mfk | eea megatrends | may 2007 | 1 ageing, time use and environment. presented to the workshop...

MFK | EEA Megatrends | May 2007 | 1

Ageing, time use and environment.

Presented to the Workshop

„Research forsight for Environment and Sustainability – megatrends and surprises“

EEA Copenhagen May 2007

Marina Fischer-Kowalski

Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna.

IFF Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies, Klagenfurt University


outline

1. Time use as a social driver of environmental pressure. Linkages between demography, time use and the environment: concepts and speculations

2. Development and megatrends. socio-metabolic regimes, demographic change, time use and environmental impact

3. Research questions: time use, quality of life, economy and environmental pressure. How to achieve a maximum of happy human hours at lowest environmental cost?


cultural sphere of causation

Time in socio-metabolic processes

natural sphere of causation

wastes & emissions

material resources

Recycling

Relevant natural

environmentenergy reproduction

(time)

labour (time)

communi-cation, money

experiences

skills

socialsystem

Solar energy

waste heat


On which functions / subsystems is human time being used?

1. on the person system: personal reproduction*)

1. basic reproduction: sleep, rest, eat, body care...2. extended reproduction: education, training, entertainment...

2. on household / family: family reproduction

1. household chores2. personal caretaking (children, spouse, sick and aged people)

3. on the community system: community reproduction

1. participation in festivities, religious services, fire brigades, funerals, voting, NGOs, volunteer work...

4. on the economic system (formal labor): socio-economic reproduction

* not subject to division of labor: everyone has to do it oneself („third person exclusion rule“)


Functional allocations of time: which system is reproduced?

Economy

Household

/ Family

Person

Disposable

time

Community

24 hours

(wage) labour

chores, caretaking

sleep, eat,

hygiene

disposable

Average European day


Two allocation cycles of time

Primary allocation: guided by needs (natural factors) and strong social expectations

– can end up with a deficit, in which case some function cannot be allocated as much time as needed

– can end up with a surplus (the time difference between what is needed and 24 hours), „disposable time“ that may be used at deliberation. In this case, there is a

Secondary allocation of the remaining („disposable“) time, again to one of the four functions, not guided by needs and obligations, but rather by opportunities and preferences.

The statistically observable time use distribution is the end product (sum) of both allocation cycles


Functional distinctions of time use: which system is reproduced?

Economy

Household

/ Family

Person

Disposable

time

Community

24 hours

(wage) labour

chores, caretaking

sleep, eat,

hygiene

„leisure“ = person reproduction


What is time squeeze* ?• Time squeeze is an incompatibility of functional demands on time

and available time.

• It may occur in the course of the primary allocation cycle: within available time being not able to get enough food, to find enough water or firewood, to take care of children and sick people, to earn enough money, to rest after working...

If it occurs occasionally (seasonally or in certain gender/age/class segments of the population), it will in the short run lead to less sleep/rest, and in the long run lower life expectancy. If it occurs chronically, it will threaten the survival of the population

• It may occur in the course of the secondary allocation: more attractive opportunities than can be used, more desire for status, attention, sex, money, adventure... than can be satisfied within time available. (An outcome of social competition?)

Will lead to manic activity, also to reduction of sleep and rest, and disease in the long run

*term coined by Juliet Schor


Factors influencing the social distribution of time squeeze

Agrarian societies: important factors

– seasons and weather– class (upper classes freed from subsistence work)– gender (women more time squeeze)

Industrial societies:

– Age (retirement)– Employment / unemployment– Gender


Consequence of time squeeze: Intensification

• If additional need / desire arises, further extension of time use goes at the expense of something else – leads to conflict

• way out: intensification of time use.

– Increase of speed: doing something faster (airplane instead of train, eating high energy/low fibre food, convenience food instead of cooking)

– Increase of efficiency: using technological „amplifiers“ (electrical lawn mower instead of scything, baby food instead of breastfeeding)

– Substituting time with money (giving children presents instead of attention, engaging a professional housekeeper)

• Intensification always means increasing the flow of another, coupled resource


changes in time use: expansion and / or intensification and the environment

• expanding / shrinking certain types of time use: By expanding time use (on something) you have to reduce time use (on something else).

• intensifying / de-intensifying the use of time: constant quantity of flow at question, but change in the quantity of other flows strongly coupled to it. By intensifying time use you create more output (of something per hour), typically by using more input (of something else per hour – often non-linear relation).

• environmental cost: rises by expanding environmentally costly time-use (e.g. travelling time), or by intensifying given time-use by raising resource input (e.g. travelling faster).


Part 2: developments and megatrends concerning time use / time squeeze

1. Interrelation with demographic change

2. Interrelation with labor time


Needs for human time allocation depend on socio-ecological regime

hunting & gathering: „thrifty“ reproduction (low number of children, relatively long and healthy life). Little time on household chores (few children, hardly food storage, simple food preparation, simple dwellings...).

agrarian societies: „prodigal“ reproduction (high number of children, relatively short and unhealthy lives). high household chores: many children, caretaking of animals, elaborate food storage, maintaining household equipment and tools.

(late) industrial societies: few children, much of caretaking professionalized, household work professionalized, but long periods of old age in need of caretaking (professionalization very expensive, often unwelcome)*

*Difficulty: „intensification“ not viable option in caretaking of people


Demographic features of socio-metabolic regimes

Source: Sieferle 2001

thrifty repr. thrifty repr.

prodigal repr


Functional time-use by age groups, by regime

model hunters & gatherers

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

age

Pers. Reproduction Houshold/child care Disposable labour time

model agrarian society

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

age

Pers. Reproduction Houshold/child care Disposable labour time

hunters & gatherers agrarian societies

personal reproduction personal reproduction

disposable labour time disposable labour time

source: own model calculations


socially available labour time per day, by age groups and regime (model society of 1000 population)

source: own calculations, mortality/birth rates Sieferle 2001

disposable labour time per 1000 population

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 7

13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73age groups

hour

s / d

ay

HuntGath

AgrarS

sum of disp.labour time / 1000 population:Hunter&Gatherers: 8382 hoursAgrarian Soc: 5788 hours


Questions concerning population and time use

• Is there a link between female time squeeze and low birth rates in Europe?

• Is there a link between generation spacing and time squeeze?

• Under conditions of time squeeze, how can personal caretaking of the elderly be organized?*

• Does the increase of elderly to be taken care of generate further time squeeze, and possibly even lower birth rates?

* See also Schaffer & Stahmer, Time I-O between age groups


Working time by socio-ecological regime

Hunters & gatherers: low working time, culturally stabilized „leisure preference“. Strong link between working hours and environmental impact.

Agrarian societies: working time differentiated by season and class. Large majority very hard working, agrarian development means more work per unit area for more output per unit area to feed more people. Strong link between working hours and environmental impact.

Industrial societies: hypothesis of three phases:

phase 1: industrial revolution = industrious revolution (increase in working time)

phase 2: creation of the „leisure society“phase 3: inclusion / exclusion: time squeeze for the „included“,

uselessness and boredom for the „excluded“. Link between working hours and environmental impact disappears.


Total number of working hours and primary energy use (UK 1870-2000)

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Pri

mar

y en

erg

y co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

PJ)

, wo

rkin

g

tim

e (1

0 m

illio

n h

ou

rs)

0,0

100,0

200,0

300,0

400,0

500,0

600,0

700,0

PE

C/w

ork

ing

tim

e (M

J/h

)

PEC (PJ)

working hours (10 mio h)

PEC/hours worked

data source: Schandl: IFF UK database


Total number of working hours and materials use (UK 1870-2000)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

DM

C (

mil

ion

to

nn

es

), w

ork

ing

tim

e

(hu

nd

red

mil

llio

n h

ou

rs)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

DM

C/w

ork

ing

ho

ur

(kg

/ho

ur)

DMC

working hours

DMC/working hour



material (DMC) and energy (PEC) intensity per working hour, UK

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

1850 1900 1950 2000

DMC/working hourkg/hour

PEC/hours worked,MJ/10h



working hours and primary energy consumption (UK 1870-2000)

3.800

4.000

4.200

4.400

4.600

4.800

5.000

5.200

5.400

4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000

PEC in PJ

wo

rkin

g t

ime

in 1

0 m

illio

n h

rs



LifeTime & Working time in UK1850-1985

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

female total lifetime male total lifetimefemale formal work male formal work

in 1

000

hour

s

source: Ausubel & Grübler 1996


Annual working hours per inhabitant 1960-2004, EU15, USA and Japan

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Japan USA EU

source: OECD, Groningen db


Annual working hours per employee and per inhabitant 1980-2004 (EU,USA,J)

Annual w ork ing hours per em ployee

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

2.200

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

USA EU Japan

Annual w ork ing hours per inhabitant

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

USA EU Japan

per employee per inhabitant



Productivity, working hours, hourly real wages and profits EU and USAEuropäische Union

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

labour productivity hourly real wages

total hours profits

USA

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

labour productivity hourly real wages

total hours profits



Rebound effect: rising income compensates efficiency gains

• Productivity gains not only refer to working time, but may be assumed to refer to all production factors, also to energy and materials

• If productivity gains are not paid off in time, but only in income, there will be a growth in the volume of consumption

• this will generate a rebound effect that prohibits the reduction in energy and material use that would result from efficiency gains.


Interlinkages of time, money and natural resources

creation machinefor money

person / household system

resources

physical work

time

money

Goods / services

creationmachine forhuman time

Relevant natural

environmentEconomic

System


Conclusion: time use / time squeeze as a potential social driver?

Interesting analytical features:

– Explanatory value beyond the STEEP drivers?– Behavioural variable, addresses people as agents – Fairly easy to measure and to model– Important link between resource consumption and quality of

life (how many happy hours at which environmental cost?)

Interesting cross linkages to other policy areas:

– Family policy, demografic policies– Social security and welfare– Economic policies, labour and unemployment

mfk | eea megatrends | may 2007 | 1 ageing, time use and environment. presented to the workshop...

Documents