Trade-Offs: the Production of Sustainability in Households
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Summer 8-7-2017 Trade-offs: the Production of Sustainability in Households Kirstin Marie Elizabeth Munro Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Home Economics Commons, Sociology Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Munro, Kirstin Marie Elizabeth, "Trade-offs: the Production of Sustainability in Households" (2017). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3777. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5661 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Trade-offs: The Production of Sustainability in Households by Kirstin Marie Elizabeth Munro A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Studies Dissertation Committee: Loren Lutzenhiser, Chair Mary C. King Greg Schrock James Strathman Portland State University 2017 © 2017 Kirstin Marie Elizabeth Munro Abstract Over the past half-century, environmental problems have become increasingly serious and seemingly intractable, and a careless, clueless, or contemptuous consumer is often portrayed as the root cause of this environmental decline. This study takes a different approach to evaluating the demand for resources by households, assessing possible pro- environmental paths forward through a study of highly ecologically-conscious households. By modeling “green” households as producers of sustainability rather than consumers of environmental products, the sustainability work that takes place in households is brought into focus. An investigation of household sustainability production makes possible the evaluation of the trade-offs inherent in these pro-environmental activities. Ethnographic interviews with 23 sustainability-oriented households with young children living in and near Portland, Oregon, provide data on how households balance priorities and get things done in day-to-day life by employing the available resources, limited by constraining factors. An orienting perspective combining neoclassical and radical political economic theories of household production frames the analysis of how households make choices between alternatives. Sociological theories of consumption and theories of social i practice aid in the analysis of how these choices have evolved over time, and how household members view the social meanings of these choices. Particular attention is paid to areas of day-to-day life neglected in previous research—household waste, comfort, and cleanliness. The results indicate that there is not one “sustainability” with varying degrees across a “green” spectrum, but rather varying priorities in the sustainability realm—personal health, nature, waste avoidance, technology, and community. This analysis reveals some of the negative consequences of shifting the responsibility for environmental protection to households. Ecologically-conscious households devote substantial time and money to these sustainability efforts, but their efforts frequently stimulate conflicts, and the end results are rarely perfect. Constrained resources and limited information mean household members must make trade-offs between competing priorities, often under duress. The results suggest that policies promoting household-level sustainability efforts may be misguided, as this transfer of institutional responsibility for environmental protection to individuals and groups results in even greater burdens on households whose time and money are already stretched to their limits. ii Dedication Pour mes chers amis Shoshanna et Uziel. C'était pour moi un très grand plaisir de vous regarder grandir. iii Acknowledgements I owe a large debt to my adviser and committee chair, Loren Lutzenhiser, both for convincing me to finish the PhD I’d abandoned and for charting out the path that made it possible. I feel immensely fortunate for the opportunity to work with and learn from you over the past few years. Many thanks to my committee members Mary C. King and Jim Strathman, for their important input into this dissertation. Particular thanks are due to Greg Schrock for being the only non-retired member of my committee and for his gracious willingness to participate in a summer defense. I’ve been lucky to have many excellent academic mentors on my circuitous path to the end of this degree, and am particularly thankful to Noelwah Netusil, Jeff Parker, Barry and Carmel Chiswick, Joe Persky, Dave Merriman, Anna Guevarra, Judith Kegan Gardiner, Mithra Moezzi, and Nona Glazer. I am grateful to my colleagues George Tolley and Catherine Mertes for their unwavering support over the past seven years and the incredible kindnesses they have shown me. Thanks also to my colleague Don Jones for reminding me that I know how to think like an economist. iv I am thankful to my parents and grandparents for raising me to be critical and hard- working, and for instilling in me an appreciation for intensive self-provisioning and a love of line-dried laundry (even towels). Very special thanks to my dear friend Michelle Lamanet for her excitement about this research, for helping me think of ways to find potential informants, and for supplying the beautiful logo and artwork for my recruitment materials. Wilson and Wendy, thank you for making me laugh every day and demanding I get out of bed at the crack of dawn to feed you each morning—I promise I will be a lot more fun soon as this is over. I am thankful to Mary Oak and David Fries, who fed me encouraging words and ice cream and let me live in a gremlin-like state in their peaceful and beautiful home for the final month of this journey. This dissertation would not have been possible without the reproductive labor of Chris O’Kane, life companion extraordinaire, who spent countless hours ensuring I had enough food, coffee, clean clothes, and rest to successfully finish this manuscript. Thank you for your tireless care and incredible patience. I think I can make good on the promise to never write this much in a month ever again. I am grateful to the many friends and colleagues who helped me recruit participants for this research. Most importantly, I am deeply grateful to my informants for welcoming me into their homes and taking the time to speak with me about their lives and values. I am truly humbled and inspired by your efforts. v Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... i Dedication ................................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. x List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Motivation ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Previous Approaches and their Shortcomings .............................................................. 2 1.3 The Production of Sustainability in Households ........................................................... 4 1.4 Theoretical Overview ..................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Methodological Overview .............................................................................................. 9 1.5 Outline .......................................................................................................................... 10 1.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................. 20 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 20 2.1.1 Summary of the Theories ..................................................................................... 21 2.1.2 What Are Households? ......................................................................................... 23 2.1.3 Summary of the Theoretical Synthesis ................................................................ 24 2.2 Review of the Theoretical Literature........................................................................... 25 2.2.1 Neoclassical Economics and the Household ....................................................... 25 2.2.2 Becker and the Theory of Z-Goods ...................................................................... 28 2.2.3 Shortcomings of Neoclassical Theories of the Household .................................. 30 2.2.4 Marxist-Feminist Theories of the Household ...................................................... 32 2.2.5