimately just substitutes one technology with another. This substituting approach only increases the demand for materials and their related embodied energy and carbon. Unsurprisingly, sufficiency is considered controversial by the wealthiest in society because it challenges their carbon-intensive lifestyles. In fact, sufficiency requires large changes in the consumption patterns and puts an indisputable cap on the consumption levels based on the remaining carbon budget to avoid the overshoot of the 1.5°C temperature target.

The remaining carbon budget and its normative target for distributional equity is the upper limit of sufficiency, while requirements for a decent living standard define the minimum level of sufficiency. By limiting the over and under demand for energy, materials, land, water and other resources, sufficiency is likely to become, in the current decade, central to the global climate mitigation strategy (Saheb 2021). The untapped sufficiency potential, which may reach 30% emissions reduction in the wealthiest countries, will contribute to address the unprecedented and urgent transformation of the global economy and to limit the unequivocal role of human activities in global warming.

Sufficiency principles include the moderation of the speed to enjoy life, the reduction of distances between suppliers and consumers to avoid the ecological breakdown, the limitation of trade to focus more on commons as well as the limitation of goods’ ownership (Sachs 1993a). Implementing sufficiency principles requires i) structural changes to moderate the demand for energy, materials, land, water and other resources as well as ii) flexibility to allow for developing usership of services and for adapting the size and the use of goods to the evolving human needs (Negawatt 2003) (Grubler et al. 2018).

Sufficiency practices

As described in the section below, by considering an equal distribution of the remaining carbon budget for the 1.5°C temperature target as an upper limit, sufficiency requires a metamorphosis in the way human needs (i.e., housing, mobility, nutrition) are satisfied.

1. Housing

The continuous increase of the floor area per-capita experienced in developed countries is a hidden driver of emissions from the building environment at the construction and the operation stage (Lamb et al. 2021) (Röck et al. 2020). Applying sufficiency principles to housing requires putting a cap on the per-capita floor area. This cap could be achieved by downsizing dwellings through co-housing strategies by clustering apartments when existing buildings are renovated and by prioritising multi-family buildings over single-family homes in new developments (Sandberg 2018) (Stephan, Crawford, and de Myttenaere 2013)(Duffy 2009)(Fuller and Crawford 2011)(Wilson and Boehland 2005)(McKinlay, Baldwin, and Stevens 2019)(Sandberg 2018). The cap on the per-capita floor area will reduce the land take and have a direct impact in reducing the demand for materials, water and other natural resources  in the construction phase and energy demand for heating, cooling and lighting in the use phase (Duffy 2009) (Heinonen and Junnila 2014) (Saheb 2021). Less space also means fewer appliances and equipment, or changing preferences towards smaller ones (Aro 2020).

Cohousing strategies provide users, in both new and existing buildings, a shared space (i.e, for laundry, offices, guest rooms and dining rooms) to complement their private space, thus reducing per-capita consumption of resources including energy, water and electricity (Klocker, Gibson, and Borger 2012)(Natascha Klocker 2017), while offering social benefits such as limiting loneliness of elderly people and single parents (Riedy et al. 2019)(Wankiewicz 2015). Senior cooperative housing communities and eco-villages are considered primary cohousing examples, ideal to scale-up (Kuhnhenn et al. 2020).

Local authorities have an important role to play in the metamorphosis of housing by proposing communal spaces to be shared (J. Williams 2008)(Marckmann, Gram-Hanssen, and Christensen 2012) through urban planning and land use policies (Duffy 2009)(Newton, Meyer, and Glackin 2017). The role of local authority is vital in encouraging inter-generational cohousing as well as interactions between people with different backgrounds (Lietaert 2010)(J. Williams 2008). Progressive property taxes based on a cap in the per-capita floor area are also needed to trigger the adaptability of the size of dwellings to households’ needs (Murphy 2015).

2. Mobility

Over the last three decades of climate mitigation policies, emissions from mobility have increased in all countries (Lamb et al. 2021), driven by the expansion of the use of private cars due to urban sprawl, the lack of public transport as well as the social and financial incentives to become a car owner. Sufficiency practices to reduce emissions from mobility include living car-free, ride sharing, reducing the travelled-distances, the weight of private cars and imposed speed limit (Bigo 2020). However, the focus of policies and research has been mainly on changing the behaviour of individuals through car sharing instead of ride sharing (Shaheen, Mallery, and Kingsley 2012)(Chen and Kockelman 2016) and on making mobility smarter (Arnott et al. 2014) (Marsden et al. 2014) (Barr 2018) (Moriarty and Honnery 2012). The contribution of structural changes to reducing emissions from mobility through new cycling and walking infrastructure, ride sharing and friendly public transport (Hasselqvist and Hesselgren 2019) (Dijk et al. 2019) are rather neglected in both policies and research.

Air travel and related emissions have also increased in the last three decades  (Gössling and Humpe 2020), especially with the increased offers for low-cost flights and leisure as well as the variety of frequent flyers’ benefits. More recently, there has been an increased focus on avoiding air travel due to the flying shame movement. Avoiding air travel by using other modes of transportation and slowing travel to re-discover enjoyment of the journey are among the sufficiency practices identified in the literature (Morten, Gatersleben, and Jessop 2018)(Jacobson et al. 2020)(Dickinson, Lumsdon, and Robbins 2011) to reduce emissions from air travel, which are estimated at 1.6 tCO2e per capita saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight (Wynes and Nicholas 2017).

Applying sufficiency principles to mobility requires framing mobility as a service to be provided within the limited per-capita carbon budget to avoid the overshoot of the 1.5°C temperature target. Urban planning and land use policies (Duffy 2009)(Newton et al. 2017) play a major role in triggering or avoiding the daily travelled distances. High density, multi-functional areas, teleworking as well as progressive taxation of frequent flyers and owners of multiple cars and private jets and the ban of SUVs are among the sufficiency solutions to limit emissions from mobility.

3. Nutrition

Meat consumption and dairy products are the two major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions identified in the literature (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Aalto University, and D-mat ltd 2019) (Willett et al. 2019)(Hedenus, Wirsenius, and Johansson 2014). Dietary changes will have a significant impact on limiting the overshoot of the 1.5°C target, especially in countries with affluent food. Avoiding all animal-based products in developed countries would reduce food related emissions by more than 50% (Hallström, Carlsson-Kanyama, and Börjesson 2015). However, the focus of policies has been more on organic food than on less-carbon intensive one.

A changing and innovative food perspective, which includes prolonging the lifespan of food through a better planning, purchasing, storing, cooking and managing the leftovers is also among the strategies highlighted in the literature to reduce food waste and losses, and consequently their related emissions (Roodhuyzen et al. 2017)(Schanes, Dobernig, and Gözet 2018) (Willett et al. 2019). At a global level, about one-third of the food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted. This is equivalent to 1.3 billion tons per year. The highest food lost or wasted is observed in developed countries with an annual of 95-115 kg/capita, in comparison to 6-11 kg/capita in developing countries (Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck 2011).

4. Other goods and services

Sufficiency strategies suggested in the literature for products and goods are similar to those related to nutrition (Freudenreich and Schaltegger 2020). Increasing the lifespan of products and goods by penalising corporately-planned obsolescence as well as moving away from a linear use of materials and products to a circular one by reducing, reusing, recycling, and producing locally will reduce emissions created from the production of goods. Moving from ownership of products to usership of services (Negawatt 2003)(Grubler et al. 2018) as well as a slowing down their use (i.e. Slow fashion) (Joyner Armstrong et al. 2016) are also among the sufficiency practices to consider.

Into the future

Global warming is, unfortunately, expected to continue and its impacts will have consequences for everyone, but those living in the poorest countries will be the most affected. Drastic emissions reduction must occur in the 2020-2030 decade to limit the overshoot of the 1.5°C temperature target during the 21st century (Masson-Delmotte 2021). Addressing the climate emergency requires moving on from the current framework driven by efficiency improvement and the decarbonisation of energy supply through renewable energy sources to a framework based rather on a combination of sufficiency, efficiency and renewable (SER) (Figure 2). Such a framework is needed to deliver on the Paris Agreement’s temperature and equity objectives.

Figure 2: Sufficiency, Efficiency, Renewable (SER) climate mitigation framework

 SER Framework

This post was published for the first time, on October 7th, 2021, on


Arnott, Bronia, Lucia Rehackova, Linda Errington, Falko F. Sniehotta, Jennifer Roberts, and Vera Araujo-Soares. 2014. “Efficacy of Behavioural Interventions for Transport Behaviour Change: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Intervention Coding.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 11(1). doi: 10.1186/s12966-014-0133-9.

Aro, Riikka. 2020. “‘A Bigger Living Room Required a Bigger TV’: Doing and Negotiating Necessity in Well-to-Do Households.” Journal of Consumer Culture 20(4):498–520. doi: 10.1177/1469540517745706.

Barr, Stewart. 2018. “Personal Mobility and Climate Change.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 9(5). doi: 10.1002/wcc.542.

Bigo, Aurélien. 2020. “Les Transports Face Au Défi de La Transition Énergétique. Explorations Entre Passé et Avenir, Technologie et Sobriété, Accélération et Ralentissement.” 341.

Chen, T. Donna, and Kara M. Kockelman. 2016. “Carsharing’s Life-Cycle Impacts on Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 47:276–84. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2016.05.012.

Dickinson, Janet E., Les M. Lumsdon, and Derek Robbins. 2011. “Slow Travel: Issues for Tourism and Climate Change.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(3):281–300. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2010.524704.

Dijk, Marc, Julia Backhaus, Harald Wieser, and René Kemp. 2019. “Policies Tackling the ‘Web of Constraints’ on Resource Efficient Practices: The Case of Mobility.” Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 15(1):62–81. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2019.1663992.

Duffy, Aidan. 2009. “Land Use Planning in Ireland-a Life Cycle Energy Analysis of Recent Residential Development in the Greater Dublin Area.” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14(3):268–77. doi: 10.1007/s11367-009-0059-7.

Freudenreich, Birte, and Stefan Schaltegger. 2020. “Developing Sufficiency-Oriented Offerings for Clothing Users: Business Approaches to Support Consumption Reduction.” Journal of Cleaner Production 247. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119589.

Fuller, R. J., and R. H. Crawford. 2011. “Impact of Past and Future Residential Housing Development Patterns on Energy Demand and Related Emissions.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 26(2):165–83. doi: 10.1007/s10901-011-9212-2.

Global Carbon Budget. 2021. “Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.”

Gössling, Stefan, and Andreas Humpe. 2020. “The Global Scale, Distribution and Growth of Aviation: Implications for Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change 65. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102194.

Grubler, Arnulf, Charlie Wilson, Nuno Bento, Benigna Boza-Kiss, Volker Krey, David L. McCollum, Narasimha D. Rao, Keywan Riahi, Joeri Rogelj, Simon De Stercke, Jonathan Cullen, Stefan Frank, Oliver Fricko, Fei Guo, Matt Gidden, Petr Havlík, Daniel Huppmann, Gregor Kiesewetter, Peter Rafaj, Wolfgang Schoepp, and Hugo Valin. 2018. “A Low Energy Demand Scenario for Meeting the 1.5 °c Target and Sustainable Development Goals without Negative Emission Technologies.” Nature Energy 3(6):515–27. doi: 10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. 2011. “Global Food Losses and Food Waste.” Unep (May):1.

Hallström, E., A. Carlsson-Kanyama, and P. Börjesson. 2015. “Environmental Impact of Dietary Change: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 91:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008.

Hasselqvist, Hanna, and Mia Hesselgren. 2019. “Bridging Citizen and Stakeholder Perspectives of Sustainable Mobility through Practice-Oriented Design.” Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 15(1):1–14. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2018.1533781.

Hedenus, Fredrik, Stefan Wirsenius, and Daniel J. A. Johansson. 2014. “The Importance of Reduced Meat and Dairy Consumption for Meeting Stringent Climate Change Targets.” Climatic Change 124(1–2):79–91. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5.

Heinonen, Jukka, and Seppo Junnila. 2014. “Residential Energy Consumption Patterns and the Overall Housing Energy Requirements of Urban and Rural Households in Finland.” Energy and Buildings 76:295–303. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.079.

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Aalto University, and D-mat ltd. 2019. 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Targets and Options for Reducing Lifestyle Carbon Footprints. Hayama.

J. “, ” Williams. 2008. “” {Predicting} an {American} Future for Cohousing “.” ” Futures “.

Jacobson, Lisa, Jonas Åkerman, Matteo Giusti, and Avit K. Bhowmik. 2020. “Tipping to Staying on the Ground: Internalized Knowledge of Climate Change Crucial for Transformed Air Travel Behavior.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(5). doi: 10.3390/su12051994.

Joyner Armstrong, Cosette M., Kim Y. Hille. Connell, Chunmin Lang, Mary Ruppert-Stroescu, and Melody L. A. LeHew. 2016. “Educating for Sustainable Fashion: Using Clothing Acquisition Abstinence to Explore Sustainable Consumption and Life Beyond Growth.” Journal of Consumer Policy 39(4):417–39. doi: 10.1007/s10603-016-9330-z.

Klocker, Natascha, Chris Gibson, and Erin Borger. 2012. “Living Together but Apart: Material Geographies of Everyday Sustainability in Extended Family Households.” Environment and Planning A 44(9):2240–59. doi: 10.1068/a44594.

Kuhnhenn, Kai, Luis Costa, Eva Mahnke, Linda Schneider, and Steffen Lange. 2020. “A Societal Transformation Scenario for Staying Below 1.5°C.” Publication Series Economic & Social Issues 23:100.

Lamb, William F., Thomas Wiedmann, Julia Pongratz, Robbie Andrew, Monica Crippa, Jos G. J. Olivier, Dominik Wiedenhofer, Giulio Mattioli, Alaa Al Khourdajie, Jo House, Shonali Pachauri, Maria Figueroa, Yamina Saheb, Raphael Slade, Stephane de la Rue de le Can, Lazarus Chapungu, Steven J. Davis, Igor Bashmakow, Hancheng Dai, Shobhakar Dhakal, Xianchun Tan, Yong Geng, Baihe Gu, and Jan Minx. 2021. “A Review of Trends and Drivers of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector from 1990 to 2018.” Nature Climate Change.

Lietaert, Matthieu. 2010. “Cohousing’s Relevance to Degrowth Theories.” Journal of Cleaner Production 18(6):576–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.11.016.

Marckmann, Bella, Kirsten Gram-Hanssen, and Toke Haunstrup Christensen. 2012. “Sustainable Living and Co-Housing: Evidence from a Case Study of Eco-Villages.” Built Environment 38(3):413–29. doi: 10.2148/benv.38.3.413.

Marsden, Greg, Caroline Mullen, Ian Bache, Ian Bartle, and Matt Flinders. 2014. “Carbon Reduction and Travel Behaviour: Discourses, Disputes and Contradictions in Governance.” Transport Policy 35:71–78. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.012.

Masson-Delmotte, V. et. a. 2021. “Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

McKinlay, Anna, Claudia Baldwin, and Nicholas J. Stevens. 2019. “Size Matters: Dwelling Size as a Critical Factor for Sustainable Urban Development.” Urban Policy and Research 37(2):135–50. doi: 10.1080/08111146.2017.1374944.

Moriarty, Patrick, and Damon Honnery. 2012. “Reducing Personal Mobility for Climate Change Mitigation.” Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation 4:1945–79. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7991-9_51.

Morten, Alistair, Birgitta Gatersleben, and Donna C. Jessop. 2018. “Staying Grounded? Applying the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Explore Motivations to Reduce Air Travel.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 55:297–305. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.02.038.

Murphy, Richard. 2015. The Joy of Tax. How a Fair Tax System Can Create a Better Society.

Natascha Klocker. 2017. “The Environmental Implications of Multigenerational Living: Are Larger Households Also Greener Households?” Multigenerational Family Living 174–91. doi: 10.4324/9781315596266-17.

Negawatt. 2003. Manifeste Negawatt Pour Un Avenir Énergétique Sobre, Efficace et Renouvelables.

Newton, Peter, Denny Meyer, and Stephen Glackin. 2017. “Becoming Urban: Exploring the Transformative Capacity for a Suburban-to-Urban Transition in Australia’s Low-Density Cities.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(10). doi: 10.3390/su9101718.

Princen, Thomas. 2003a. “Principles for {Sustainability}: {From} {Cooperation} and {Efficiency} to {Sufficiency}.” Global Environmental Politics 3(1):33–50. doi: 10.1162/152638003763336374.

Princen, Thomas. 2003b. “Principles for Sustainability: From Cooperation and Efficiency to Sufficiency.” Global Environmental Politics 3(1):33–50. doi: 10.1162/152638003763336374.

Rao, Narasimha D., and Paul Baer. 2012. “‘Decent Living’ Emissions: A Conceptual Framework.” Sustainability 4(4):656–81. doi: 10.3390/su4040656.

Rao, Narasimha D., and Jihoon Min. 2018. “Decent Living Standards: Material Prerequisites for Human Wellbeing.” Social Indicators Research 138(1):225–44. doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1650-0.

Rao, Narasimha D., Jihoon Min, and Alessio Mastrucci. 2019. “Energy Requirements for Decent Living in India, Brazil and South Africa.” Nature Energy 4(12):1025–32. doi: 10.1038/s41560-019-0497-9.

Riedy, Chris, Laura Wynne, Kylie McKenna, and Matthew Daly. 2019. “‘It’s a Great Idea for Other People’: Cohousing as a Housing Option for Older Australians.” Urban Policy and Research 37(2):227–42. doi: 10.1080/08111146.2018.1531750.

Röck, Martin, Marcella Ruschi Mendes Saade, Maria Balouktsi, Freja Nygaard Rasmussen, Harpa Birgisdottir, Rolf Frischknecht, Guillaume Habert, Thomas Lützkendorf, and Alexander Passer. 2020. “Embodied GHG Emissions of Buildings – The Hidden Challenge for Effective Climate Change Mitigation.” Applied Energy 258. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107.

Roodhuyzen, D. M. A., P. A. Luning, V. Fogliano, and L. P. A. Steenbekkers. 2017. “Putting Together the Puzzle of Consumer Food Waste: Towards an Integral Perspective.” Trends in Food Science and Technology 68:37–50. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.07.009.

Sachs, Wolfgang. 1993a. Die Vier E’s -Merkposten Für Einen Maß-Vollen Wirtschaftsstil.

Sachs, Wolfgang. 1993b. “Die Vier E ’ s.” Politische Ökologie 33(33):69–72.

Saheb, Y. 2021. “Beyond Efficiency, Sufficiency Matters and It Should Be First.” Buildings and Cities.

Sandberg, Maria. 2018. “Downsizing of Housing: Negotiating Sufficiency and Spatial Norms.” Journal of Macromarketing 38(2):154–67. doi: 10.1177/0276146717748355.

Schanes, Karin, Karin Dobernig, and Burcu Gözet. 2018. “Food Waste Matters – A Systematic Review of Household Food Waste Practices and Their Policy Implications.” Journal of Cleaner Production 182:978–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030.

Shaheen, Susan A., Mark A. Mallery, and Karla J. Kingsley. 2012. “Personal Vehicle Sharing Services in North America.” Research in Transportation Business and Management 3:71–81. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.04.005.

Stephan, André, Robert H. Crawford, and Kristel de Myttenaere. 2013. “Multi-Scale Life Cycle Energy Analysis of a Low-Density Suburban Neighbourhood in Melbourne, Australia.” Building and Environment 68:35–49. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.06.003.

United Nations. 2015. Paris Agreement.

Wankiewicz, Heidrun. 2015. “The Potential of Cohousing for Rural Austria.” Urban Research and Practice 8(1):46–63. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2015.1011426.

Willett, Walter, Johan Rockström, Brent Loken, Marco Springmann, Tim Lang, Sonja Vermeulen, Tara Garnett, David Tilman, Fabrice DeClerck, Amanda Wood, Malin Jonell, Michael Clark, Line J. Gordon, Jessica Fanzo, Corinna Hawkes, Rami Zurayk, Juan A. Rivera, Wim De Vries, Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, Ashkan Afshin, Abhishek Chaudhary, Mario Herrero, Rina Agustina, Francesco Branca, Anna Lartey, Shenggen Fan, Beatrice Crona, Elizabeth Fox, Victoria Bignet, Max Troell, Therese Lindahl, Sudhvir Singh, Sarah E. Cornell, K. Srinath Reddy, Sunita Narain, Sania Nishtar, and Christopher J. L. Murray. 2019. “Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.” The Lancet 393(10170):447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.

Wilson, Alex, and Jessica Boehland. 2005. “Small Is Beautiful: U.S. House Size, Resource Use, and the Environment.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(1–2):277–87. doi: 10.1162/1088198054084680.

Wynes, Seth, and Kimberly A. Nicholas. 2017. “The Climate Mitigation Gap: Education and Government Recommendations Miss the Most Effective Individual Actions.” Environmental Research Letters 12(7). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.