What if consumers decided to all 'go green'? Environmental rebound effects from consumption decisions

By Cameron K. Murray. 2013

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Environmental Engineering, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78ce3b60a709adae9cb17261b8dde09ebd513903

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Environmental Engineering

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Citations in the corpus

Willingness to Pay for Eco‐Certified Refurbished Products: The Effects of Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge (2016, background): “Rebound effects are product (Murray 2013) and country specific (e.g., as a function of unmet demand) (Roy 2000).”
Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: a review and research agenda (2017, background): “Studies on rebound effects have shown that the reduction in energy savings due to direct and indirect rebound ranges from 0 to 15% (Berkhout, Muskens, and velthuijsen 2000; Chitnis et al. 2013; Murray 2013).”
The foundations of the environmental rebound effect and its contribution towards a general framework (2016, background): “…are not triggered by behavioural or systemic 457 responses, but are the result of the technological characteristics of products as well as upstream and 458 downstream processes, and are thus necessary and inseparable from the improved products 459 (Murray, 2013; Friedrichsmeier and Matthies 2015).”
Does the Circular Economy Grow the Pie? The Case of Rebound Effects From Smartphone Reuse (2018, methodology): “To calculate the re-spending effect, we use a single re-spending model which treats all consumption categories equally (Murray, 2013).”
Who rebounds most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups (2014, background): “…for households in each quintile averaged over a period of T years (RE j) as follows: RE j ¼ −100 XT t¼1 ΔGjt þ ΔMjt h i XT t¼1 ΔHjt 2 66664 3 77775: ð12Þ 5 Murray (2013) criticises Druckman et al. (2011) for allowing re-spending on the categories that are the target of the sufficiency…”