Corrigendum to “Trends in household demand and greenhouse gas footprints in Germany: Evidence from microdata of the last 20 years” [Ecological Economics 208 (2023) 1077575] (Ecological Economics (2023) 208, (S0921800923000204), (10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107757))

The authors regret that a mistake was made in the calculation of the direct emissions of heating, which impacts the results reported in Sections 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, and Chapter 5 of the paper. As detailed below, the paper's main findings and conclusions are largely unaffected. In our calculation of the direct emission coefficients of heating, we used gas prices for industry and not for household consumers. Since gas prices for industry consumers are lower than gas prices for household consumers, this led to an overestimation of direct emissions from heating. While the overestimation has a significant impact on the results for this consumption category, it has only a minor impact on the overall level of mean total GHG footprints and a negligible impact on the trends over time and the cross-effects with other consumption categories. Hence, the paper's main conclusions remain valid. The correction of this mistake leads to changes in Figs. 3 and S1 as well as Tables 1–3a and 4–6. The corrected figures and tables are documented below along with the necessary changes in the accompanying text. In the corrected tables, updated numbers are printed in bold to facilitate a quick overview of the changes. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The correction of the last two columns of Table 1 (presented here as Table 1^⁎) necessitates the following corrections in paragraph 2 of Section 4.1 (p. 5 in the paper): Mean total greenhouse gas (GHG) footprints attain their highest value in 2003 instead of 1998. Moreover, direct emissions account for 30% of the total GHG footprints (39% previously), while their share ranges from 26% to 28% in all other years (31% to 34% prev.). In paragraph 3 of Section 4.1 (p. 5), the description of the coefficients of variations (CV) needs to be updated as follows: In all years, the standard deviation of direct emissions is slightly larger than the mean, resulting in a coefficient of variation between 1.03 and 1.30 (1.07 and 1.17 prev.). Deviating from what was reported in the published paper, the year 2018 does not constitute an exception here (0.94 prev.). Also, the numbers reported for the CV of total GHG footprints change slightly. The CV of total GHG footprints increases from 0.53 in 1998 (0.55 prev.) to 0.56 in 2008 and 2013 (0.57 in 2013 prev.) and drops to 0.51 in 2018 (0.53 prev.). The corrections in the direct emissions of heating displayed in Fig. 3^⁎ necessitates the following corrections in the last two paragraphs of Section 4.1 (p. 7): First, the direct emissions of heating and transport are about one and a half to two and a half (three prev.) times larger than the corresponding embedded GHG footprints. Second, the mean total GHG footprint of heating decreases from 3.24 t/a in 2003 to 2.46 t/a in 2018 (decrease from 4.69 t/a in 1998 to 3.65 t/a in 2013 with a renewed increase to 4.15 t/a in 2018 prev.). For transport, the trend in mean total GHG footprint is similar yet less pronounced. Here, there is a decrease from 2.83 t/a in 2003 (1.97 t/a in 1998 prev.) to 2.66 t/a in 2018 (1.59 t/a prev.). Concerning the previous sentence, please note that there was an additional mistake in the numbers reported in the published paper that has been fixed here.[Formula presented] The correction of direct emission coefficients for heating impacts the values reported in the columns “Heating” and “All” in Table 2^⁎. These changes necessitate the following corrections in paragraph 2 of Section 4.3 (p. 8 f.): Transport overtakes heating as the category in which a 1% increase in household expenditure has the largest effects on total GHG emissions. In the category of heating, we now observe a small but steady decrease of direct emissions from the additional demand that continues rather than stagnates from period 2 to period 3. Regarding the overall effect of a 1% increase in household expenditure on GHG footprints, i.e., the sum of the effects over the nine consumption categories, the trend over time remains as reported in the paper albeit on a somewhat lower level. That is, the overall effect is decreasing over time, from 136 kg CO<inf>2</inf>-eq per year in Period 1 (148 kg prev.) to 108 kg CO<inf>2</inf>-eq per year in Period 3 (120 kg prev.). The expenditure elasticity of GHG footprints changes very slightly. Based on the corrected numbers, it is 0.92 in Period 1 (0.91 prev.), 0.94 in Period 2 (0.93 prev.), and 0.92 in Period 3. In Table 3a^⁎, the corrections have the potential to impact all values via the cross-price elasticities of the respective other consumption category and heating. However, impacts on the changes in total GHG footprints reported for all consumption categories except for heating are small in magnitude (≤2 kg/a). The corresponding corrections required at the beginning of paragraph 4 of Section 4.3 read as follows: The largest reductions in total GHG emissions occur when the price of transport increases, closely followed by the effects of an increase in the price in heating. In the case of the former, the reduction in annual GHG emissions by >27 kg CO<inf>2</inf>-eq per household (28 kg CO<inf>2</inf>-eq prev.) is brought about by the large own-price elasticity of transport as well as relatively large negative cross-price elasticities with food and housing (see Fig. 4b-d). The final corrections in Section 4.3 concern Table 4. The corrected values are displayed in Table 4^⁎. These corrections do not necessitate any changes in the text, as it mainly describes the relative importance of own- and cross-price effects, which remains unaffected. The effects of the correction on the values reported in Tables 5 and 6 in the paper are similar in magnitude to the changes in Tables 3a and 4 (cf. Tables 5^⁎ and 6^⁎). Accordingly, the expenditure elasticities of GHG footprints, whose calculation is based on the values in the last column of Table 5, change slightly. The last sentences of the second to last paragraph of Section 4.4 (p. 11) should therefore read: Summing up the effects over the nine consumption categories, the overall effect of a 1% increase in household expenditure on GHG footprints is slightly smaller than the overall effect estimated with EASI in all periods. Accordingly, so are the expenditure elasticities of GHG footprints, which are 0.90 in Period 1 (EASI: 0.92; 0.91 prev.), 0.93 (0.92 prev.) in Period 2 (EASI: 0.94; 0.93 prev.) and 0.92 (0.90 prev.) in Period 3 (EASI: 0.92). Furthermore, the numbers in the example for differences in price effects calculated with EASI and QUAIDS described in the last paragraph of Section 4.4 change slightly (p. 11). The corrected sentence reads: For instance, for food in period 1, the EASI estimate is −16.62 kg/a (−0.017 t/a prev.), the QUAIDS estimate is −17.13 kg/a (−0.018 t/a prev.), which yields a deviation of −3.08% (−3.14% prev.). In the discussion and conclusion presented in Chapter 5, there are some changes in the reported numbers. None of these result in qualitative changes in the conclusions drawn. Below, we report the updated sentences along with the information of where they can be found in the published version of the paper. Paragraph 2 of Chapter 5, p. 11: • To sum up our results, we find a faltering decline in mean total GHG footprints from 14.73 t/a in 1998 (16.35 t/a prev.) to 11.15 t/a in 2018 (12.84 t/a prev.) and a first indication of decoupling of consumption expenditure and emissions in 2018.• Combining elasticity estimates and GHG intensities, we find a decay in changes in GHG footprints as a response to increases in household expenditure across time in absolute terms but not in terms of GHG elasticities which are quite stable at around 0.93 (+/− 0.01) in all three periods under consideration (0.92 (+/− 0.01) prev.).Paragraph 5 of Chapter 5, p. 12: • For heating, an average household's GHG footprint for a 1% price increase decreases by about 21 kg per year (measured in CO<inf>2</inf>-eq) when total emissions are considered (30 kg prev.), compared to 13 kg per year when only direct emissions are considered (20 kg prev.).Paragraph 7 of Chapter 5, p. 12: • The exclusion of durables from our analysis leads to an underestimation of mean total GHG footprints by 5–10% (4–9% prev.).SI3: Illustration of trends in exemplary emission coefficients. In addition to the corrections in the paper, Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Information has to be updated as shown in Fig. S1^⁎. The last sentence of the accompanying description (p. 6 in the Supplementary Information) should read: A kilowatt hour of gas cost 0.035 Euro in 1998 (0.013 prev.), 0.071 Euro in 2008 (0.034 prev.) and 0.065 Euro in 2018 (0.026 prev.; BMWi, 2021).[Formula presented]