Living well with less – can we reduce consumption without losing quality of experience?
Reaching climate targets requires more than technological solutions. More efficient products and energy systems are crucial, but not sufficient. A growing body of research points to something more fundamental: we also need to consider how much is enough.
Traditional Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to compare the environmental impacts of alternatives that deliver the same function. This makes it difficult to analyse measures that involve doing, offering, or consuming less. To address this, researchers at KTH have developed Sufficiency-LCA – a method that makes it possible to assess both how much environmental impact is reduced, and how users’ experience is affected, for example in terms of satisfaction or well-being.
This makes it possible to address a key question in the transition: which changes in consumption can deliver large environmental benefits while having little negative – or even positive – impact on experience?
Mountain stations as a testbed
The method has been applied in a study of remote mountain stations, located beyond the road network, operated by the Swedish Tourist Association (STF) and popular among hikers and skiers. The study analysed several concrete measures, including reduced use of fresh ingredients (to decrease reliance on helicopter transport), reduced consumption of meat and dairy, and simpler accommodation solutions, such as guests bringing their own bed linen. At the same time, guest experiences were assessed through surveys.
Results that challenge our assumptions
The study compares two groups of guests: guests who visited the stations before the measures were implemented and reported both their satisfaction with the existing service level and how satisfied they expected to be if the measures were introduced, and guests who visited after implementation and reported their actual satisfaction.
Although these are not the same individuals, a clear pattern emerges: actual satisfaction after implementation was consistently higher than the expected satisfaction beforehand. This suggests that we often overestimate how negatively changes towards “less” will be experienced.
What makes the biggest difference for the climate?
A key finding is that measures that intuitively seem important do not always deliver the largest climate benefits. For food services at the mountain stations, a clear contrast emerges: reducing meat and dairy consumption leads to substantial emission reductions, while reducing fresh ingredients and associated helicopter transport has a much smaller effect. At the same time, the impact on guest experience was relatively similar across these measures.
This means that some changes can deliver significantly greater climate benefits without affecting experience more – a type of insight that is otherwise difficult to capture.
Supporting better decisions
Perhaps the most important contribution is methodological. Sufficiency-LCA fills a gap where traditional LCA is not applicable – in situations where “less” is part of the solution. By relating environmental gains to changes in experience, the method enables a type of decision support that has so far been missing in efforts toward more sustainable consumption.
Next steps in the research
Several ongoing projects at KTH are now further developing and applying Sufficiency-LCA in new contexts. In the coming years, the method may be applied to different consumption domains such as food, housing, transport, and clothing.
At its core, the research addresses a simple but challenging question: How much is enough to live a good life – within planetary boundaries?
Full study of remote mountain stations operated by the Swedish Tourist Association (STF):
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-026-02606-3