Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 26 August 2022
DOI 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Aurianne Stroude,
Université de Fribourg, Switzerland
REVIEWED BY
Rachel Eike,
Iowa State University, United States
Tadhg O’Mahony,
University of Turku, Finland
*CORRESPONDENCE
Viola Muster
viola.muster@tu-berlin.de
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to
Sustainable Consumption,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sustainability
RECEIVED 31 May 2022
ACCEPTED 08 August 2022
PUBLISHED 26 August 2022
CITATION
Muster V, Iran S and Münsch M (2022)
The cultural practice of decluttering as
household work and its potentials for
sustainable consumption.
Front. Sustain. 3:958538.
doi: 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
COPYRIGHT
©2022 Muster, Iran and Münsch. This
is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction
in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright
owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is
cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which
does not comply with these terms.
The cultural practice of
decluttering as household work
and its potentials for sustainable
consumption
Viola Muster1*, Samira Iran2and Marlene Münsch3
1TU Berlin/Chair of Economic Education and Sustainable Consumption, ConPolicy and Technical
University Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2TU Berlin/Chair of Economic Education and Sustainable
Consumption, Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 3ConPolicy, Berlin, Germany
Popular literature and guidebooks on minimalism and decluttering have
brought the idea of “less is more” into the mainstream. Although decluttering
constitutes a central household chore in consumer societies, it is rarely
communicated as work within the current popular minimalism discourse,
but rather as an expression of self-care. Whether and to what extent this
“lifestyle minimalism” can contribute to sustainable consumption has –
with a few exceptions – not yet been studied in detail. In this article,
decluttering is first conceptualized in between housework and self-care.
Based on this work, potentials and limits for the promotion of sustainable
consumption are outlined. Finally, initial insights from an ongoing citizen
science project on decluttering in Germany are presented. The qualitative
results from two workshops and two reflection exercises show that the
main motivation for participants is the dissatisfaction with their multitude
of possessions and the desire for fewer material possessions in the future.
The decision to declutter can be understood as a window of opportunity
in which individuals are willing to reflect on and realign their possessions
and desires for goods. Thus, we argue that decluttering can be a relevant
starting point for changing consumption behavior toward (more) sustainable
consumption. At the same time, it remains unclear whether and to what
extent the participants’ willingness to change regarding possessions and
consumption actually leads to more sustainable consumption behavior after
decluttering. It is even conceivable that the newly gained space will stimulate
additional consumption. Decluttering would then rather function as a catalyst
for further consumption (and would have no or rather a negative contribution
to sustainability goals). Further research is needed to shed light on this.
KEYWORDS
decluttering, lifestyle minimalism, sustainable consumption, household work, care
Introduction
Modern consumer societies are characterized by households that are filled to the brim
with products and goods (Baudrillard, 2018). Consumers accumulate things–they collect,
store and stow them away (Belk, 1982). However, hardly anyone knows the total number
of goods or can remember every single thing in their possession. As Belk (1988, p. 160)
Frontiers in Sustainability 01 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
points out “we are what we have and [.. .] [this is the] most basic
and powerful fact of consumer behavior.” In most households,
however, the spatial capacities for storing goods and things
are limited. To address this issue, people either try to gain
additional storage space (e.g., through purchasing additional
wardrobes) or they start to declutter. Such practices enable them
to continue consuming regularly and to actively take part in
consumer society.
Sorting out and decluttering goods are central household
tasks in consumer societies. In recent years, decluttering
has increasingly received attention, especially through the
publications of Marie Kondo (Kondo, 2014) and numerous
follow-up self-help and guidebooks, blogs and magazine articles
on this topic. In popular literature however, decluttering is no
longer pictured as simple housework, but rather as an expression
of self-care (Lee H.-H., 2017;Ludwigsen, 2019;Chamberlin and
Callmer, 2021). Even though concepts and movements such
as voluntary simplicity or minimalism have been known for
decades (Etzioni, 1999), this so-called “lifestyle minimalism”
(Meissner, 2019) of Marie Kondo and Co has brought the
idea of “living with less” into the mainstream. The central
promise of “lifestyle minimalism” is that having less possessions
promotes well-being. In recent years, numerous researchers have
examined the link between minimalism and well-being (for an
overview see e.g., Hook et al., 2021). However, whether and to
what extent the practice of decluttering, as a specific method
to achieve a minimalist life, can contribute to more sustainable
consumption in the long term has not yet been sufficiently
explored. In a study on the KonMari method Chamberlin and
Callmer (2021) provide initial promising qualitative evidence
that decluttering can have positive effects on sustainable
consumption. They show, for instance, that practitioners of
the KonMari method reflect on their goods and the question
of what satisfaction they experience from their material
possessions. They also show that the practitioners express less
interest in new acquisitions. Building on these initial results, a
further consideration – both conceptually and empirically – of
possible potentials and limitations of decluttering for sustainable
consumption is considered important.
On the one hand, it can be argued that decluttering
guidebooks provide diverse impulses for reflection and learning
that might help consumers question their needs, existing
possessions, and the necessity of new acquisitions. Decluttering
guides often describe methods for decluttering very clearly and
give concrete suggestions for implementation. The resulting
positive effects of “liberation from excess” (Paech, 2012)
can be experienced directly after decluttering and might
motivate people to own fewer things in the long term.
Further, communicating decluttering as a form of self-care can
potentially help to promote a positive perception of living with
reduced possessions and thereby attract new target groups for
sustainable consumption (even if unintentionally). On the other
hand, decluttering is focused at getting rid of as many goods as
possible in the shortest feasible timeframe. Since sustainability-
oriented practices of passing on goods, reselling or repairing
them are rather slow and time-consuming, they can hardly be
implemented in the rather fast approach of decluttering. Also,
decluttering guides usually only address so-called “peanuts” of
sustainable consumption, but rarely the most environmentally
relevant areas of consumption [e.g., space and heating, mobility,
meat consumption (Bilharz and Schmitt, 2011;Geiger et al.,
2018)]. In addition, there is a certain risk of relapse into
old consumption patterns, as the newly created space might
stimulate new purchases.
Against this background, the article at hand takes a
close look at the phenomenon of decluttering, illustrates its
characteristics within general household work, discusses its
potentials and limits for sustainable consumption and presents
initial results of participatory research components from an
ongoing research project. Firstly, the article describes how the
cultural practice and meaning of decluttering has changed
in recent years. We thereby shed light on the emergence of
decluttering as a method within the framework of “lifestyle
minimalism” and locate decluttering in between the spectrum of
housework and (self-)care. Secondly, we develop our reflections
and conceptual considerations on potentials and limits of
decluttering for the promotion of sustainable consumption.
Thirdly, we present first qualitative results from our ongoing
citizen science research project. To be able to better classify
the results, we first explain our participatory research approach.
Then we present the results of two workshops and the evaluation
of two reflection exercises, which have been answered by the
citizen scientists. In doing so, we provide first qualitative
evidence from a selected group of citizens in Germany for
the discussion on potentials and limits of decluttering for
sustainable consumption.
Decluttering: A method for lifestyle
minimalism and household work
In a first step, we outline the development of minimalism
as a lifestyle concept and decluttering as a central method to
achieve a minimalist life. In a second step, we show that this
lifestyle-related, pop-cultural understanding of decluttering is
closely related to a reframing of housework as self-care.
The evolution of minimalism as lifestyle
concept and the role of decluttering
Looking at human history, various cultures and religious
communities (e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism) have associated
a “good life” with limiting possessions or avoiding excessive
consumption. However, these historical movements were not
concerned with a reduction of possessions in the context of
Frontiers in Sustainability 02 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
affluence, but rather with a forward-looking avoidance of “too
much” as well as an adequate use of resources that were perceived
as limited for each individual. During recent decades, terms
such as voluntary simplicity, simple life, minimalism, or anti-
consumption have been used to describe lifestyles that focus on
reduction of material possession (Rebouças and Soares, 2021).
Etzioni (1998, p. 620) for example, describes voluntary simplicity
as “the choice out of free will [...] to limit expenditure on
consumer goods and services, and to cultivate non-materialistic
sources of satisfaction and meaning.” Alexander and Ussher
(2012, p. 66) understand “the Voluntary Simplicity Movement
[.. . ] as a diverse social movement made up of people who are
resisting high consumption lifestyles and who are seeking, in
various ways, a lower consumption but higher quality of life
alternative.” So-called voluntary simplifiers usually reflect on
the influence of overconsumption and/or overwork on their
personal wellbeing and “prefer to determine what is enough for
themselves and earn only what they need to get by” (Grigsby,
2012, p. 1). Besides, the process of downshifting can be seen
as an act toward voluntary simplicity (Aidar and Daniels,
2020), which aims at increasing one’s well-being by decreasing
work-load, income, and the total consumption level (Tan,
2000;Schor, 2008;Chhetri et al., 2009). All these downshifting
practices within the context of voluntary simplicity, simple life
or minimalism have the potential to contribute to sufficiency.
Sufficiency is considered a key sustainability strategy – which,
unlike consistency and efficiency – is behaviorally oriented and
focusses on the absolute reduction of resource consumption
(Schneidewind and Zahrnt, 2014).
Even though there was and is a lot of scientific interest
in downshifting concepts and their potential for reduced
consumption, they remain niche phenomena in Western
consumer societies. Much has been written about it, but the
actual implementation of a minimalist life is more imagination
than reality for the majority. However, it seems that this
has changed to some extent with the great popularity of
Marie Kondo in the public (Kondo, 2014). Her reception of
minimalism and especially the combination with “decluttering”
has brought the vision of “happiness through less” into the
mainstream. Vladimirova (2021, p. 112) argues that the success
of the method of decluttering was not accidental, but rather
timely: “The book appeared exactly at the moment when
the disorder caused by excessive consumption, including fast
fashion, reached a new peak”. Khamis (2019) describes Marie
Kondos KonMari method as part of a broader trend of
minimalism and alternative consumption that emerged after the
global financial crisis in 2008 and the growing awareness of the
negative effects of capitalism.
A closer look at Marie Kondos approach reveals that it is not
only a guide for clearing out and decluttering. Rather, it promises
nothing less than a life-changing impact (Kondo, 2014). As
Marie Kondo writes in the introduction of her work (Kondo,
2014, 2/3): “A dramatic reorganization of the home causes
corresponding dramatic changes in lifestyle and perspective. It
is life transforming.” Based on the “life-changing” perspective on
the benefits of decluttering and the holistic approach, numerous
guidebooks, blogs, video-blogs (vlogs) and magazine features
emerged in the following years. In contrast to earlier (scientific)
publications on the topic of minimalism, voluntary simplicity or
sufficiency, these guidebooks are characterized by being practical
and easy to understand. They contain concrete suggestions
that seem to fit well into everyday lives of consumers and
convey the feeling that anyone can use the method and start
immediately. Further, simple and minimalistic designs are used
to showcase content and exercises. The suggested techniques,
tips and exercises are comprehensive and versatile. They do
not only cover decluttering and tidying up the house, but also,
for example, the reorganization of communication and work
routines (Meissner, 2019).
Lifestyle minimalism and decluttering are characterized
by a central “promise of happiness”: In contrast to the
basic assumption of consumer society (more goods make
happy), the opposite assumption is propagated (fewer goods
make happy) (Biana, 2020). This promise corresponds with
a contemporary mindset in which exhaustion and overload
due to consumerism and over-consumption are widespread in
the mainstream of society. Studies also confirm the negative
effects of overconsumption and clutter on well-being (Roster
et al., 2016;Swanson and Ferrari, 2022) while showing clearly
positive effects of decluttering on well-being (Hook et al.,
2021). However, the political, economic, and cultural framework
conditions that cause or contribute to the accumulation of
clutter and the corresponding exhaustion are hardly even
considered within decluttering guides (which in turn comes
along with the positive observed effect of simplified content that
reaches a larger target group). The focus of lifestyle minimalism
and decluttering lies on the “aestheticization of individual
restrain” within the existing economic system (Khamis, 2019).
Since the focus is to achieve more joy, happiness, and well-
being through decluttering, the “work character” of decluttering
is concealed. Decluttering as a central household task, however,
is much older than the lifestyle trend of minimalism and
decluttering suggests. In the following, we will therefore
elaborate on decluttering in the context of household work.
Decluttering as housework and care
Even though the available living space has steadily increased
in Western countries over the past decades (e.g., in Germany
alone between 1995 and 2004 an increase by about 13% even
with a stagnating population, trend is still upwards, UBA
[German Federal Environment Agency], 2010), space for the
accumulation and storage of goods is finite. Similar to the
“scarcity of time” due to an increase in time-consuming activities
(Rosa, 2003), space in flats and houses is limited and can only
Frontiers in Sustainability 03 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
be expanded very slowly, if at all. Practices of sorting out,
decluttering, giving away and disposing of goods are accordingly
regular and necessary activities to continue to take active part
in consumer society. It is therefore almost surprising that
companies that make a big advertising effort to sell new products
do not offer much advice and support for consumers in getting
rid of things. Furthermore, it is remarkable that decluttering is a
rather “young phenomenon” (see The evolution of minimalism
as lifestyle concept and the role of decluttering) and not an
established issue in research on household work. One reason for
this might be the limited recognition of consumption work as
household work.
With the emergence of consumer societies in the mid-20th
century, consumer work became central tasks of households
(Glucksmann, 2016;Wheeler and Glucksmann, 2016). Contrary
to what the term suggests, consumption is always productive
and thus involves work. Consumption work can be defined as
“all work necessary for the purchase, use, re-use and disposal of
consumption goods and services” (Glucksmann, 2016, p. 881).
Consumption work is necessary because the mere acquisition
of consumer goods is rarely sufficient to completely satisfy
consumer needs. Goods must be adapted and further processed
to be individually valuable (e.g., a pleasant dinner requires
not only the purchase of food, but also, for example, cooking
and table setting). Many of these consumption-related activities
are usually understood as household work. However, they are
not sufficiently linked to the conditions and challenges of a
consumer society yet. Research on household work still has
a strong focus on the social recognition of unpaid household
work and its gender-specific distribution (Thébaud et al., 2021).
Moreover, there is an emphasis on the variety, quantity, and
duration of household work, but less on individual, selected
activities. The causes, functions, and conditions of individual
household activities in the context of a consumer society play
a subordinate role. This becomes particularly obvious with the
example of decluttering. To the best of our knowledge, sorting
out and decluttering activities, hardly play a role in the analysis
of household work (Sweet, 1988;Keith Bryant et al., 2004;
Eichler, 2008;Moreno-Colom, 2017).
In the following, we therefore aim to bring in an
alternative understanding of decluttering as household work.
According to Eichler (2008, p. 15) “[h]ousehold work consists
of the sum of all physical, mental, emotional and spiritual
tasks that are performed for one’s own or someone else’s
household and that maintain the daily life of those for
whom one has responsibility.” Household work thus always
has two dimensions: an activity- and thing-related dimension
(housework) and a more relationship-related dimension (care)
(Eichler, 2008). Both dimensions are directly linked to
each other.
Before decluttering becomes relevant and necessary, sorting,
organizing, and storing goods are the preceding central
household tasks. As Collins and Stanes (2021, p. 4) point out,
storage is a “central routine practice in the organization of
everyday life [. . . ] [and] presents a range of practical solutions
to managing material accumulations.” Cwerner and Metcalfe
(2003, p. 229) illustrate, that storage is the “key to understanding
how people create order in the home” and even in their
life. The authors argue that storage is much more than the
simple physical-material arrangement of things but in fact
an expression of caring for people and goods (Cwerner and
Metcalfe, 2003;Collins and Stanes, 2021). There are various
forms and ways of storing and the “right degree of tidiness”
is a very subjective one. Nevertheless, it can be argued that
there are strong cultural notions and implicit norms about how
“filled with things” a home should be. The impact of these
implicit norms is particularly evident in the social exclusion and
devaluation of so-called hoarders (Newell, 2018). Hoarders are
characterized by owning more things than they can adequately
store and the inability to let things go. They overcrowd their
houses with things that–according to current norms-belong in
storage or in the garbage. This makes hoarders “reclassified as
belonging to the ‘outside’ of deviancy, as someone incapable
of maintaining themselves” (Newell, 2018, p. 4). Within the
tension of successful, almost invisible storage on the one side
and hoarding on the other side, the need to declutter arises.
The practice of decluttering thus serves the central function
of preservation and regeneration in households. Assuming the
continuous accumulation of goods, and at some point, a filled
storage space, practices of decluttering enable households to
repeatedly acquire and successfully store goods. Even if it seems
obvious and rather simple to get rid of things, when the quantity
of goods becomes too much, decluttering often poses a great
challenge. As Lee H.-H. (2017, p. 454) illustrates, “consumers
often attribute the cause of having ‘too much’ to the overall
volume rather than specific objects, which makes it hard to
choose what to discard.” In addition, many things are not
“neutral,” but people have multiple emotional ties with them.
Apart from the analysis of specific decluttering methods
such as KonMari (Lee H.-H., 2017;Chamberlin and Callmer,
2021), there is–to the best of our knowledge–still a lack of
research on the frequency, arrangement and gender-specific
distribution of decluttering as a task of household work. It
can be assumed that there is a wide range of decluttering
practices that people use. While some people might repeatedly
sort out single things at short time intervals, others might
take more time to dispose of a larger number of things and
do this at larger time intervals. Even if people declutter in
short intervals, decluttering is not a daily chore. With regard
to the different types and frequency of housework (daily
housework includes e.g., food preparation, dish washing or
laundry; occasional housework includes e.g., construction and
repairs, gardening or shopping) decluttering can be understood
as occasional housework (Moreno-Colom, 2017). From research
on housework it is well known that women are more involved in
daily housework, while men are more likely to do the occasional
Frontiers in Sustainability 04 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
chores (Moreno-Colom, 2017). Whether and to what extent this
is transferable to decluttering is not yet known.
Decluttering as housework involves a variety of mental
and physical activities. As Roster (2001) already shows for the
disposal of goods, the psychological “process of dispossession”
can be rather complex. Moreover, different notions of tidiness
and cleanliness might influence the decluttering process (Dion
et al., 2014). In a first step of the decluttering process, even if only
for a few seconds, goods are selected, examined, and reflected
upon in terms of their usefulness and (personal) value. In this
step, it is often necessary to consider the value of goods for
other members of the household. This can be accompanied by
negotiation processes about whether to keep things or not. In
a second step, some of the goods are removed from their usual
place of storage, while others are put back. Often, the returned
goods are then re-sorted and re-ordered. After this selection
process, the phase of disposal or transfer takes place as a third
step. While a large part of the goods will probably be disposed
of, it is also conceivable that goods are resold or given away.
It can be assumed that there are very different contexts and
situations in which decluttering takes place. However, unlike
other occasional household chores, decluttering seems to have
some frequent overriding occasions, such as the change of
seasons, moving house or redecorating the home. In this respect,
too, empirical data would be fruitful.
While decluttering is hardly considered as housework
work in both scientific research literature and the decluttering
guidebooks, the second dimension of household work, namely
(self-)care, is emphasized to a large extent (Ludwigsen, 2019;
Casey and Littler, 2021;Chamberlin and Callmer, 2021). This
raises the question of how consumption and care are generally
connected. As Godin and Langlois (2021) discuss, consumption
often implies multiple care-giving activities for oneself and
others within households. With reference to various studies, they
illustrate how consumption activities often involve anticipating
the needs and preferences of others. In addition to regular
care activities through consumption (e.g., cooking, laundry
etc.), there are numerous consumption practices that express
caring also on a symbolic level (such as cooking soup for
the sick, ironing a shirt for a spouse’s important appointment,
leaving lights on for family members coming home late) (Godin
and Langlois, 2021). In the context of care and sustainable
consumption, gender inequalities always become apparent.
As still more women carry out care-giving activities in the
household (as just mentioned, e.g., cooking), women are also
more likely to practice more sustainable forms of these activities
(e.g., buying organic food for cooking) (Bloodhart and Swim,
2020).
The analysis of consumption activities regarding their care
dimensions can also be applied to decluttering. From this
perspective, decluttering can be understood as a care-giving
activity as it ensures the (re)production of a well-organized and
pleasant home. Decluttering ensures that the household is not
filled to overflowing, that household members feel comfortable,
that household members save time looking for their goods, and
finally, that the routine consumption practices can continue.
Decluttering, however, is mostly not communicated or
marketed as care in general, but as self-care and self -help
(Lee H.-H., 2017;Ludwigsen, 2019;Meissner, 2019;Ouellette,
2019;Casey and Littler, 2021;Chamberlin and Callmer, 2021).
The WHO [World Health Organization] (2018) defines self-
care as “the ability of individuals, families and communities
to promote health, prevent disease, maintain health, and to
cope with illness and disability with or without the support
of a healthcare provider.” Self-care includes a comprehensive
set of different activities that can entail both therapeutic (e.g.,
medication administration) and personal care (e.g., daily living
activities such as bathing, eating, exercise) (Godfrey et al.,
2010). Decluttering as self-care assumes that clutter has certain
negative psychological and even physical implications (e.g.,
stress, discomfort, and overload). These negative effects–so the
assumption–can be reduced by liberating the home, and even
the whole life, from too much stuff and clutter. Decluttering as a
process of reducing (material) possessions might therefore help
to increase well-being, balance, and happiness (Kondo, 2014;
Lee H.-H., 2017;Chamberlin and Callmer, 2021). Accordingly,
decluttering techniques (and also other cleaning and tidying
“lifehacks”) are not only seen as “a quicker route to completing
mundane drudgery, but a means of achieving a better emotional
and affective state” (Casey and Littler, 2021, p. 10). Following this
understanding, decluttering is not only an externally directed,
thing-related activity, but also has a strong introspective
meaning. “Tidying [and also decluttering] is [presented as]
a dialogue with oneself. Through one’s possessions, one is
actually conversing with oneself. What one wants to own is how
one wants to live life” (Biana, 2020, p. 83). Regardless of the
question of how much decluttering can actually contribute to
successful self-care and well-being (Roster et al., 2016;Swanson
and Ferrari, 2022), there are numerous critical assessments
of the concept from a socio-economic perspective. Casey and
Littler (2021), for instance, see the interpretation of decluttering,
contributing to women continuing and willingly taking on the
greater share of housework. Ouellette (2019) argues similarly
and understands decluttering as a “neoliberal technique” that
depends in particular on work by women. She argues that the
“happiness-promise” of the KonMari-method is problematic as
it obscures structural problems of the consumer society and
the distribution of housework. Meissner (2019, p. 193) criticizes
that the understanding of decluttering as a form of self-help
highlights the current shift of societal responsibility to individual
self-responsibility and encourages “entrepreneurial practices of
self-development and ‘life-maximization”’.
Building on this understanding (and critique) of decluttering
as housework and self-care, the following section will outline
possible chances and risks decluttering entails for the promotion
of sustainable consumption.
Frontiers in Sustainability 05 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
Potentials and limits of decluttering
for sustainable consumption
Sustainable consumption can be defined as “individual acts
of satisfying needs in different areas of life by acquiring, using
and disposing goods and services that do not compromise
the ecological and socio-economic conditions of all people
(currently living or in the future) to satisfy their own needs”
(Geiger et al., 2018, p. 20). Sustainable consumption combines
all three sustainability strategies (consistency, efficiency, and
sufficiency), which are often not clearly separable from
each other in everyday consumption practices. Sufficient
consumption, however, takes on a prominent role in the
realization of sustainable consumption (Schneidewind and
Zahrnt, 2014;Gossen et al., 2019). Only if resource consumption
is significantly reduced in absolute quantities, consumption
styles of the Western hemisphere will be transferable to all
currently living and future generations. This also leads to the
conclusion that the focus on individual products and individual
areas of consumption obscures the fact that sustainability can
only be achieved if societal consumption patterns and lifestyles
as a whole are taken into account. At the same time, it is
valid, that not all consumption activities are equally relevant
for an effective reduction of negative environmental (and
social) impacts. There are specific consumption areas (housing,
mobility, nutrition) and selected measures in these areas that
have a significantly greater environmental impact than others
(Bilharz and Schmitt, 2011;Geiger et al., 2018). To promote
sustainable lifestyles, it is thus important to focus on the most
relevant measures in the most relevant consumption areas.
Sufficient consumption can be realized through three
different types of action, which are ideally combined with
each other: (i) number: absolute reduction of the number of
purchases of new products; (ii) dimension: use and purchase of
(smaller) products with lower resource intensity (iii) frequency
of usage: less frequent use of resource-intensive products
and services (Jenny, 2016;Gossen et al., 2019). Regardless
of which “reduction practice” is applied, it is important for
sufficient consumption to achieve an absolute reduction in
resource consumption without replacement. That means that
rebound effects are avoided, in which financial resources saved
in one area of consumption are used for more purchases in
another area. This also means that short-term abstinence or
temporary reductions in consumption are not sufficient. Rather,
consumption routines and practices need to stabilize in the
long-term in order to be qualified as sustainable.
Potentials for sustainable consumption
Decluttering and minimalism guides–as shown already–
are characterized by being very practical and concrete. They
are so-called “self-help books” (Lee M., 2017;Ludwigsen,
2019). Most of them explain step-by-step how to reduce
one’s possessions. The guides often include exercises, tips, and
practical examples. These concrete instructions and their high
practical relevance make it easy for anyone to get started. It
seems advantageous here that the focus lies on what already
exists, namely on the possessions in one’s own home. Thus, the
central aim of decluttering is not to think about and reduce
diffuse, future consumption, but to start in the “here and now.”
The so-called “liberation from excess” (Paech, 2012) becomes
concrete through the practice of decluttering. This also has the
advantage that positive effects of decluttering can be directly
observed and experienced in the present and can possibly
motivate to own fewer things in the future (e.g., direct relief from
having to take care of fewer things, more clarity and order). A
potential perceived increase in overall well-being (Roster et al.,
2016;Swanson and Ferrari, 2022) might also have a positive
influence on owning fewer things in the future. Following
studies on the relationship between perceived self-efficacy and
sustainable consumption (Hanss and Böhm, 2010), it can also be
argued that the experience of successfully decluttering in one’s
own household can have positive effects on future sufficient
consumption activities.
Furthermore, decluttering exercises are often combined with
self-tests and reflection tasks that encourage the reflection on
material possessions and consumption practices. One exercise
that is suggested before actually sorting out goods, for example,
instructs people to first estimate the quantity of the goods owned
and to then count the actual number. This stocktaking exercise
encourages people to closely look at their own possessions.
Other frequently suggested exercises address the question of
what is important in life or to what extent material goods
are important (Morgan, 2017;Madsen, 2021). Reflection can
also be stimulated during the decluttering process itself. The
KonMari method, for example, is characterized by taking
each object into one’s hands and evaluating it in terms of
the resulting feeling of happiness (Kondo, 2014). We argue
that these reflection exercises can help people to develop
reflection competencies and stimulate awareness and insights
into existing needs and preferences, which then become
relevant for starting the change process toward more sustainable
consumption patterns. Competencies to reflect individual needs
and cultural orientations are understood as key competencies
for sustainable consumption (including knowledge of how
preferences are culturally contextualized, ability to critically
engage with commodification processes and willingness to
explore and scrutinize one’s own aspirations, wants and needs)
(Fischer and Barth, 2014;Frank et al., 2019). These reflection
competencies are typically conveyed in an educational context.
Recently, the importance of mindfulness training for sustainable
consumption has been discussed in particular (Fischer et al.,
2017;Stanszus et al., 2017;Frank et al., 2019;Geiger et al.,
2020). Mindfulness and decluttering are both techniques that are
Frontiers in Sustainability 06 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
advocated in the context of self-help and self-care. Both promote
introspection and reflection on needs. Building on existing
studies on mindfulness and sustainable consumption, it can
therefore be argued that decluttering likely contributes positively
to establishing more sustainable consumption patterns.
Research shows that individuals do not necessarily decide
to apply decluttering methods (such as KonMari) for ecological
or ethical reasons, but rather for egoistic ones (Vladimirova,
2021). This is likely promoted by the fact that decluttering is
communicated as a form of self-care and a variety of ego-related
benefits are emphasized (see Decluttering as housework and
care). However, this could also be seen as an unintentional way
toward promoting sufficient consumption (Callmer, 2019;Kang
et al., 2021). While, for instance, sufficient consumption is still
perceived as a loss or a restriction by many population groups,
decluttering and lifestyle minimalism guides shift the feeling of
guilt or loss and promote the idea of enjoyment in the process of
reducing material possession instead (Chamberlin and Callmer,
2021). Chamberlin and Callmer (2021, p. 25) “suggest that
the increased focus on people’s feelings about their material
environment and its impact on their well-being can be associated
with the unintentional slowing down of consumption among
participants and that this, in turn, could provide an important
way to engage mainstream consumers with a sufficient circular
economy.” In sum, it becomes clear that there are relevant
chances for sustainable consumption.
Limits for sustainable consumption
However, some risks and limits of decluttering for
sustainable consumption are to be mentioned.
Kondo (2014) proudly mentions the number of belongings
that her clients discarded as a sign of success for her method.
“The number of things my clients have discarded, from clothes
and undergarments to photos, pens, magazine clippings, and
makeup samples, easily exceeds a million items. [.. . ]. I have
assisted individual clients who have thrown out two hundred
45-liter garbage bags in one go” (Kondo, 2014, p. 2). Most
consumers might want to see such quick results in their homes
with the help of decluttering guidebooks. As already explained,
a central chance of decluttering is that the associated measures
can be implemented directly, and success becomes immediately
visible. However, this also implies that there is a certain interest
in implementing decluttering as quickly as possible. It’s about
achieving quick results and getting rid of stuff. This focus on
speed stands in conflict with the necessary management of goods
after sorting out, which can be very time-consuming when
sustainability aspects are considered. Instead of just throwing
things away quickly, it is of relevance to pass goods on and
thereby give them a new purpose (Cooper, 2005). Passing on
goods, e.g., to charities, second-hand shops, or simply other
private individuals, however, often requires time and effort.
In case goods are not passed on, but are disposed of in a
sustainable way, they need to at least be appropriately separated
and recycled. However, as Cooper (2005) shows, consumers
often lack interest in investing time in the care and repair
of goods in the use phase. Also, recycling, for example, is
perceived as work. It is therefore hardly plausible to assume that
decluttering promotes a sustainable after-use-phase. Instead, it
can be assumed that decluttering simply results in the disposal
of many goods that could still be used.
It seems that decluttering as an activity is mostly done at a
specific time-period and does not require a fundamental change
in the daily lifestyle of individuals. For instance, it does not imply
a change in their commute to work or a change in location for
grocery shopping. Therefore, it is usually seen as a (fun) project
to do now and then and not as a demanding lifestyle-change
toward sustainable consumption (which–as described already–
also represents an opportunity). Adding to this, it is currently
simply fashionable to choose minimalist consumption options.
As Schneidewind and Zahrnt (2014, p. 146) state: “A new purism
is taking hold in many areas of life, from single speed bikes to
minimalist interior décor.” But this does not necessarily imply
any changes in consumption routines. Besides, unless consumers
become aware of the (mental, ecological, or financial) benefits
of having and keeping a minimalistic lifestyle in the long term,
they are unlikely to contribute to sustainable consumption at
the end.
Decluttering primarily addresses the reduction in quantity
of goods but does not necessarily touch on the reduction of
regular consumer goods (e.g., food) or goods and services
that induce particularly high resource consumption. Further,
highly relevant consumption areas are often not targeted (e.g.,
space and type of heating, mobility, animal products), (Geiger
et al., 2018) and resource-intensive activities and services remain
unconsidered (e.g., holiday trips). Accordingly, “frequency of
use” and “dimension” (i.e., two of the three action types for
sufficient consumption) may not be promoted by decluttering
at all. Regarding the third dimension of decluttering, “absolute
reduction of new purchases,” even the opposite effect may
occur. As decluttering reduces possessions, new space is created
for new consumption. Decluttering would then rather be an
accelerator or catalyst for further consumption rather than
contributing to a reduction in new purchases. In decluttering
guides, consumption practices after decluttering receive little
attention. Even though some guides provide suggestions and
exercises on how to prevent new purchases and consume less
overall (e.g., through so-called no-shopping lists, avoidance
of advertising, etc.). However, in our view, the difficulty of
reducing consumption in the long term is not sufficiently
considered. Even though Chamberlin and Callmer (2021) show
that participants following the KonMari method no longer had
the wish to purchase goods, it is unclear whether this effect
holds in the long-term. Since it is plausible and obvious that the
newly won space motivates to be filled again and consumers are
Frontiers in Sustainability 07 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
tied into long practiced routines of consumption, this presents a
central risk for sufficient lifestyles.
This possible relapse into old consumption patterns
is closely linked to the previously discussed criticism of
decluttering as a “(neo-)liberal, capitalist method” for more
growth and acceleration (Meissner, 2019;Ouellette, 2019).
Accordingly, the recommendations to reduce possessions on
the one hand and the stimulation of further consumption
actions on the other are not contradictory, but rather mutually
dependent. Households can only consume new goods through
the newly created space. As Meissner (2019, p. 186) argues,
“growth hegemony remains largely unchallenged” [... ] [and]
shows capitalism’s tendency to appropriate and commodify its
own counter-culture.
Research approach and initial
qualitative insights into decluttering
motives
In the following, we aim to shed light on motives for
decluttering and associated reflections of wishes and needs by
presenting first insights into the results of an ongoing citizen
science research project from Germany. The project1addresses
the question of whether and to what extent decluttering practices
can help to promote sustainable consumption and at the same
time avoid the unwanted return to old patterns of consumption
and accumulation after decluttering. To be able to better
classify the initial research results presented below, our research
approach will be illustrated in the next step. Afterwards the
selected methods and the results will be presented. Finally, a
discussion and presentation of the limitations and an outlook
on further research will follow.
Exploring consumer behavior and
decluttering in the context of citizen
science
There are numerous definitions and interpretations of
citizen science. However, at its core it always involves an active
participation of the public in scientific research (Haklay et al.,
2021). This means, that volunteers can take part in all phases of
a research process, starting with the development of the research
design, data collection, data evaluation and the derivation of
recommendations for action.
While citizen science is particularly widespread in the
natural sciences, there are fewer examples of consumption
1 The project “Mein Ding-Ich bin, was ich (nicht) habe“ (My Thing-I am
what I (don’t) have) is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education
and Research (BMBF).
research by citizen science (Hielscher and Jaeger-Erben,
2021). From our point of view, the participation of citizen
scientists in investigating the relationship between decluttering
and sustainable consumption offers three key advantages:
(i) Through open exchange and collaboration with citizen
scientists, the research field can be broadly explored. This is
valuable as there is rather little empirical evidence on our
research question to build on. (ii) Secondly, the citizen scientists
are very interested in finding out more about themselves and
their relationship to their goods and are therefore motivated
to provide insights into their consumption practices and
decluttering experiences by using the cultural probes provided
in the project. (iii) Thirdly, the citizen scientists have easy access
to their peers to interview others about their decluttering and
consumption experiences in a confidential and protected setting.
The research process is also characterized by the fact that,
in addition to the collection of “conventional” quantitative
and qualitative data by the academic scientists of the project,
we collect and evaluate different streams of qualitative data
together with the citizen scientists. Over the course of the
whole project, this participatory, qualitative data consists of (i)
six workshops, which take place at three different points in
the course of the project, (ii) a set of cultural probes (Gaver
et al., 1999), which consist of different (reflection) exercises and
suggestions for reflecting, documenting and decluttering as well
as for avoiding additional consumption, (iii) semi-structured
interviews conducted by the citizen scientists with their peers
about the experiences and effects of decluttering. The three
phases of our research process and the different types of data
collection streams are presented in Table 1.
In the following we only focus on the results of the first two
workshops (of the six workshops in total) and the results of the
first two reflection exercises (as part of the cultural probes set)
(displayed in color in the table).
Participation in the project was advertised online and offline
through various communication channels. The main online
communication channels were the mailing list of an NGO
providing information on energy saving and climate protection
(co2online) and the mailing list of an NGO on sustainable
fashion (Fashion Revolution Germany). Offline, the project was
advertised via posters in a university and supermarkets. In
total, more than 1,000 participants from all over Germany were
recruited. Citizen scientists had to be 18 years old or above and
live in Germany, in order to be qualified for participation.
Description of selected methods
As shown above, the project took up a mixed methods
approach in combining conventional quantitative and
qualitative methods together with a participatory research
approach, that closely involved citizen scientists in collecting
data. In the following, we present selected methodologies from
Frontiers in Sustainability 08 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
TABLE 1 Course of the research process and type of data collection (The highlighted data are presented in this article).
Research phase Type of data
Conventional quantitative and qualitative
research data: academic scientists collect and
evaluate data
Participatory research data (qualitative): citizen scientists and
academic scientists collaborate to collect and/or evaluate data
Preparation Pre-survey Two workshops on motivations, expectations, and experiences
Implementation Two self-reflection exercises answered by citizen scientists
Documentation of possessions, decluttering and self-reflection exercises answered by
citizen scientists
Less buying and self-reflection exercise by citizen scientists
Post-survey I Two interim co-evaluation workshops to discuss experiences and results
Interviews with citizen scientists Citizen scientists recruit others to do the decluttering exercises and conduct
interviews on decluttering
Evaluation Post-survey II Two co-evaluation workshops to discuss experiences and results
only the participatory research, i.e., (i) the first two online
workshops and (ii) two first reflection exercises, which are part
of a larger cultural probes set developed as an intervention
for the citizen scientists–and later–the larger public. The two
workshops took place as online-workshops via Zoom in total
with 51 citizen scientists (36 female, 15 male) in March 2022.
Apart from gender, no other socio-demographic data was
collected from the workshop participants. Each workshop was
2 h long. One workshop took place in the afternoon and one in
the evening, to allow for flexible participation. Each workshop
was moderated by one of the researchers and supported by
another project team member. The workshops focused on
the motivation and expectations of the citizen scientists for
decluttering and offered an interactive exchange between citizen
scientists. In the first part of the workshops, citizen scientists
were intended to get to know each other in a round of speed
dates and shortly reflect on the reasons for participation in
the project.
In the second part of the workshops, citizen scientists
were asked to engage in an exchange on the challenges
and desires in dealing with possessions in more depth. The
workshops explored three key questions in particular: (i)
Why do participants want to declutter? (motivations); (ii)
What do participants expect from decluttering? (expectations)
and (iii) What experiences do the participants already have
with decluttering? (experiences). We asked participants to
elaborate on these key questions in three smaller subgroups and
documented the key workshop results on a digital whiteboard.
The outcomes of the discussion then provided valuable insights
for the development and design of intervention materials
(cultural probes set) of the project.
The two reflection exercises–as the first part of the
cultural probes set–were carried out by the citizen scientists
in April 2022. By using the information gathered in the first
accompanying online survey (see Table 1), the participants
who completed the reflection exercises can be characterized
as follows: A total of 426 citizen scientists filled out the two
reflection exercises. Among them, around 30% were male,
while around 70% were female. Besides, more than half of the
participants (59%) were between 51 and 70 years old, indicating
that rather older generations participate in the project. Most
of the participants were holding a university degree (70%),
followed by 17% that had high school degree. Almost half of
the participants (52%) who completed the reflection exercises
were employed at a company and around 22% were already
in retirement.
The first reflection exercise of the cultural probes set focused
on peoples’ general wishes in life. Participants could add up to
five aspects (material or immaterial things) for each question
and write down their answers in an unstructured manner.
Participants received the following questions and sub questions
to reflect upon:
1. What do you really want in life?
1a. What would you like to have more of in your life?
1b. And what would you like to have less of?
The second reflection exercise of the cultural probes
set focused on selected goods from five household areas
that people could claim to value the most. Participants
received the following questions, that they could answer in an
unstructured manner:
2. What Is “your thing”?
2a. Which goods in your household have a special value
for you?
2b. Why are these goods important to you?
The questions for reflection in the cultural probes set were
stated open and therefore participants were free to interpret
them individually and add aspects that deemed important to
them. The qualitative results of this reflection exercise were then
analyzed with a software tool for qualitative content analysis
(MAXQDA). For the analysis of the first exercise, a list of
Frontiers in Sustainability 09 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
broad categories and identifiers for analysis were determined
by using guiding literature (YouGov., 2015;Statista., 2021)
to define the most important wishes in life. The initial set
of themes for the first exercise was: relationships and love,
health, money, recreation, experiences, success, creativity, and
spirituality. The themes were applied to the material in a
deductive manner. The raw data set was then coded by using
this scheme. Later on, the category system was back-tested
based on the concrete material in an inductive manner and
categories were summarized and refined. Since the second
exercise entailed quite specific questions, that could not be
related to a theory, themes were developed only by proceeding in
an inductive manner. We generally followed content-analytical
procedures suggested by Mayring (2019) to analyze results
and work out recurring patterns of answers and structures of
meaning. The results were lastly interpreted in the light of the
main research questions. In the following, results are presented
mainly by referring to overarching themes that were mentioned.
Additionally, the results are illustrated by using selected direct
quotes of citizen scientists. Hereby, citizen scientists are cited by
using an abbreviation and their unique ID (e.g., CS 1).
Results
Results from the workshops
Motivations
In both workshops, participants mentioned the problem of
overcrowded houses. On the one hand, they report that this
state of abundance (coupled with disorder) makes it difficult to
find things that they need, but also constantly confronts them
with objects that are not actively used anymore. Participants
also expressed the desire to have more space in their home
as well as achieve more clarity, order, and fixed places for
the goods in their household. In the long run, participants
mentioned that they hope to limit the number of objects they
own, and thereby create a clearly arranged living environment.
On the other hand, participants explain that the mere visibility
of physical clutter in households puts mental load and a sense
of stress on them. Adding to this, they mention that the
number of goods even increases over time in most households,
which may cause a feeling of loss of control over the situation.
Against this backdrop, participants clearly articulate the need
to find ways to reduce their stress, possibly by finding a
long-term solution to better manage the number of goods
they own.
Expectations
The participants mentioned that they seek mental freedom,
peace of mind and psychological relief by decluttering. Also,
simply having more time for other important things in their
lives is a main reason for people participating in this project to
start decluttering.
Experiences
Workshop participants mentioned to already have
experience with decluttering, however, not necessarily by
using a specific method to declutter. Although this task is
regarded important in order to keep an overview and create a
comfortable home by the participants, decluttering is described
as being quite challenging in the past. One of the reasons for this
mentioned is that a lot of objects have a strong emotional value
for people, making it hard to let them go. Also, the participants
report about the fact that decluttering objects with an emotional
value in a shared household often involves negotiation processes
with other family members, that people do not know how
to approach. In other cases, participants illustrate that they
are uncertain about whether they will still need particular
everyday objects again in the future. They therefore seek
specific evaluation and prioritization methods, to learn what
is important to them, what they really need and how to clean
out. Furthermore, participants mention their strong retention
to clean things out because they don’t want to just throw them
away. The question of how to reuse decluttered items in a useful
manner is mentioned as a major challenge in the application of
decluttering methods.
Results from the first two reflection
exercises
In the first reflection exercise of the project, participants
were asked to think about what they really want in life. More
specifically, they had to reflect what they wish for in life and
what they wish less of. The main interest behind this reflection
exercise was, firstly, to find out to what extent people focus on
non-material or material things, and secondly, to what extent
they reflect or problematize their own material possessions and
consumption behavior.
A graphical overview of the overarching results, showing the
main themes and the frequencies of terms mentioned in that
categories are displayed in Figures 1,2. The same main themes
were identified and used for the two sub questions, however, for
the first sub question the themes refer to positive aspects, while
for the second sub question themes refer to negative aspects.
Figure 1 displays the most important themes participants wish
for in life, while Figure 2 displays the most important themes
participants wish less of in life, both sorted in descending
order. Further, Table 2 displays a list of the main themes with
corresponding subthemes for each question in ascending order
of frequency.
The results show that citizen scientists participating in
the project most frequently mention good “relationships” as
Frontiers in Sustainability 10 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
FIGURE 1
What do you wish for in life: Number of mentions and percentages in each category.
FIGURE 2
What do you wish less of in life: Number of mentions and percentages in each category.
an overarching theme that they wish for in life (25% of all
mentions, see Figure 1). More specifically, they mention the
wish to have time to maintain and cultivate their relationships
with friends and family. One citizen scientist desired “moments
of connectedness with my friends” (CS 360) while another
person wished for more “time for our son and grandchildren”
(CS 69). The citizen scientists further long for safety and
love, but also wish to establish new contacts and get to know
Frontiers in Sustainability 11 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
TABLE 2 Overview of main categories and corresponding subthemes
identified in reflection exercise 1.
Main categories Subthemes
What do you wish What do you wish
for in life? less of in life?
Relationships Friends Dispute
Family Negative encounters
New contacts Egoism
Tolerance Violence
Partnership Discrimination
Love Hate
Experiences Holidays Media use
Excursions
Nature
Doing nothing
Variety
Health Relaxing Stress
Health Fear
Time to oneself Disease
Satisfaction Weight
Energy Loneliness
Patience Tiredness
Ease Impatience
Spirituality Sadness
Alcohol
Interests and hobbies Movement
Gardening
Learning
Time for hobbies
Music
Culture
Reading
Creativity
Handwork
Inspiration
Art
Living and property Money Burden
Tidiness Mess
Consumption Consumption
Better living situation Financial worries
High-quality owning
Self-Sufficiency
Global development Environmental protection War
Peace Climate change
Infrastructure Waste
Justice Injustice
Global Health Global health
Hunger
Poverty
Work Meaning Profession
Fixed working hours Housework
Professional success Administration
Pleasure
Further training
Security
people. In contrast, negative aspects of “relationships” (10% of
all mentions, see Figure 2) that participants wish to avoid are
mentioned, such as dispute and trouble with friends, family,
and neighbors, but also societal issues such as selfishness,
discrimination, hate and violence. For example, one citizen
scientist called for “less violence against children (CS 298).
An aspect that is also mentioned frequently as a wish in life is
the interest in “experiences” (22%), such as traveling, excursions,
spending time in nature but also having sufficient un-scheduled
moments for doing nothing or enjoying free time. One citizen
scientist expressed the wish to “travel by motorcycle-individually
or in groups” (CS20). For quite some participants, having more
time to pursue one’s own “interests and hobbies” is also one
of the wishes for the future (16%). The “interests and hobbies”
mentioned by the citizen scientists include, inter alia, sports,
gardening, learning new skills, listening to and making music.
For example, having “time for practical music exercise” (CS 422)
was mentioned by one person. Other citizen scientists sought
to be creative, and thus hoped for “more time and space for
creative activities” (CS 295) or “time for my artistic work” (CS
389). Additionally, the wish for time to enjoy arts and culture
is expressed, for example, one citizen scientist would like to
“visit cultural events” (CS 407). For some, having more time
for experiences and time to pursue interests goes hand in hand
with spending less time on “work,” which is gainful employment
and housework (14%). Citizen scientists, for example, demanded
“less physically poor working conditions” (CS 280) and hoped
for less “duties (cleaning, tidying, organizing, etc.)” (CS 45).
Furthermore, participants reflect on their physical and
psychological “health” when it comes to the question of what
they want in life (19%, see Figure 1). The desire for more
rest and relaxation was mentioned particularly often, followed
by the wish for better mental and physical health both for
themselves and those close to them. Other frequent wishes relate
to improved life satisfaction, more time for themselves and
increased energy. For instance, one citizen scientist longed for
“energy to consistently implement a health exercise program”
(CS 28) and another mentioned the wish for “inner peace and
serenity for some issues that upset me” (CS414). Conversely,
poor “health” and especially stress and mental load, illness,
anxiety, fear, and loneliness as well as body weight, are
mentioned as the most prevalent things worrying people (29%,
see Figure 2). One citizen scientist communicated “I would
like to have less stress at work” (CS 351)) and another person
lamented the “feeling of being isolated” (CS 258).
Compared to the most frequently mentioned terms, material
needs (mentioned within the theme “living and property”), such
as money and financial security, an organized, big and nice-
looking living space, and consuming high-quality objects (e.g.,
a new car or high-quality clothing) are not among the most
important wishes for citizen scientists in this project, but they
are still mentioned by a few (9%, see Figure 1). Exemplary for
the theme “living and property” is the wish by one citizen
Frontiers in Sustainability 12 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
scientist for a “stylish apartment with seating outside” (CS 81).
In contrast, it becomes clear that the load of unused clutter and
disorder in the living space (mentioned within the theme “living
and property”) burdens many of the citizen scientists that take
part in the project (25%, see Figure 2). One citizen scientist,
for example, reported about “mountains of stuff lying around
everywhere and constricting the usable living space” (CS 28),
someone else felt the “burden of inherited goods from parents
and grandparents” (CS 47). Some participants explicitly want
to spend less time searching for items in their household and
taking care of them. Many participants indicate that they have
already identified an area in which they own too many things,
such as clothing, paperwork, or electronic items, they want
to get rid of. Furthermore, some participants problematized
current consumer society and the resulting constant temptations
coaxing them into consuming more goods, that later often
turn out to be mispurchases or items they do not really need.
Therefore, some citizen scientists expressed the wish for less
pursuit of possession.
Lastly, participants addressed issues of politics and “global
development.” Primary concerns that they wish less of in life,
referred to war, social inequality, climate change and waste issues
as well as issues relating to global health and the pandemic (18%,
see Figure 2). For instance, one citizen scientist criticized the
“destruction of nature for so many unnecessary things that are
manufactured” (CS 27). On the positive side within the theme
of “global development” participants stated the wish for more
environmental protection, peace, and social equality as well as
the improvement of infrastructure in their surroundings (e.g.,
improvement of bike lanes) (8%, see Figure 1).
In the second reflection exercise in the project, citizen
scientists were asked to reflect their possessions and think
about their favorite goods in different household areas that
they use and value the most and about the function the good
serves for them. The questions were assigned to four separate
domains in which individuals tend to accumulate the most
things, clothing, stationary, kitchen items, and technology.
The main interest looking at the results of this exercise was
to shed light on the unique relationship people have with
their goods and the reasons people decide to keep (or even
accumulate) things.
The main reasons mentioned by participants for why these
goods are important to them are summarized in a graphical
overview in Figure 3.
In summary, the results show, that participants often value
objects because they serve a particular function or because
objects have a particular trait that makes them valuable (see
Figure 3). The most often mentioned functional value of goods
relate to “convenience” (12%), that is goods that make everyday
life more comfortable and easier. For example, people appreciate
their goods because they help them simplify daily tasks such
as cooking or cleaning. Further, people mention access to
“information” (8%), “communication” (8%), “facilitation of
work” and organization (2%), or an “entertainment” purpose
(3%). Beyond the merely functional aspect, superficial or
emotional properties make the goods stand out for participants.
The most often stated reason for valuing goods related to goods
giving “joy and pleasure” (15%). Further, some were said to have
a particularly nice “appearance” (8%), some have been gifted
or inherited and possess a “memorable value” (8%). Further
aspects, that were mentioned less often, are displayed in Figure 3.
Discussion
These preliminary results from the ongoing research project
give first indications for the discussion about potentials and
limits of decluttering for sustainable consumption.
We have shown in our previous chapters that decluttering
and minimalism are very much considered in the context
of promoting well-being and quality of life so far (Roster
et al., 2016;Hook et al., 2021;Swanson and Ferrari, 2022).
Looking at selected decluttering methods (such as KonMari
method), one can observe their emphasis on achieving
happiness and satisfaction through decreasing the amount of
material possessions (Kondo, 2014). The findings from the two
workshops conducted within the project clearly demonstrate
similar insights. Here, participants also associated decluttering
with the hope of relief and increased well-being. This is further
supported and supplemented by the results of the reflection
exercises that show that people tend to not want more material
goods, but rather wish for enriching relationships, fulfilling
experiences and improved health and well-being in their life.
Only very few mention the wish to acquire high-quality goods.
Moreover, we conceptually deduced that decluttering, on the
one hand, is hardly considered in the discourse on consumer
work and household work. On the other hand, decluttering
is mainly communicated and marketed as a form of self-care
(Ludwigsen, 2019;Ouellette, 2019;Casey and Littler, 2021),
rather than work. Our results from the two workshops show that
participants perceive decluttering as demanding and difficult.
Participants are looking for help and support in implementing
decluttering practices. Even though the participants do not
explicitly refer to decluttering as work, it is nevertheless apparent
from their comments that they perceive decluttering as a
necessary form of effort. In addition, the results show that
decluttering often requires coordination and exchange with
other household members–which clearly highlights the care
dimension of decluttering. Also, the perception of decluttering
as a form of self-care is evident in various statements made
by participants, such as when they articulate that they hope to
achieve more mental freedom, peace of mind and psychological
relief by decluttering.
We conceptually elaborated in our paper that decluttering
can provide an opportunity to reflect on previous consumption
patterns and potentially realign them in the future. Following
Frontiers in Sustainability 13 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
FIGURE 3
What makes the good important to you? (percentage refers to mentions of terms in each category in relation to the total number of mentions).
studies on mindfulness (Frank et al., 2019;Geiger et al., 2020)–
we have argued–methods used for decluttering could also be
an appropriate opportunity for introspection and reflection.
Looking at the empirical findings, they confirm that decluttering
can be an opportune time for realignment. Participants in
the project mentioned to associate negative feelings with the
multitude of things they own and feel burdened by unused
clutter. They have already realized for themselves that the
promise of happiness through more consumption no longer
works for them. Some actively problematize consumer society
that constantly induces them to buy more. The second reflection
exercise shed light on the reasons why people value and keep
things, i.e., goods that simplify their life, enable them to get
information, communicate with each other or have a specific
emotional value. It can be assumed, that learning to consider
the functional and emotional properties of goods in future
consumption decisions, can prevent people from buying new
(unnecessary) things. Whether the reflection and decluttering
exercises offered in the project actually provide the desired
solution and help to limit consumption, is still to be shown
during the ongoing research within the citizen science project.
Although the participants of the workshop have not yet
practiced decluttering methods at that point in time, they have
already shown similar attitudes and perceptions as described
in the study by Chamberlin and Callmer (2021). Participants
showed a high awareness of the problem and expressed the
willingness to change something in dealing with possessions
and consumption. They felt a lot of problem pressure and were
looking for practical ways to relieve it. Thus, it can be argued
that participants have already taken the first step in the direction
of sustainable consumption. Participants are looking for change
and are interested in solutions. Accordingly, it could be assumed
that it is not so much about the actual implementation of
decluttering. Rather, it could be concluded that people who are
interested in decluttering may be particularly open to changes in
the way they deal with possessions.
The special composition of the project participants in terms
of age, gender and education is on the one hand certainly related
to the pre-selected communication channels used to advertise
the project. On the other hand, it shows that highly educated,
older women seem to have a particularly pronounced interest in
the topic. The greater participation of women in the project may
Frontiers in Sustainability 14 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
indicate that, overall, more women than men are interested in
decluttering. This fits with the observation that women continue
to do more household work than men (Moreno-Colom, 2017).
Also, women seem to be particularly receptive for content about
decluttering that is marketed as self-care (Ludwigsen, 2019;
Ouellette, 2019;Casey and Littler, 2021). As discussed before,
this bears the risk of women being pushed back into traditional
roles (Ouellette, 2019). In this regard, our research contributes
to current research on gender and care. Furthermore, the age of
the participants seems especially interesting to us and is a fruitful
complement to other research looking at the effects of clutter and
decluttering in different age groups (Swanson and Ferrari, 2022).
It can certainly be assumed that older people have more time
to actively participate in such a research project and generally
for decluttering. However, older age could also indicate that
the pressure of suffering from too many possessions increases
with age. On the one hand, this assumption is contrary to the
results of Swanson and Ferrari (2022) that show that clutter has
stronger negative effects on younger adults than on older adults.
On the other hand, the following arguments seem also plausible
to us: More and more things are accumulated with advancing
age, which might increase the problem pressure. Furthermore, a
“sandwich effect” might occur at the ages of 50 and above. While
the children of the 50-year-olds slowly move out and leave many
things behind in the parental household, the households of the
senior parents often must be dissolved because of their moves
to retirement homes or deaths. Besides, in some categories the
number of accumulated things is simply so high that this age
group might feel overwhelmed and in need of specific methods
for decluttering. There may therefore be a particularly big need
for decluttering in this age group.
Limitations and future research
As already mentioned, the results presented here are part
of an ongoing research project. They will be supplemented by
further qualitative and quantitative data in the near future. In
particular, we will take a closer look at the effects occurring
after participants used decluttering methods. While qualitative
data on a population sample may not be generalizable, it
does provide relevant insights into a specific sample. In
this case, these are adults from Germany who voluntarily
participate as citizen scientists in an online participatory
project. For recruiting participants various platforms of NGOs
who are active in the sustainability areas have been used.
Besides, offline advertisement (e.g., using flyers and posters
in the neighborhoods, etc.) was employed to attract more
diverse citizens for this project. However, the researchers of
this study need to highlight the fact that at the end no
representative sampling could be achieved for this project. As
already shown, the sample is characterized by the fact that
the participants tend to be older, more highly educated and
more likely to be female. Further research should therefore
focus on other population groups. Regarding the gender-specific
unequal distribution of housework and (self-)care, possible
gender differences in the topic of decluttering should also
be looked at more closely. It could also be interesting to
compare different age groups in order to be able to better
understand whether and to what extent perceptions of overload
due to the presence of too many possessions increase with age
or not.
Citizen science and transdisciplinary research always face
the challenge of balancing practicality on the one hand and
accuracy in the scientific approach on the other. This challenge
was also evident in our project. Thus, the workshops at the start
of the project were primarily intended to be enjoyable for the
participants and to promote exchange. At the same time, we
wanted to collect initial data on motivations and expectations.
Accordingly, the data collected is not as detailed as we would
have liked.
Both the workshops and the reflection exercises are
based on self-reported assessments and wishes of the citizen
scientists. As the citizen scientists were aware of the link
between decluttering and sustainable consumption and knew
the objectives of the project, it cannot be excluded that they
were influenced by this in their answers. Further research could
therefore contribute by looking – without knowing the research
context – at problem perception before decluttering and (long-
term) consumption effects after decluttering. In particular, the
possible discrepancy between stated attitudes and behavioral
intentions and actual behavior should be considered. This could
be done in particular through participatory observation in
the households.
Conclusions
This article has illustrated decluttering as being a cultural
practice between household work and self-care and has
discussed the potential of decluttering methods for promoting
sustainable consumption. We showed that decluttering has
hardly been considered in research on household work so far,
although decluttering is a basic prerequisite for being able to
consume continuously in view of limited spatial capacities of
households. However, while the work character of decluttering
is hardly mentioned, decluttering is mainly communicated
as a form of self-care. The central promise is that fewer
possessions contribute to greater well-being and happiness.
In addition to this promise of happiness, there are other
features of decluttering guides that may contribute to promoting
sustainable consumption. These include, for example, simple
language and a non-political framing. On the other hand,
there may also be relevant risks or limits for the promotion
of sustainable consumption. It can be assumed, for example,
that decluttering guides promote a throwaway culture and
Frontiers in Sustainability 15 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
even faster-moving consumption cycles. Empirical evidence on
the effects of decluttering on sustainable consumption is still
scarce. First results of a citizen science research project show
that people are interested in decluttering because they feel
weariness and discomfort due to the excessive accumulation
of goods. This leads to the conclusion that decluttering
can be a window of opportunity for people to reflect on
their consumption behavior and make it more sustainable in
the long term.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this
article will be made available by the authors, without
undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethics review and approval/written informed
consent was not required as per local legislation and
institutional requirements.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct,
and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it
for publication.
Funding
The research on which this article is based was funded by the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Funding
Program Citizen Science) under the funding codes 01BF2111B
and 01BF2111C.
Acknowledgments
We thank Nora Elena Borse for her great support in
analyzing the data of the reflection exercises.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aidar, L., and Daniels, P. (2020). A critical review of voluntary simplicity:
definitional inconsistencies, movement identity and direction for future research.
J. Soc. Sci. 1–14. doi: 10.1080/03623319.2020.1791785
Alexander, S., and Ussher, S. (2012). The voluntary simplicity movement: a
multi-national survey analysis in theoretical context. J. Consum. Cult. 12, 66–86.
doi: 10.1177/1469540512444019
Baudrillard, J. (2018). “On consumer society,” in Rethinking the Subject (London:
Routledge), 193–203. doi: 10.4324/9780429497643-14
Belk, R. W. (1982). Acquiring, possessing, and collecting: fundamental
processes in consumer behavior. Marketing theory: Philosophy of science
perspectives, 185−190.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 15,
139–168. doi: 10.1086/209154
Biana, H. T. (2020). Philosophizing about clutter: marie kondo’s the life-
changing magic of tidying up. Cultura. 17, 73–86. doi: 10.3726/CUL012020.
0005
Bilharz, M., and Schmitt, K. (2011). Going big with big matters. The key points
approach to sustainable consumption. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and
Society. 20, 232–235. doi: 10.14512/gaia.20.4.5
Bloodhart, B., and Swim, J. K. (2020). Sustainability and consumption:
what’s gender got to do with it? J. Soc. Issues. 76, 101–113. doi: 10.1111/josi.
12370
Callmer, Å. (2019). Making Sense of Sufficiency: Entries, Practices and Politics.
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Casey, E., and Littler, J. (2021). Mrs Hinch, the rise of the
cleanfluencer and the neoliberal refashioning of housework: Scouring
away the crisis? Sociol. Rev. 70, 489–505. doi: 10.1177/003802612110
59591
Chamberlin, L. C. J., and Callmer, Å. (2021). Spark joy and slow consumption:
an empirical study of the impact of the konmari method on acquisition
and wellbeing. Sustain. Environ. Res. 3, e210007. doi: 10.20900/jsr202
10007
Chhetri, P., Stimson, R. J., and Western, J. (2009). Understanding the
downshifting phenomenon: a case of South East Queensland, Australia. Aust. J.
Soc. Issues. 44, 345–362. doi: 10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00152.x
Collins, R., and Stanes, E. (2021). Ambivalent storage, multi-scalar
generosity, and challenges of/for everyday consumption. Soc. Cult. Geogr.
1–20. doi: 10.1080/14649365.2021.1975166
Cooper, T. (2005). Slower consumption reflections on product life spans and the
“throwaway society”. J. Ind. Ecol. 9, 51–67. doi: 10.1162/1088198054084671
Cwerner, S. B., and Metcalfe, A. (2003). Storage and clutter: discourses
and practices of order in the domestic world. J. Des. Hist. 16, 229–239.
doi: 10.1093/jdh/16.3.229
Dion, D., Sabri, O., and Guillard, V. (2014). Home sweet messy home: Managing
symbolic pollution. J. Consum. Res. 41, 565–589. doi: 10.1086/676922
Eichler, M. (2008). Integrating carework and housework into household work:
A conceptual clarification. J. Motherhood Initiat. Res. Commun. Involv. 10,
9–19. Available online at: https://jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/
view/16326
Frontiers in Sustainability 16 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
Etzioni, A. (1998). Voluntary simplicity: characterization, select psychological
implications, and societal consequences. J. Econ. Psychol. 19, 619–643.
Etzioni, A. (1999). “Voluntary simplicity: characterization, select psychological
implications, and societal consequences,” in Essays in Socio-Economics (Berlin;
Heidelberg: Springer), 1–26. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-03900-7_1
Fischer, D., and Barth, M. (2014). Key competencies for and beyond sustainable
consumption an educational contribution to the debate. GAIA-Ecological
Perspectives for Science and Society. 23, 193–200. doi: 10.14512/gaia.23.S1.7
Fischer, D., Stanszus, L., Geiger, S., Grossman, P., and Schrader, U.
(2017). Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: A systematic literature
review of research approaches and findings. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 544–558.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.007
Frank, P., Sundermann, A., and Fischer, D. (2019). How mindfulness
training cultivates introspection and competence development for
sustainable consumption. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 20, 1002–1021.
doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-12-2018-0239
Gaver,B., Dunne, T., and Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural probes. Interactions.
6, 21–29. doi: 10.1145/291224.291235
Geiger, S. M., Fischer, D., and Schrader, U. (2018). Measuring what matters in
sustainable consumption: an integrative framework for the selection of relevant
behaviors. Sustain. Dev. 26, 18–33. doi: 10.1002/sd.1688
Geiger, S. M., Fischer, D., Schrader, U., and Grossman, P. (2020). Meditating for
the planet: Effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on sustainable consumption
behaviors. Environ. Behav. 52, 1012–1042. doi: 10.1177/0013916519880897
Glucksmann, M. (2016). Completing and complementing: the
work of consumers in the division of labour. Sociology. 50, 878–895.
doi: 10.1177/0038038516649553
Godfrey, C. M., Harrison, M. B., Lysaght, R., Lamb, M., Graham, I. D., and
Oakley, P. (2010). The experience of self-care: a systematic review. JBI Libr. Syst.
Rev. 8, 1351–1460. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2010-168
Godin, L., and Langlois, J. (2021). Care, gender, and change in the study of
sustainable consumption: a critical review of the literature. Front. Sustain. 2,
725753. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2021.725753
Gossen, M., Ziesemer, F., and Schrader, U. (2019). Why and how commercial
marketing should promote sufficient consumption: a systematic literature review.
J. Macromarketing. 39, 252–269. doi: 10.1177/0276146719866238
Grigsby, M. (2012). Buying Time and Getting By: The Voluntary Simplicity
Movement. New York, NY: Suny Press.
Haklay, M. M., Dörler, D., Heigl, F., Manzoni, M., Hecker, S., and Vohland, K.
(2021). What is citizen science? The challenges of definition. The Science of Citizen
Science. 13. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_2
Hanss, D., and Böhm, G. (2010). Can I make a difference? The role of general and
domain-specific self-efficacy in sustainable consumption decisions. Explaining
sustainable consumption. Findings from cross-sectional and intervention
approaches. Umweltpsychologie. 14, 46–74. Available online at: https://hdl.handle.
net/1956/6238
Hielscher, S., and Jaeger-Erben, M. (2021). From quick fixes to repair
projects: Insights from a citizen science project. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123875.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123875
Hook, J. N., Hodge, A. S., Zhang, H., van Tongeren, D. R., and
Davis, D. E. (2021). Minimalism, voluntary simplicity, and well-being:
a systematic review of the empirical literature. J. Posit. Psychol. 1−12.
doi: 10.1080/17439760.2021.1991450
Jenny, A. (2016). Die Entwicklung eines Masses zur Suffizienz: das
subjektiv genügende Mass (SGM). Zurich, Switzerland: University of
Zurich.
Kang, J., Martinez, C. M. J., and Johnson, C. (2021). Minimalism as
a sustainable lifestyle: Its behavioral representations and contributions to
emotional well-being. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27, 802–813. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.
02.001
Keith Bryant, W., Kang, H., Zick, C. D., and Chan, A. Y. (2004).
Measuring housework in time use surveys. Rev. Econ. Househ. 2, 23–47.
doi: 10.1023/B:REHO.0000018021.36768.37
Khamis, S. (2019). The aestheticization of restraint: The popular appeal of
de-cluttering after the global financial crisis. J. Consum. Cult. 19, 513–531.
doi: 10.1177/1469540519872071
Kondo, M. (2014). The life-changing magic of tidying: The Japanese art. New
York: Random House.
Lee, H.-H. (2017). “In pursuit of happiness: Phenomenological study of the
KonMari decluttering method,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 45,
eds A. Gneezy, V. Griskevicius, and P.Williams (Duluth, MN: Association for
Consumer Research), 454–457. Available online at: https://www.acrwebsite.org/
volumes/1024935/volumes/v45/NA-45
Lee, M. (2017). Decoding the neoliberal subjectivity in self-helping adult
learners. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 36, 145–163. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2017.12
72917
Ludwigsen, K. (2019). Marie Kondo and the New Self-Help. Book Publishing Final
Research Paper, 45.
Madsen, D. (2021). Declutter your home in 15 minutes a day: a workbook
guiding you through each room in your house. Available online at: https://irp.cdn-
website.com/c1ccf6b8/files/uploaded/Preview-Declutter-Your-Home-Workbook.
pdf (accessed June 15, 2022).
Mayring, P. (2019). Qualitative content analysis: Demarcation, varieties,
developments. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 20. doi: 10.17169/fqs-20.3.3343
Meissner, M. (2019). Against accumulation: lifestyle minimalism, de-
growth and the present post-ecological condition. J. Cult. Econ. 12, 185–200.
doi: 10.1080/17530350.2019.1570962
Moreno-Colom, S. (2017). The gendered division of housework time: analysis
of time use by type and daily frequency of household tasks. Time Soc. 26, 3–27.
doi: 10.1177/0961463X15577269
Morgan, B. (2017). The 10/10 Decluttering exercise will make you rethink your
attachment to stuff. Available online at: https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/the-
10-10- decluttering-exercise-will-make-you-rethink-your-attachment-to- stuff-
248824 (accessed May 20, 2022).
Newell, S. (2018). Uncontained accumulation: hidden heterotopias of storage
and spillage. Hist. Anthropol. 29, 37–41. doi: 10.1080/02757206.2017.1397647
Ouellette, L. (2019). Spark joy? compulsory happiness and the feminist politics
of decluttering. Cult. Unbound. 11, 534–550. doi: 10.3384/cu.2000.1525.191108
Paech, N. (2012). Liberation From Excess. The Road to a Post-Growth Economy.
München: Oekom.
Rebouças, R., and Soares, A. M. (2021). Voluntary simplicity: a literature review
and research agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 45, 303–319. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12621
Rosa, H. (2003). Social acceleration: ethical and political consequences
of a desynchronized high–speed society. Constellations. 10, 3–33.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8675.00309
Roster, C. A. (2001). Letting Go: The Process and Meaning of Dispossession in the
Lives of Consumers. ACR North American Advances.
Roster, C. A., Ferrari, J. R., and Jurkat, M. P. (2016). The dark side of home:
assessing possession ‘clutter’on subjective well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 46, 32–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.03.003
Schneidewind, U., and Zahrnt, A. (2014). The Politics of Sufficiency: Making It
Easier to Live the Good Life. München: Oekom.
Schor, J. (2008). The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure.
New York, NY: Basic books.
Stanszus, L., Fischer, D., Böhme, T., Frank, P., Fritzsche, J.,
Geiger, S., et al. (2017). Education for sustainable consumption
through mindfulness training: development of a consumption-specific
intervention. J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 19, 5–21. doi: 10.1515/jtes-2017-
0001
Statista. (2021). “Umfrage in Deutschland zu wichtigen Lebensaspekten, Zielen
und Werten bis 2021 (in English: Survey in Germany on important aspects of
life, goals and values until 2021).” Available online at: https://de.statista.com/
statistik/daten/studie/170820/umfrage/als-besonders-wichtig-erachtete-aspekte-
im-leben/ (accessed June 15, 2022).
Swanson, H. L., and Ferrari, J. R. (2022). Older adults and clutter: age differences
in clutter impact, psychological home, and subjective well-being. Behav. Sci. 12,
132. doi: 10.3390/bs12050132
Sweet, J. A. (1988). The Design and Content of the National Survey of Families
and Households. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center for Demography
and Ecology.
Tan, P. (2000). Leaving The Rat Race to Get a Life: A Study of
Midlife Career Downshifting. Melbourne, VIC: Swinburne University of
Technology Melbourne.
Thébaud, S., Kornrich, S., and Ruppanner, L. (2021). Good
housekeeping, great expectations: gender and housework norms.
Sociol. Methods Res. 50, 1186–1214. doi: 10.1177/00491241198
52395
UBA [German Federal Environment Agency]. (2010). Sustainable Construction
and Housing - A Needs Based Approach for the future, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.
Available online at: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/
publikation/long/3953.pdf (accessed June 15, 2022).
Frontiers in Sustainability 17 frontiersin.org
Muster et al. 10.3389/frsus.2022.958538
Vladimirova, K. (2021). Consumption corridors in fashion: deliberations
on upper consumption limits in minimalist fashion challenges.
Sustain.: Sci. Pract. Policy. 17, 102–116. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2021.
1891673
Wheeler, K., and Glucksmann, M. (2016). Household Recycling and
Consumption Work: Social and Moral Economies. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.
doi: 10.1057/9781137440440
WHO [World Health Organization] (2018). What Do We Mean By Self-Care?.
World Health Organization. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/
feature-stories/detail/what- do-we-mean-by-self-care (accessed June 15, 2022).
YouGov. (2015). Was sich die Menschen vom Leben wünschen
(in English: What people want from life). Available online
at: https://yougov.de/news/2015/12/25/was-sich-die-menschen-vom-leben-wunschen-
liebe-im-/ (accessed June 15, 2022).
Frontiers in Sustainability 18 frontiersin.org
