Open Access

Consumption Corridors: Living a Good Life within Sustainable Limits explores how to enhance peoples’ chances to live a good life in a world of ecological and social limits. Rejecting familiar recitations of problems of ecological decline and planetary boundaries, this compact book instead offers a spirited explication of what everyone desires: a good life. Fundamental concepts of the good life are explained and explored, as are forces that threaten the good life for all. The remedy, says the book’s seven international authors, lies with the concept of consumption corridors, enabled by mechanisms of citizen engagement and deliberative democracy. Across fve concise chapters, readers are invited into conversation about how wellbeing can be enriched by social change that joins “needs satisfaction” with consumerist restraint, social justice, and environmental sustainability. In this endeavour, lower limits of consumption that ensure minimal needs satisfaction for all are important, and enjoy ample precedent. But upper limits to consumption, argue the authors, are equally essential, and attainable, especially in those domains where limits enhance rather than undermine essential freedoms.

A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature.

As a salutogenic concept, “consumption corridors” aims to support what is necessary for sustainable wellbeing to be achieved in relation to the Earth system, with a deep consideration for justice and equity. Living in consumption corridors is a representation of everyday life whereby people live within limits, so that all people – now and in the future – can access what is needed to live a good life. In this special issue, a series of scholars and practitioners have come together to further develop the concept, engage with its ethodological implications, and relate it to consumption domains and policy implications. We begin by introducing how the concept emerged, in relation to the complexity of grappling with the societal transformations required for achieving more sustainable forms of consumption. We then present the different contributions, which demonstrate the importance of considering both maximum and minimum consumption standards, the relevance of human-need theories, as well as the difference between achieving wellbeing and the means necessary for doing so. We conclude by opening up to areas that merit further deliberation: how to relate consumption corridors to everyday-life dynamics, but also to the critical question of power relations at play in implementing consumption corridors.

Background: Stress and cortisol dysregulation are linked to NCDs. Moreover, stress favours unhealthy lifestyle patterns, which increase the risk for NCDs. The role of the Cortisol Awakening Response (CAR) and the effect of lifestyle interventions on the same remain unclear. Methods: The impact of the intensive 8-week phase of the Healthy Lifestyle Community Programme (HLCP, cohort 1) on parameters of the CAR, ie cortisol values 0 (sample [S]1), 30), 45 and 60 minutes post-awakening, average peak, S1-peak delta and area under the increase curve (AUCI), and perceived stress levels (PSL) was evaluated in a non-randomized, controlled trial. Covariates of the CAR (eg sleep measures) and irregularities in sampling were assessed. The intervention focussed on stress management, a healthy diet, regular exercise, and social support. Participants were recruited from the general population. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. Results: 97 participants (age: 56 ± 10 years; 71% female), with 68 in the intervention group (IG; age: 55 ± 8, 77% female) and 29 participants in the control group (CG; age: 59 ± 12, 59% female), were included in the analysis. The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable, except participants of IG were younger. On average, the PSL at baseline was low in both groups (IG: 9.7 ± 5.4 points; CG: 8.5 ± 6.9 points; p = .165), but 22% (n = 15) in the IG and 20% (n = 6) in the CG reported a high PSL. Most participants reported irregularities in CAR sampling, eg interruption of sleep (IG: 80% CG: 81%). After 8 weeks, most CAR parameters and the PSL decreased in the IG and CG, resulting in no differences of change between the groups. In the IG only, a decrease of PSL was linked to an increase of CAR parameters, eg AUCI (correlation coefficient = −0.307; p = .017). Conclusion: The HLCP may potentially reduce PSL and change the CAR, but results cannot be clearly attributed to the programme. Methodological challenges and multiple confounders, limit suitability of the CAR in the context of lifestyle interventions. Other measures (eg hair-cortisol) may give further insights. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS); DRKS00018821; www.drks.de