Beyond Efficiency: Can We Consume Less Without Sacrificing Well-Being?

Pham Thai Son

Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

20-05-2026

© Wix

Modern societies face a difficult challenge. Current patterns of consumption and production continue to place enormous pressure on ecosystems, threatening biodiversity, economic stability, and human well-being. For decades, many sustainability efforts have focused on technological solutions such as improving energy efficiency or expanding renewable energy sources. These approaches remain essential, but a growing body of research suggests they may not be enough on their own. Achieving sustainability also requires another strategy: sufficiency (O’Neill et al., 2018; Cordroch, Hilpert, & Wiese, 2022).

Sufficiency asks a deceptively simple question: How much is enough? Instead of only making products and systems more efficient, sufficiency seeks to reduce unnecessary consumption itself. Examples range from encouraging smaller living spaces and reducing excessive mobility to promoting less resource-intensive diets.

Yet this idea often encounters resistance. Many people perceive sufficiency policies as intrusive or as threats to personal freedom and lifestyle choices (Heindl & Kanschik, 2016; Muller & Huppenbauer, 2016; Spengler, 2018). In democratic societies, where public support strongly influences policy success, understanding how citizens view these policies becomes crucial.

A recent study by Iten and colleagues explored this issue through a nationwide survey of 1,052 participants in Switzerland. The researchers investigated public support for municipal-level sufficiency policies and examined factors that shape citizens' preferences (Iten et al., 2026).

Their findings reveal a more nuanced picture than commonly assumed. Overall, a modest but consistent majority supported sufficiency policies at the municipal level. However, support varied depending on the policy area and how policies were presented. People expressed stronger support for measures related to food and mobility than for housing-related interventions. Procedural fairness also emerged as highly important. Rather than demanding direct control over policy decisions, participants preferred being informed and included throughout implementation processes.

The study also explored whether emphasizing co-benefits—such as better health, increased well-being, or stronger local economies—could improve public acceptance. Results were mixed, suggesting that not all positive messages resonate equally with citizens.

Public support for sufficiency is therefore unlikely to be determined by environmental concerns alone. People's attitudes may simultaneously reflect economic conditions, social norms, cultural values, perceptions of fairness, personal experiences, and political contexts (Khuc & Nguyen, 2026).

For example, a policy encouraging reduced car use may not simply be interpreted as an environmental measure. For one person, it may signal healthier lifestyles and stronger communities. For another, it may represent restrictions on personal freedom or economic opportunities. The same policy enters different informational environments and generates different meanings.

The challenge of sufficiency may not be convincing people to consume less. Instead, it may involve understanding the complex systems of relationships through which people interpret what constitutes a good life. Sustainability may ultimately depend not only on changing technologies, but also on reshaping the informational landscapes that define how societies imagine prosperity itself (Vuong, 2025; Nguyen & Ho, 2026).

References

Cordroch, L., Hilpert, S., & Wiese, F. (2022). Why renewables and energy efficiency are not enough - the relevance of sufficiency in the heating sector for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121313

Heindl P.  & Kanschik P. (2016). Ecological sufficiency, individual liberties, and distributive justice: implications for policy making. Ecological Economics, 126, 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.019

Iten, T., et al. (2026). Analyzing citizens' preferences for sufficiency policy in municipalities — An experimental approach. Ecological Economics, 248, 109057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2026.109057

Khuc, V. Q., & Nguyen, M. H. (2026). Cultural Additivity Theory. Available at SSRN 6767760. https://ssrn.com/abstract=6767760

Muller, A. & Huppenbauer, M. (2016). Sufficiency, liberal societies and environmental policy in the face of planetary boundaries. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25(2), 105-109. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.2.10

Nguyen, M. H., & Ho, M. T. (2026). The absurdist approach to unveiling possible paradoxical thinking for innovative socio-psychological research. MethodsX, 16, 103910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2026.103910

O’Neill, D. W., et al. (2018). A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1(2), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4

Spengler L. (2018). Sufficiency as policy. Necessity, possibilities, limitations. Nomos.

Vuong, Q. H. (2025). Wild Wise Weird. AISDL. https://books.google.com/books?id=C5dDEQAAQBAJ