Rebound effect (conservation)

This article is about the conservation effect. For the pharmacological term, see rebound effect.

In energy conservation and energy economics, the rebound effect (or take-back effect) is the reduction in expected gains from new technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use, because of behavioral or other systemic responses. These responses diminish the beneficial effects of the new technology or other measures taken. A definition of the rebound effect is provided by Thiesen et al. (2008)[1] as, “the rebound effect deals with the fact that improvements in efficiency often lead to cost reductions that provide the possibility to buy more of the improved product or other products or services.”  A classic example from this perspective is a driver who substitutes a vehicle with a fuel-efficient version, only to reap the benefits of its lower operating expenses to commute longer and more frequently."[2]

A body of scientific literature argues that improvements in technological efficiency and efficiency improvements in general have induced increases in consumption.[3][4][5] Generally, economists and researchers seem to agree that there exists a rebound effect, but they disagree about its volume and importance.[6]

While the literature on the rebound effect generally focuses on the effect of technological improvements on energy consumption, the theory can also be applied to the use of any natural resource or other input, such as labor. The rebound effect is generally expressed as a ratio of the lost benefit compared to the expected environmental benefit when holding consumption constant.[7]

For instance, if a 5% improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency results in only a 2% drop in fuel use, there is a 60% rebound effect (since (5-2)⁄5 = 60%).[8] The 'missing' 3% might have been consumed by driving faster or further than before.

The existence of the rebound effect is uncontroversial. However, debate continues as to the magnitude and impact of the effect in real world situations.[9] Depending on the magnitude of the rebound effect, there are five different rebound effect (RE) types:[10]

  1. Super conservation (RE < 0): the actual resource savings are higher than expected savings – the rebound effect is negative.
  2. Zero rebound (RE = 0): The actual resource savings are equal to expected savings – the rebound effect is zero.
  3. Partial rebound (0 < RE < 1): The actual resource savings are less than expected savings – the rebound effect is between 0% and 100%. This is sometimes known as 'take-back', and is the most common result of empirical studies on individual markets.
  4. Full rebound (RE = 1): The actual resource savings are equal to the increase in usage – the rebound effect is at 100%.
  5. Backfire (RE > 1): The actual resource savings are negative because usage increased beyond potential savings – the rebound effect is higher than 100%. This situation is commonly known as the Jevons paradox.

In order to avoid the rebound effect, environmental economists have suggested that any cost savings from efficiency gains be taxed in order to keep the cost of use the same.[11] Furthermore, strategies for increasing efficiency may lead to unsustainable development patterns if they are not complemented by sufficiency-oriented strategies demand reduction measures. [12][13]

  1. ^ Thiesen, Joan; Christensen, Torben S.; Kristensen, Thomas G.; Andersen, Rikke D.; Brunoe, Brit; Gregersen, Trine K.; Thrane, Mikkel; Weidema, Bo P. (12 December 2006). "Rebound effects of price differences". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 13 (2): 104–114. doi:10.1065/lca2006.12.297. S2CID 154530285.
  2. ^ Druckman, Angela; Chitnis, Mona; Sorrell, Steve; Jackson, Tim (2011). "Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households". Energy Policy. 39 (6): 3572–3581. Bibcode:2011EnPol..39.3572D. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.058. S2CID 13863334.
  3. ^ Schaefer, Stephan; Wickert, Christopher (January 2015). "The Efficiency Paradox in Organization and Management Theory". Academy of Management Proceedings. 2015 (1): 10958. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2015.10958abstract. ISSN 0065-0668.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Segovia-Martin, Jose; Creutzig, Felix; Winters, James (18 September 2023). "Efficiency traps beyond the climate crisis: exploration–exploitation trade-offs and rebound effects". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 378 (1889). doi:10.1098/rstb.2022.0405. PMID 37718604.
  6. ^ Gillingham, Kenneth; Kotchen, Matthew J.; Rapson, David S.; Wagner, Gernot (January 2013). "The rebound effect is overplayed". Nature. 493 (7433): 475–476. Bibcode:2013Natur.493..475G. doi:10.1038/493475a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 23344343.
  7. ^ Grubb, M.J. (1990). "Energy efficiency and economic fallacies". Energy Policy. 18 (8): 783–785. doi:10.1016/0301-4215(90)90031-x.
  8. ^ Wang, Zhaohua; Han, Bai; Lu, Milin (2016). "Measurement of energy rebound effect in households: Evidence from residential electricity consumption in Beijing, China". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 58: 852–861. Bibcode:2016RSERv..58..852W. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.179.
  9. ^ Sorrell, Steven (2007). The rebound effect: An assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency (Report). UK Energy Research Centre. Retrieved 23 September 2008.
  10. ^ Saunders, Harry D. (2008). "Fuel conserving (and using) production functions". Energy Economics. 30 (5): 2184–2235. Bibcode:2008EneEc..30.2184S. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2007.11.006.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wackernagel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Segovia-Martin, Jose; Creutzig, Felix; Winters, James (18 September 2023). "Efficiency traps beyond the climate crisis: exploration–exploitation trade-offs and rebound effects". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 378 (1889). doi:10.1098/rstb.2022.0405. PMID 37718604.
  13. ^ Haberl, Helmut; Wiedenhofer, Dominik; Virág, Doris; Kalt, Gerald; Plank, Barbara; Brockway, Paul; Fishman, Tomer; Hausknost, Daniel; Krausmann, Fridolin; Leon-Gruchalski, Bartholomäus (11 June 2020). "A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights". Environmental Research Letters. 15 (6). Bibcode:2020ERL....15f5003H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a.