Report on long term effects of sufficiency lifestyles and governance approaches for diffusion. FULFILL Deliverable D 3.3

This deliverable outlines the second round of representative citizen surveys in the FULFILL project, focusing on sufficiency lifestyles at the micro level in five European countries. The objectives include understanding the persistence of sufficiency lifestyles, exploring the acceptability of policy measures and investigating potential diffusion pathways. The study includes a second survey wave, interviewing the same respondents as in a previous deliverable (D3.1), and three experimental surveys in the areas of housing and diet. All of the experiments use framing effects, in which participants are randomly provided with different information. Statistical analysis is used to test whether the different types of information affect the acceptability of the policies. The experimental surveys also include components that explore the diffusion pathways of sufficiency lifestyles. The longitudinal study reveals stability in lifestyles between 2021 and 2022, despite the ongoing energy crisis in Europe, with overall higher carbon footprints in 2022, making transitions to lower carbon footprints challenging. The housing survey reveals low acceptability of strict sufficiency policies, such as banning the construction of new single-family homes or taxing above-average living space. When the policy was presented as a means of 'overcoming' rather than 'punishing' unsustainable housing choices, acceptability ratings were higher. The dietary studies show generally high acceptability for climate labelling and a meat-free day in canteens, and generally low acceptability for a meat tax. A combined climate risk and health framing showed little effect, while an effectiveness and acceptance framing had an impact on policy acceptability. Acceptability for the meat tax was higher when combined with information on effectiveness and acceptance, but lower for climate labelling and meat-free days. The analysis of diffusion pathways suggests that sustainable diets enjoy more widespread awareness and discussion compared to sustainable housing. Overall, respondents with more favourable attitudes towards sustainable diets or sustainable housing and higher environmental concern report a greater likelihood of engaging in discussions about the topic. Limitations of all surveys and experimental studies include the possible influence of crises, limited familiarity of respondents with the issues studied and variations in sample size. The exploration of gender difference has unearthed various patterns that merit further investigation. In conclusion, despite challenges and country differences, the findings provide valuable insights for promoting sufficiency lifestyles.