Heavy crisis, new perspectives? Investigating the role of consumption, time wealth and meaning construction during countrywide Covid-19 lockdown in Germany

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly changed the way we live and consume. One open question is whether the crisis provides an opportunity to increase alternatives to materialistic consumption. We characterize these alternatives as sustainable leisure behaviour.

Our study aimed to analyse: (i) Changes in behaviour frequency of consumption and sustainable leisure before and during lockdown. (ii) How potential changes in behaviours are appraised and if there are intentions to keep changed behaviour. (iii) Influence of Time Wealth (an alternative model of affluence that potentially promotes low consumption life styles) and Life Reflection (fundamental reflection processes stimulated by the Covid-19 crisis) on consumption and sustainable leisure behaviour during lockdown. We collected data from 947 participants in Germany, using an online survey. Participants reported behaviour frequencies of consumption and sustainable leisure before and during lockdown. Furthermore, participants evaluated potential behaviour changes and rated statements regarding their future intentions. Main findings: (i) Pairwise t-tests revealed reduced consumption behaviour in Electronics and Clothes. All sustainable leisure behaviours increased during lockdown. (ii) Increases in sustainable behaviour received positive evaluation and were intended to extend into the future. Consumption behaviour results were mixed. (iii) In multiple regression analysis, Time Wealth and Life Reflection were positively related to most sustainable leisure behaviour. Sustainable leisure behaviour correlated positively with Life Satisfaction and Presence of Meaning. We discuss future research ideas regarding the promotion of sustainable wellbeing in a post COVID society.

Graphical abstract

1. Introduction

The Covid-19 crisis has turned the world upside-down. To prevent the collapse of health care systems drastic lockdown regulations were imposed by the German government. The measurements taken included social distancing, closing down shops and businesses and introducing stay-at-home regulations for work and private-life sphere. Thus, the crisis is a huge changemaker for individual lifestyles. Yet, it remains unclear what potential positive and negative impact the crisis has for adopting environmentally friendly behaviour. The goal of the current study is to investigate changes of consumption behaviour and behaviour that poses an alternative to buying and consuming products, which we call sustainable leisure behaviour. Furthermore, we examined Time Wealth and Life Reflection as relevant factors connected to behaviour alternative to consumption.

Reese et al. (2020) presented research questions connecting the Covid-19 crisis to pro-environmental behaviour, wellbeing and potential influencing factors. Overall, the question stands out as to whether the Covid-19 crisis “can be helpful for understanding and even supporting a social-ecological transformation” (Reese et al., 2020, p. 2). Life interventions created by Covid-19 might provide opportunities to change habits towards more sustainable behaviours (DeAngelis, 2020; Reese et al., 2020; Whitmarsh et al., 2021). From our point of view this connects to the broader question of how less resource intensive lifestyles can create wellbeing (Hunecke, 2018; Kasser, 2017; Raymond & Raymond, 2019).

1.1. Environmental impact of consumerism

The consumption of products, clothes and services are amongst the main drivers for climate pollution and resource consumption in industrialised countries such as Germany (Ivanova et al., 2016). Increasing wealth and mass advertising shifted consumption motives from satisfying human necessities towards social status, distinctiveness and luxury (Jackson, 2009, pp. 98–102; Kasser, 2016). The production of clothes and manufactured products are amongst the main drives for growing resource demands including GHG emissions (Wood et al., 2018). One reason might be the increased consumption of electronics, clothes and household items such as furniture (Steen-Olsen et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2018). In a consumerist culture such as Germany, the average German lifestyle requires resources for three planets (Global Footprint Network, 2021), although consumption might be unevenly distributed (Gore, 2020). Consequently, one key factor for solving the climate crisis is to enable and encourage alternative ways of as well as alternatives to material consumption.

1.2. Change in consumption and leisure through Covid-19 lockdown

Lockdown measurements altered ways of consumption through social distancing and the shutdown of shops and firms. Even though online shopping options were still available, consumption levels decreased worldwide (Jo et al., 2021). In Germany, social welfare policies were imposed by to prevent the risk of unemployment (Christ et al., 2021; COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring [COSMO], 2021). In turn, lowered consumption levels might indicate that people spent time committing to alternative leisure activities. In our present study, we therefore focused on behaviour that can be associated with sustainable leisure (Bedfort et al., 2011). Ropke and Godskesen (2007) characterized sustainable leisure as requiring low levels of resources, being time consuming, close to home, using shared facilities and focusing on one thing at a time. Corley et al. (2021) for example showed that garden use increased during Covid-19 and is connected to better health amongst older adults. Furthermore, activities linked to spending time outdoors (Lemmey, 2020) and sustainable food consumption (Borsellino et al., 2020; Whitmarsch et al., 2020) increased.

1.3. Time wealth

One influencing factor regarding the emergence of sustainable leisure behaviour during the pandemic might be the amount of time people feel to have on hand. This subjective feeling can be conceptualized as personal Time Wealth (Reisch, 2001) or Time Affluence (Kasser & Sheldon, 2009). The main indicator for feeling “affluent of time” is the amount of time that is perceived to be free from obligatory tasks (Goodin et al., 2005; Kasser & Sheldon, 2009; Von Jorck et al., 2019). Von Jorck et al. (2019) furthermore suggest tempo, plannability, synchronisation, sovereignty as relevant indicators of Time Wealth. For a socially beneficial sustainability transformation, having time might represent an alternative model of wealth instead of exclusively focusing on material growth (Kasser & Sheldon, 2009; Reisch, 2001). Increasing Time Wealth e.g. through reducing working time is therefore argued to have a triple dividend namely providing “sustainability, social equity and enhanced life satisfaction” (Buhl & Acosta, 2016, p.1). Time Wealth might enable more sustainable lifestyles since experiencing lack of time is reported as a major barrier for sustainable behaviour (Kasser, 2009; Speck & Hasselkuss, 2015; Young et al., 2010). Chai et al. (2015) could show that people who enjoyed more free time could address the value-action gap concerning environmental behaviour more successfully. However, it is uncertain if Time Wealth promotes more sustainable lifestyles per se. Other studies found that higher levels of Time Wealth were not necessarily associated with lower resource consumption (Buhl & Acosta, 2016), but with higher wellbeing and social engagement (Buhl & Acosta, 2016; Kasser & Sheldon, 2009). Therefore, investigating the role of Time Wealth regarding the adoption of sustainable leisure behaviour during the Covid-19 lockdown might provide further insights concerning the relationship between Time Wealth and sustainable behaviour.

1.4. Meaning, crisis and reflection

“In times of crisis, people reach for Meaning. Meaning is strength. Our survival may depend on our seeking and finding it.” This quote associated to existential psychologist Viktor Frankl as cited in Schaffner (2020) might be applicable to the climate crisis as well as the current Covid-19 crisis. As Schnell (2021) illustrates “What was long taken for granted is now called into question by reality: The primacy of growth and progress is crumbling in the face of a pandemic, economic crisis, climate change and widening income gaps.” (p. 238). Research has identified two fundamental meaning processes. Seeking meaning (search) and having meaning (presence) (Steger et al., 2006). People actively search for meaning when existing meaning assumptions are challenged (Park, 2010). Although searching for meaning can be accompanied by negative emotions it holds potential for the adaption needed for solving a crisis (Schnell, 2021, pp. 105–106). In the context of climate crisis, the active construction of meaning might be an important psychological resource for developing sustainable lifestyles (Hunecke, 2018; Hunecke & Richter, 2019). Meaning Construction describes the conscious reflection about experiences made by making efforts to integrate those experiences into personal meaning systems (Delle Fave, 2020; Park, 2010). However, such deliberative and active reflection requires considerable resources. In daily life, decisions are mostly guided by habitual thinking and acting (Kahneman, 2003). Covid-19 as a major life incident has disrupted daily habits and created circumstances where some people might reflect more profoundly on their values and choices. Thus, we tested whether reflections stimulated by Covid-19 are connected to a less resource intensive lifestyle.

1.5. Consumerism and individual wellbeing

Following philosophical traditions, psychological research generally distinguishes between hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing (Aristotele, 2001; Heintzelman, 2018). Hedonic wellbeing might be conceptualised as “pleasure” in form of maximising positive affect, while minimising negative affect (Kahneman et al., 1999). With his concept of subjective wellbeing, Diener (1985) additionally proposed a cognitive component of hedonic wellbeing in the form of satisfaction with one's life as a whole. Eudaimonic approaches describe wellbeing as living according to self-determined values and goals (Ryan et al., 2008) and experiencing meaning (Heintzelman, 2018). Although findings suggest that consuming new products may give a hedonic boost (Babin et al., 1994), valuing material wealth and status through consumption is associated negatively with individual wellbeing (Kasser, 2016). Acting more sustainable on the other hand has the potential to increase eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing (Venhoeven et al., 2013), especially if it is autonomous and valued intrinsically (Brown & Kasser, 2005; Kasser, 2017; Venhoeven et al., 2017). Therefore, sustainable leisure behaviour may be positively related to individual wellbeing.

1.6. The present study

Based on the reviewed literature, the focus of the present study lies on the following research questions:

[RQ 1] Firstly, we investigated whether Covid-19 measurements have changed consumption behaviour as well as behaviour of sustainable leisure. Thus, we tested whether Covid-19 measurements led to a decrease in consumption behaviour frequency [RQ 1a] and if Covid-19 measurements led to an increase in sustainable leisure behaviour frequency [RQ 1b].

[RQ 2] How were potential changes in consumption and sustainable leisure behaviour evaluated? In order to explore this question, we analysed if increasing sustainable leisure behaviours [RQ 2a] and decreasing consumption behaviours [RQ 2b] were associated with positive evaluations of behaviour.

[RQ 3] Furthermore, we investigated whether there are intentions to continue potential behaviour-specific changes. Specifically, we tested whether increasing sustainable leisure behaviour [RQ 3a] and decreasing consumption behaviour [RQ 3b] could be linked to higher intentions to keep behaviour change in the future.

[RQ 4] We investigated the role of Time Wealth for less resource-intensive lifestyles during Covid-19. We tested if Time Wealth during Covid-19 lockdown was connected to higher levels of sustainable leisure behaviour [RQ4a] and lower levels of consumption behaviour [RQ4b].

[RQ 5] In a similar way we tested if Meaning Construction in the form of Life Reflection during lockdown was linked to a stronger commitment in sustainable leisure behaviour [RQ 5a] and lower levels of consumption behaviour [RQ 5b].

[EXPLORATORY ANALYSES] In an exploratory analysis we checked whether sustainable leisure behaviours were connected to indicators of wellbeing during Covid-19 lockdown. This might hold implications for future research on how sustainable lifestyles and individual wellbeing can be reconciliated.

2. Method

2.1. Procedure

Using SoSci Survey (https://www.soscisurvey.de), the cross-sectional survey was carried out in Germany from April 21 to May 10, 2020 during the national lockdown, which was imposed on March, 23. On average participants experienced 36 days (range: 29–48) of lockdown regulations which were gradually lifted by May. We used a convenience sampling with no compensation for study participation. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. In the first section we assessed life circumstances related to Covid-19 together with questions assessing individual wellbeing, Time Wealth, Meaning Construction and Personal Ecological Norm. In a next step, a list of behaviour descriptions was presented. The participants were instructed to indicate (t1) how often they used to perform the behaviour prior to the lockdown (t2) how often they perform the behaviour since the lockdown regulations were imposed. Furthermore, participants were asked how they evaluate the behaviour change and whether they intend to keep the behaviour change in the future. These items were shown only if participants rated different behaviour frequencies on t1 and t2. In a last section we assessed sociodemographic data.

2.2. Sample

In order to determine the necessary sample size for our multiple regression analysis we performed a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.4 (Faul et al., 2007) based on alpha = 0.05 and power = 0.80 including 7 predictor variables. We estimated small effect sizes of f² = 0.02. Estimations revealed a sample size needed of N = 485 or higher.

We collected data from 947 participants. In total we excluded N = 27 participants from the analyses. Seven participants were excluded due to a too fast completion of the questionnaire (< 5 minutes). Additionally, two participants were excluded using quality indicators provided by SoSci Survey software for extremely fast completion (Leiner, 2019; SoSci Survey, 2020). One participant was excluded due to age being younger than 16. Due to the increasing lift of lockdown restrictions, we stopped data collection after the 10th of May and excluded subjects who completed the questionnaire after this date (N = 17). Overall, N = 920 participants were thus included in the analysis. N = 652 identified themselves as female, N = 246 indicated their gender as male and N = 7 were diverse. Because of the small group of diverse participants, they were excluded from analysis using gender as a variable. The average age was M _age= 38.25 (SD = 14.37). Most of the participants reported holding a (bachelor's or master's) university degree (57.4%), 33.6% had a higher level of secondary education, 8.7% had a general level of secondary education and 0.3% had no certificate of secondary education (so far). Average income level was between 2501–3000 Euro. An overview of missing data is in the Appendix A.

2.3. Study material

The next section describes the operationalisation of the variables included in the analysis. The survey also assessed other variables that are not part of the present investigation: Policy acceptance, mobility behaviour, social environment perception, social diffusion, Covid-19 stress, one-item satisfaction with life scale and perceived solidarity.

2.3.1. Sociodemographics

For sociodemographics we assessed age, gender, education, relationship status, profession and income. Furthermore, we asked for county, postal code and living conditions that might influence the appraisal of the lockdown situation. This included household size, access to private outside areas, childcare during Covid-19 and workplace changes (home office, short-time work). Participants also had the chance to write about their feelings and thoughts concerning the onset of the Covid-19 wave.

2.3.2. Time wealth

For assessing Time Wealth we orientated towards the Time Affluence scale used by Kasser and Sheldon (2009). The scale focuses mainly on subjective feelings of tempo (“my life is too rushed”) and the amount of free time (“I have enough time to do the things that are important to me”). Building on recent advancements in measuring Time Wealth (Von Jorck et al., 2019), we furthermore added the facet sovereignty (“I can use my time self-determined”). Mostly due to limited space in the questionnaire, we did not include more items measuring plannability and synchronisation. Additionally, the synchronisation of daily appointments would have been difficult to assess under lockdown conditions since daily routines were fundamentally disrupted. All items were measured on a scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). To analyse the factorial structure of time wealth, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). A bifactor model with the three dimensions tempo, sovereignty, free time and a general factor yielded the best fit after excluding one item of the tempo dimension, which was not significantly related to the tempo factor and showed a negative variance (CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.040, SRMR = 0.012). A s – 1 model with free-time as a common factor as suggested by Geiger et al., (2021) showed a poorer fit after excluding one item for the reasons described above (CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.102, SRMR = 0.029). Based on these findings we decided for the best fitting model and computed the mean of time wealth following the symmetrical bifactor model. The detailed path weights can be found in the online supplementary materials. The final 8-item scale had an internal consistency of ω = 0.94 (McDonald's omega) and α = 0.91.

2.3.4. Life reflection

To investigate the role of Meaning Construction in the context of Covid-19 and alternative consumption behaviour, we used the Life Reflection scale by Lüders et al. (2021). The scale measures fundamental reflection processes stimulated by events or objects. We framed the questions explicitly with regard to the Covid-19 crisis. Item examples are “the coronavirus and its consequences make me think about what sort of person I want to be” or “the coronavirus and its consequences encourage me to think about in which world I want to live in”. Internal consistency was at α = 0.91 (ω = 0.91). Items were measured on a scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

2.3.5. Consumption behaviour

To measure consumption behaviour, we used single items asking purchasing behaviour of Electronics (“purchase of electronic devices”), Clothes (“purchase of clothes”) and House & Garden (“purchase of Items for House & Garden”). We chose these types of behaviour because they have a high environmental impact (see Section 1.1), but are performed quite regularly by people regardless of their socio-economic status. Furthermore, these behaviours were still possible to be executed under lockdown regulation e.g. via online shopping. We also included Streaming (“streaming media services”) as it also has a significant environmental impact (Shehabi et al., 2014) and might be highly relevant during the lockdown phase. Participants were asked to indicate behaviour frequency before lockdown measures and during lockdown measures separately on a scale from 1 (“rarely/not at all”) to 5 (“very often/always”).

2.3.6. Sustainable leisure behaviour

To assess sustainable leisure behaviour, we asked for the frequency of Outdoor Activities (“outdoor activities [excursion, walks, sports]”), Crafting Activities (“crafting activities in the house, flat or garden [repairing, renewing, maintaining]”), Creative Activities (“creative activities [sewing, building, painting, making music]”) as well as Food Preparation (“food preparation [cooking, baking]”) using single items. We chose these behaviours because they were not inferred strongly by lockdown regulations and can be at the same time defined as sustainable leisure behaviour (Ropke & Godskesen, 2007). Because social contact restrictions were part of the lockdown measures, we did not include behaviours that make use of shared facilities. Again, participants were asked to indicate their behaviour frequency before and during lockdown on a scale from 1 (“rarely/not at all”) to 5 (“very often/always”).

2.3.7. Evaluation of behaviour change

As described in Section 1.5, one aim was to measure how participants evaluated potential behaviour changes in consumption and sustainable leisure. Thus, if measured behaviour frequency during lockdown differed from behaviour frequencies before lockdown, we asked subjects to evaluate these behaviour changes on a scale from 1 (“very negative”) to 5 (“very positive”).

2.3.8. Future intentions of behaviour change

To assess intentions to maintain behaviour frequencies that changed during Covid-19 lockdown we asked participants to rate the statement “I intend to keep my behaviour changes for the future” on a scale from 1 (“does not apply at all”) to 5 (“fully applies”) for each changed behaviour.

2.3.9. Personal norm

As personal ecological norms are an important predictor of pro-environmental behaviour (Bamberg & Möser, 2007), we included this variable as a control. The 4 items included statements such as “I feel responsible that I should contribute to climate protection through my choice of transport” and “To protect the environment I feel obliged to save energy at home”. Items were adapted from Hunecke et al. (2007) and measured on a scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Internal consistency was at α = 0.87 (ω = 0.87).

2.3.10. Life satisfaction

We also included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) to assess current life satisfaction. When necessary, we adapted the items to the current pandemic situation (e.g. “The current situation does not hinder me from getting the import things I want in life”). Internal consistency was α = 0.79 (ω = 0.79), scale anchors ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

2.3.11. Presence of meaning

To measure Presence of Meaning, we used the presence subscale of the Meaning Life Questionnaire by Steger et al. (2006). The MLQ assesses the presence of Meaning using items such as “I have discovered a satisfying life purpose” and “I understand my life's meaning”. Cronbach's alpha was 0.90 (ω = 0.91). Items were assessed on a scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

3. Results

The next section provides statistical results for testing the proposed research questions. In order to mitigate alpha error accumulation, we tested our assumptions against the p = .001 level of significance using two-tailed tests. Furthermore, our results were predominantly in the direction predicted by the proposed research questions making alpha error accumulation less likely.

3.1. Behaviour change [RQ1]

Fig. 1 shows changes in consumption behaviour before and after lockdown. Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant decrease in consumption behaviour for Clothes, t(919) = 23.17, p < .001, Bca 95% CI [0.72, 0.86], d = -0.88, and Electronics, t(919) = 10.46, p < .001, Bca 95% CI [0.20, 0.29], d = -0.31. In contrast Streaming behaviour increased significantly, t(919) = -14.74, p < .001, Bca 95% CI [-0.48, -0.37], d = 0.34. House & Garden consumption did not differ significantly, t(919) = 0.89, p < .376, Bca 95% CI [-0.04, 0.10], d = -0.002.

Fig. 1.

Behaviour frequencies of consumption behaviour before and during lockdown.

Frequency of sustainable leisure behaviour increased in all behaviour categories. Effect was the largest for Food Preparation, t(919) = -18.44, p < .001, Bca 95% CI [-0.65, -0.52], d = 0.55, as well as Crafting Activities, t(919) = -19.68, p < .001, Bca 95% CI [-0.69, -0.56], d = 0.55, followed by Creative Activities, t(919) = -11.32, p < .001, Bca 95% CI [-0.43, -0.31] d = 0.30, and Outdoor Activities, t(919) = -6.48, p < .001, Bca 95% CI [-0.37, -0.20], d = 0.26. Effects are illustrated in Fig. 2 .

Fig. 2.

Behaviour frequencies of sustainable leisure behaviour before and during lockdown.

3.2. Appraisal of behaviour change [RQ2; RQ3]

As described in Section 2.1, we asked participants with respect to behaviours, that changed in their frequency due to Covid-19, how they would evaluate these changes and whether they intended to keep this changed behaviour in the future. To be able to connect behaviour change with evaluation and behaviour intention we created difference scores between behaviour frequency during the pandemic (t2) and before the pandemic (t1). We performed Spearman's rho correlation analysis to test whether a stronger increase in behaviour frequency can be connected to higher evaluation and intention.

Table 1 depicts correlation analyses for consumption behaviour. Negative relationships between behaviour change and evaluation of change indicate that decreasing behaviour frequencies were evaluated positively. We observed this pattern for the consumption of Clothes, Electronics and Streaming although effects failed to reach significance on the 0.001 level. Positive relationships between behaviour change and evaluation of change indicate that increasing behaviour correlates with higher appraisal of change. House & Garden consumption revealed a small significant positive relationship indicating that increasing consumption was evaluated positively. For future behaviour intentions correlations were weak for all the tested behaviours and failed to cross the 0.001 significance level.

Table 1.

Correlation of behaviour Change, Evaluation and Future Intentions for consumption behaviours including descriptive statistics.

		N	M	SD	1	2	3
	1. BC	920	-0.79	1.04	–
Clothes	2. E	551	3.21	1.01	-0.09*	–
	3. FI	551	3.01	1.10	-0.04	.57⁎⁎⁎	–
	1. BC	920	-0.25	0.71	–
Electronics	2. E	295	3.14	.98	-0.16⁎⁎	–
	3. FI	295	3.06	1.21	-0.15*	.65⁎⁎⁎	–
	1. BC	920	-0.03	1.04	–
House & Garden	2. E	413	3.19	0.84	.17⁎⁎⁎	–
	3. FI	413	3.07	0.94	.02	.49⁎⁎⁎	–
	1. BC	920	0.43	0.88	–
Streaming	2. E	373	2.97	0.96	-0.16⁎⁎	–
	3. FI	373	2.87	1.11	-0.09	.58⁎⁎⁎	–

Table 2 depicts evaluation and future intention for sustainable leisure behaviour change. Spearman's correlation effects between behaviour change and evaluation were all positive and highly significant on the 0.001 significance level. Overall, this indicates that increasing sustainable leisure activity was evaluated positively. Correlations were strong for Outdoor Activities and small for Food Preparation, Crafting Activities and Creative Activities. Furthermore, Future intention was positively correlated with behaviour change, although effects were smaller. This means that the greater the increase in behaviour, the more participants intended to keep behaviour patterns.

Table 2.

Correlation of behaviour Change, Evaluation and Future Intentions for sustainable leisure behaviours including descriptive statistics.

		N	M	SD	1	2	3
	1. BC	920	0.59	0.96	–
Food Prep.	2. E	441	4.08	0.99	.19⁎⁎⁎	–
	3. FI	441	3.90	1.04	.14⁎⁎⁎	.68⁎⁎⁎	–
	1. BC	920	0.63	0.96	–
Crafting Act.	2. E	443	3.79	0.99	.27⁎⁎⁎	–
	3. FI	443	3.54	1.09	.24⁎⁎⁎	.65⁎⁎⁎	–
	1. BC	920	0.28	1.31	–
Outdoor Act.	2. E	584	4.00	1.25	.50⁎⁎⁎	–
	3. FI	584	3.92	1.30	.39⁎⁎⁎	.70⁎⁎⁎	–
	1. BC	920	0.37	0.99	–
Creative Act.	2. E	394	3.92	1.08	.30⁎⁎⁎	–
	3. FI	394	3.79	1.12	.27⁎⁎⁎	.67⁎⁎⁎	–

3.3. Testing connection of time wealth and life reflection on consumption behaviour and sustainable leisure behaviour [RQ 4; RQ 5]

To test relationships between Time Wealth, Life Reflection, consumption and sustainable leisure behaviour, we conducted hierarchical regressions. Consumption and sustainable leisure behaviour were included as dependant variables. We controlled for demographic variables (Gender, Education and Age). We also included t1 behaviour frequencies to control for the influence of pre-pandemic behaviour habits. In a next step we added the Personal Ecological Norm to control for the influence of eco-friendly mindsets.

Relations of Time Wealth and Life Reflection to sustainable leisure behaviour at Time 2 are depicted in Table 3 . Time Wealth showed a positive relationship with all four categories of sustainable leisure behaviour: Outdoor Activities, Crafting Activities, Creative Activities, and Food Preparation. Following Cohen (1992), beta weights indicating effect sizes were small (p _{Outdoor Activities} < 0.001, β_{Outdoor Activities} = 0.14; p _{Crafting Activities} < 0.001, β_{Crafting Activities} = 0.16; p _{Creative Activities} < 0.001, β_{Creative Activities} = 0.16) and negligible (p _{Food Preparation} = 0.002, β_{Food Preparation} = 0.08). Life Reflection showed a highly significant positive relationship with a small weight on Food Preparation (p _{Food Preparation} < 0.001, β_{Food Preparation} = 0.12). We found statistically significant effects of Life Reflection on Crafting and Creative Activities, but effect sizes were negligible (p _{Crafting Activities} = 0.001, β_{Crafting Activities} = 0.09; p _{Creative Activities} = 0.004, β_{Creative Activities} = 0.07).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regressions for Time Wealth and Life Reflection on sustainable leisure behaviour at Time 2, controlled for demographics and Personal Norm.

IV	DVs: Sustainable Leisure Behaviors, Time 2
	Outdoor Act.		Food Preparation		Crafting Act.		Creative Act.
	Β95% CI[LL; UL]	∆R2	Β95% CI[LL; UL]	∆R2	Β95% CI[LL; UL]	∆R2	Β95% CI[LL; UL]	∆R2
Step 1		.12⁎⁎⁎		39⁎⁎⁎		.41⁎⁎⁎		.48⁎⁎⁎
Behaviour t1	0.35⁎⁎⁎ [0.28; 0.43]		0.55⁎⁎⁎ [0.50; 0.60]		0.77⁎⁎⁎ [0.71; 0.84]		0.78⁎⁎⁎ [0.72; 0.83]
Gender	-0.23⁎⁎ [-0.40; -0.06]		-0.38⁎⁎⁎ [-0.51; -0.25]		-0.14 [-0.28; 0.01]		-0.32⁎⁎⁎ [-0.47; -0.18]
Age	-0.01⁎⁎⁎ [-0.02; -0.01]		-0.001 [-0.01; 0.03]		-0.002 [-0.01; 0.002]		-0.01⁎⁎⁎ [-0.01; -0.005]
Education	0.15⁎⁎ [0.05; 0.25]		0.13⁎⁎ [0.06; 0.21]		0.02 [-0.06; 0.11]		-0.03 [-0.11; 0.06]
Step 2		.01*		.01⁎⁎⁎		.004*		.01⁎⁎
Personal Norm	0.11⁎⁎ [0.02; 0.20]		0.12⁎⁎⁎ [0.05; 0.19]		0.09⁎⁎ [0.02; 0.17]		0.12⁎⁎ [0.04; 0.20]
Step 3		.02⁎⁎⁎		.02⁎⁎⁎		.04⁎⁎⁎		.03⁎⁎⁎
Life Reflection	0.20 [-0.06; 0.10]		0.13⁎⁎⁎ [0.08; 0.19]		0.11⁎⁎ [0.05; 0.18]		0.01⁎⁎ [0.03; 0.16]
Time Wealth	0.17⁎⁎⁎ [0.09; 0.24]		0.09* [0.03; 0.14]		0.21⁎⁎⁎ [0.14; 0.27]		0.22⁎⁎⁎ [0.16; 0.29]

Note. N = 875

∆R² = Change in R² compared to previous step,

*p<.05. ^⁎⁎p<.01. ^⁎⁎⁎p<.001

Gender: 0 = female; 1 = male

IV = Independent Variable; DV = dependant Variable

Concerning consumption behaviour, only House & Garden (p _{House & Garden} = 0.002, β_{House & Garden} = 0.09) and Streaming related to Time Wealth (p _Streaming < 0.001, β_Streaming = 0.09). Only Streaming was related to Life Reflection (p _Streaming < 0.001, β_Streaming = 0.08). All weights were negligible.

3.4. Exploratory analyses: sustainable leisure activities and indicators of wellbeing

To test whether sustainable leisure behaviour correlates with individual wellbeing during the pandemic, we conducted exploratory correlational analyses including consumption behaviour, sustainable leisure behaviour, Life Satisfaction and Presence of Meaning. We tested whether higher behaviour frequencies of sustainable leisure were connected to higher Presence of Meaning as well as higher Life Satisfaction.

We found highly significant correlations of Outdoor Activities, Food Preparation and Crafting Activities with Life Satisfaction (r _{sOutdoor Activities}(918) = 0.17, p _{Outdoor Activities} < 0.001; r _{sFood Preparation}(918) = 0.14, p _{Food preparation} < 0.001; r _{sCrafting Activities}(918) = 0.11, p _{Crafting Activities} < 0.001) and Presence of Meaning (r _{sOutdoor Activities} (917) = 0.12, p _{Outdoor Activities} < 0.001; r _{sFood Preparation} (917) = 0.16, p _{Food preparation} < 0.001; r _{sCrafting Activities} (917) = 0.14, p _{Crafting Activities} < 0.001). We found no highly significant correlations of Consumption behaviour with wellbeing measures except for the purchase of items for House & Garden being correlated with Life Satisfaction, r _s(918) = 0.13, p _{House & Garden} < 0.001.

4. Discussion

4.1. Discussion of findings

4.1.1. Changes in consumption behaviour and sustainable leisure during lockdown [RQ 1]

Even though clothes and electronic devices were available during the lockdown via online shopping, consumption decreased. Consumption of Items for house and garden however remained at the same level. The higher frequency of streaming is consistent with previous studies that found strongly increased streaming hours (Bloomberg, 2020) as well as increased mediated communication (Brown & Greenfield, 2021). All sustainable leisure behaviour investigated increased, suggesting a change towards more time consuming, but less material intensive activities during lockdown. Data from first lockdown in England reporting a rise in “low carbon recreation” points in a similar direction (Whitmarsch et al., 2020). Using big data analysis, Evers et al. (2021) revealed an increased prevalence of food preparation, making and repairing clothes, growing vegetables as well as maintenance activities in the house. These findings were replicated empirically in two large American samples during stay-at-home orders in May 2020 (Greenfield et al., 2021).

4.1.2. Evaluation of changes in consumption and sustainable leisure [RQ 2]

With regards to consumption of Streaming, Clothes, and Electronics, the correlation of decreasing frequencies with positive appraisals was weak and failed to reach the aspired level of high significance, except for House & Garden consumption showing a positive appraisal of increased consumption. On the other hand, the participants did not seem to perceive the experienced decrease of consumption during the lockdown negatively. The positive evaluation of the change towards more sustainable leisure activities suggests an approval of performing less material consuming activities. Taken together, these findings indicate the increased importance of sustainable leisure compared to consumption behaviour during the lockdown.

4.1.3. Intentions to sustain the increase of sustainable leisure behaviour and the decrease of consumption behaviour [RQ 3]

We observed no clear intention to sustain the change of consumption levels. As intention is an important predictor of behaviour (Bamberg & Möser, 2007), this result points out, that participants may not maintain buying less clothes as well as spending more time streaming. In contrast, all changes towards sustainable leisure behaviour were correlated with a future intention to sustain the change. This points out again, that people not only appraise the changes positively, but also plan to maintain the higher frequency of sustainable leisure behaviour in the future. Similarly, Whitmarsch et al. (2020) found that 19% of the survey respondents reported that they intend to continue recreational activities when Covid-19 restrictions are lifted.

4.1.4. Time wealth as a predictor for sustainable leisure behaviour and consumption behaviour [RQ 4]

Previous studies suggested Time Wealth as an important factor both enabling wellbeing and low consumption lifestyles (Kasser, 2009; Kasser & Brown, 2003). Our results indicate that during Covid-19 lockdown, Time Wealth is relevant for sustainable leisure, while it is not for the consumption of material goods. Even though consumption levels of electronics and clothes decreased significantly, lower levels were not associated with higher Time Wealth. This might indicate that other factors may be responsible for variance such as variables determining the willingness to shop online (Haridasan & Fernando, 2018) or the general mood for consumption (Jung et al., 2021). Streaming was correlated positively with Time Wealth. In combination with the stay-at-home policy and more free time, this connection seems plausible and may be an expression of the increased digitalisation of life spheres through the pandemic (Brown & Greenfield, 2021; Echegaray, 2021). The positive connection between Time Wealth and sustainable leisure behaviour indicates that participants who feel time affluent spent their time more often with sustainable leisure behaviour. With the changed circumstances in the lockdown, the barrier of a lack of time for some sustainable behaviour may have been temporarily reduced. Studies have shown that home office and the absence of a daily work commute during lockdown was associated with greater time wealth (Gerold & Geiger, 2020) and better work-life balance (Ipsen et al., 2021). Therefore, time-intensive activities might be easier to integrate into daily life. Gerold and Geiger (2020) reported that people mainly used increased Time Wealth during Covid-19 for resting, care work, household maintenance and leisure while collectively organised sustainability behaviour decreased. This underlines the role of Time Wealth as an enabler of sustainable behaviour when this behaviour is motivated and free from environmental constraints (Geiger et al., 2021).

4.1.5. Meaning reflection as predictor for sustainable leisure behaviour and consumption behaviour [RQ 5]

Small positive relationships between Life Reflection and sustainable leisure activities indicate that people who reflected more on their meaning in life due to the Covid-19 crisis, decided to spend their time more often with low-resource consuming activities. However, effects were only highly significant for Food Production and the explained variance was small. One possible reason is that Life Reflection triggered by the current crisis might not always result in behaviour related to sustainability. Hunecke (2013) for example points out that meaning construction might not necessarily lead to goals related to sustainability because it is an open process. However, other findings indicate that aspirations to acquire a life of luxury were dampened through the Covid-19 crisis while collectivistic and frugal values increased (Evers et al., 2021; Greenfield et al., 2021). Regarding consumption behaviour we found no connection between Life Reflection caused by the pandemic crisis and the consumption of Clothes, House & Garden and Electronics. The positive correlation of meaning reflection and Streaming might be explained through streamed media content. Streaming broadcast services for example could have led to an enhanced reflection concerning the current pandemic situation. We think that more research is needed to further investigate which lifestyle pathways emerge from the disrupting experiences of the Covid-19 lockdown. These pathways could range from increased frugality to new forms of materialism (Echegaray, 2021).

4.1.6. Exploratory analysis: relationships between wellbeing and sustainable leisure activities during lockdown

Recent studies focused on mechanisms linking sustainable behaviour to wellbeing (Kasser, 2017; Raymond & Raymond, 2019). In our data, consumption behaviour did not or negatively relate to wellbeing measures except for purchasing Items for House & Garden. This effect could be connected to the substantial correlation with Crafting Activities (see Section 3.4). Consumption during lockdown (e.g. buying building material) that enables meaningful activity (maintenance work in the house) may lead to enhanced wellbeing, although further research would be needed to clarify this connection. The results also revealed small relationships between sustainable leisure behaviour and wellbeing during the lockdown. Data from a large English panel study found similar connections, indicating positive associations of outdoor, crafting and creative leisure behaviour with mental wellbeing (Bu et al., 2020). One possibility is that this behaviour is compatible with living according to intrinsically orientated values (Brown & Kasser, 2005; Kasser, 2017). Furthermore sustainable leisure behaviour might go along with flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992), which offers a way to increase wellbeing with low-environmental impact activities (Isham et al., 2019).

4.2. Limitations

Several limitations should be noted regarding our measurement design. Although we investigated behavioural changes between two time points, the data was cross-sectional and therefore no causal conclusions can be drawn. Furthermore, behaviour frequencies prior to the pandemic were reported in hindsight which increases the probability of inaccurate behaviour assessments. We also assessed behaviour using single item measurement which has limitations regarding its psychometric properties (Churchill, 1979). Concerning the assessment of Time Wealth it should be noted that both tested models showed a negative item variance which could indicate measurement problems (Eid et al., 2017). One reason might be because different items and fewer facets were included compared to Geiger et al. (2021).

Another limitation is the use of a convenience sample, which, on average was highly educated and showed a high ecological awareness. Thus, a generalisation of the study results might be restricted, although other study findings point in a similar direction (Bu et al., 2020; Evers et al., 2021; Greenfield et al., 2021). Furthermore, it is important to note that the investigated sustainable leisure behaviour is susceptible to environmental rebound effects. In general, the market economy has the tendency to commodify intrinsic rewarding activities leading to “escalating leisure” through materialism, social comparison and hyper-mobility (Bedfort et al., 2011).

4.3. Future directions

In our data we found no clear evidence that reduced consumption behaviour impairs wellbeing. However, a great challenge is the maintenance of motivation for individuals to reduce consumption on the long-term, especially because there is currently a strong tendency to shift consumption to e-commerce (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2021). Hodbod et al. (2021) showed that consumption preferences remained changed also after lockdown restrictions were lifted. In their study, lacking motivation to consume (“not missing it”) was the second most powerful driver for reduced consumption while socio-economic status seemed less relevant. Building on this trend, ways of consuming and living should be developed which create wellbeing while staying within global resource capacities. In this respect the shift toward sustainable leisure activities seems promising. This crisis revealed that many people preferred to spend more time outdoors, preferred preparing meals at home, performed more crafting activities and engaged in creative activities more often. Sustainable leisure should also be further investigated as a strategy to support resilience during the Covid-19 crisis (Bu et al., 2020; Corley et al., 2021) and may be an important factor to respond to the climate crisis as well. A continued investigation is needed to examine what types of changed lifestyles emerge from the Covid-19 crisis (Echegaray, 2021). Our study findings suggest promoting Time Wealth might be a starting point. As the feeling of having enough time is an important precondition for self-determined behaviour (Kasser & Sheldon, 2009), a common problem is the observed and actual higher tempo in daily life due to increased time pressure (Garhammer, 2002) that leaves no room for time intensive activities connected to sustainable leisure. Future studies could explore how sustainability behaviour can be supported by measurements to enhance time sovereignty such as the possibility to work in home office (Ipsen et al., 2021) and by reducing working hours (Kasser, 2017; Nässén & Larsson, 2015). Future studies should also provide a more detailed investigation of how meaning construction processes relate to different sources of meaning such as materialistic or social orientated values (Hunecke, 2018; Kasser, 2016) in order to enhance explanatory value of the construct. In this way new insights can be created on how "inner transformation“ can support the necessary social-ecological transformation to come (Woiwode et al., 2021, p.1).

4.4. Conclusion

The future challenges of climate and environmental change call for a reduction of consumption and for alternatives to consumerism. Low material-consuming sustainable leisure activities have the potential to increase wellbeing while decreasing negative ecological consequences and therefore constitute one step on the way to realise a “double dividend in sustainable consumption” (Jackson, 2005, p. 1). The present study offers several insights concerning consumer behaviour, sustainable leisure behaviour, Time Wealth and meaning construction. Regarding the question whether the Covid-19 crisis might provide important lessons for supporting a social-ecological transformation (Reese et al., 2020), the first countrywide lockdown in Germany might offers a “moment of change” (Whitmarsh et al., 2021, p. 78) regarding everyday consumption behaviour.

Discussion of ethics

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Informed Consent included purpose, procedure an expected duration of the study. Participants furthermore were explained their rights concerning the collected data.

Debriefing: Contact details of the study conductors were provided after study completion.

Funding

This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany [grant number 01UR1801B]

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Tilmann Hüppauff: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Nadine Richter: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Marcel Hunecke: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Apendix A

Overview of missing values in Sociodemographics variables

Variable	NValid	NMissing
Age	917	3
Gender	905	15
Income	850	70
Education	892	28

Appendix B

Intercorrelations and descriptives of Items included in the analysis

Table B1.

Spearman's Correlation effects and between sustainable leisure behaviour, consumption behaviour, Presence of Meaning, Life Satisfaction, Life Reflection, Time Wealth and Personal Ecological Norm.

Var	1		2		3		4	5		6	7	8	9		10		11		12		13		14		15		16		17		18		19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28
1. Cla	–
2. Clb	.34		–
3. Clc	-0.58		.52		–
4. Ela	.28		.16		-0.14		–
5. Elb	.17		.29		.09		.58	–
6. Elc	-0.10		.17		.25		-0.40	.48		–
7. HGa	.34		.17		-0.15		.34	.19		-0.14	–
8. HGb	.20		.28		.06		.18	.33		.17	.54	–
9. HGc	-0.07		.15		.20		-0.09	.19		.30	-0.26	.63	–
10. Stra	.12		.15		.03		.14	.14		.01	.02	.10	.11		–
11. Strb	.17		.14		-0.02		.13	.14		.04	.04	.14	.14		.74		–
12. Strc	.07		.01		-0.05		-0.01	-0.004		.03	.01	.06	.05		-0.22		.44		–
13. OAa	.04		-0.07		-0.07		-0.01	-0.04		-0.02	.13	.01	-0.10		-0.13		-0.13		-0.03		–
14. OAb	.02		.04		.03		-0.09	-0.04		.06	.05	.12	.10		-0.02		.01		.04		.29		–
15. OAc	-0.001		.10		.07		-0.09	-0.002		.08	-0.06	.10	.18		.10		.12		.08		-0.54		.60		–
16. FPa	.11		.11		.01		.07	.03		-0.03	.17	.13	-0.02		.07		.03		-0.06		.27		.12		-0.13		–
17. FPb	.11		.07		-0.04		.04	.04		.01	.16	.14	-0.002		.04		.07		.04		.16		.21		.06		.58		–
18. FPc	-0.01		-0.06		-0.07		-0.04	.002		.04	-0.04	.01	.04		-0.02		.06		.13		-0.14		.10		.23		-0.48		.36		–
19. CAa	.10		.08		-0.01		.17	.08		-0.07	.40	.25	-0.07		-0.04		-0.07		-0.06		.19		.07		-0.12		.23		.15		-0.11		–
20. CAb	.14		.08		-0.05		.14	.11		-0.01	.36	.44	.18		-0.04		.03		.09		.10		.14		.04		.16		.24		.08		.63	–
21. CAc	.07		.03		-0.03		.01	.07		.06	.06	.30	.29		.02		.12		.16		-0.09		.12		.20		-0.06		.14		.24		-0.19	.59	–

Var	1	2		3		4			5	6	7	8	9	10		11		12		13		14		15		16		17		18		19		20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28
22. CrAa	-0.01	.03		.02		.07			.04	-0.02	.13	.07	-0.04	.02		.01		-0.02		.09		.04		-0.05		.20		.14		-0.09		.29		.20	-0.05	–
23. CrAb	.04	.04		-0.01		.04			.04	.01	.08	.15	.09	.04		.09		.08		-0.02		.09		.11		.13		.17		.03		.17		.30	.19	.71	–
24. CrAc	.07	.002		-0.06		.002			.01	.01	-0.03	.12	.15	.05		.14		.15		-0.14		.08		.22		-0.04		.08		.16		-0.10		.19	.34	-0.12	.57	–
25. PoM	.08	.02		-0.05		.09			.04	-0.04	.12	.08	-0.01	-0.15		-0.11		.02		.16		.12		-0.02		.10		.16		.04		.13		.14	.02	.11	.06	-0.06	–
26. LS	-0.02	.02		.03		.06			.08	.03	.09	.13	.05	-0.04		-0.06		-0.01		.12		.17		.05		.06		.14		.08		.05		.11	.09	.03	.05	.02	.43	–
27. LR	.08	.02		-0.07		.02			-0.04	-0.08	.04	.03	-0.02	.02		.11		.13		-0.02		.07		.10		.03		.20		.18		.003		.13	.16	.11	.18	.17	.04	.01	–
28. TW	.02	.03		.02		-0.03			.01	.04	-0.03	.07	.11	.02		.12		.15		-0.03		.12		.13		-0.01		.09		.10		-0.01		.18	.22	.02	.18	.22	.11	.17	.14	–
29. PN	-0.25	-0.13		.12		-0.13			-0.17	-0.05	-0.03	-0.03	-0.02	-0.08		-0.09		-0.01		.17		.15		-0.01		.15		.17		.07		.08		.11	.06	.15	.16	.07	.05	.16	.27	.03

Note.Cl: Clothing, El: Electronics, HG: Items for House & Garden, Str: Streaming, OA: Outdoor Activities, FP: Food Production, CA: Crafting Activities, CrA: Creative Activites, PoM: Presence of Meaning, LS: Lifes Satisfaction, LR: Life Reflection, TW: Time Wealth, PN: Personal Ecological Norm

^aBehaviour t1,

^bBehaviour t2,

^cDifference Value (t2-t1)

Correlations in bold are significant at p < .01

N = 920

Table B2.

Descriptive statistics of sustainable leisure behaviour, consumption behaviour, Presence of Meaning, Life Satisfaction, Life Reflection, Time Wealth and Personal Ecological Norm.

Var	M	SD
Clothesa	2.51	0.94
Clothesb	1.72	0.86
Clothesc	-0.79	1.04
Electronicsa	1.84	0.78
Electronicsb	1.59	0.81
Electronicsc	-0.25	0.71
House & Gardena	2.32	0.94
House & Gardenb	2.29	1.16
House & Gardenc	-0.03	1.04
Streaminga	2.84	1.22
Streamingb	3.26	1.30
Streamingc	0.43	0.88
Outdoor Act.a	3.44	1.02
Outdoor Act.b	3.72	1.17
Outdoor Act.c	0.28	1.31
Food Prep.a	3.45	1.10
Food Prep.b	4.03	1.05
Food Prep.c	0.59	0.96
Crafting Act.a	2.54	1.03
Crafting Act.b	3.17	1.23
Crafting Act.c	0.63	0.96
Creative Act.a	2.37	1.13
Creative Act.b	2.73	1.31
Creative Act.c	0.37	0.99
Presence of Meaning	3.82	0.88
Life Satisfaction	3.51	0.80
Life Reflection	3.56	0.98
Time Wealth	3.49	0.97
Personal Norm	3.96	0.86