Who rebounds most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups

By Mona Chitnis, S. Sorrell, Angela Druckman, Steven Firth, Tim Jackson. 2014

247 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This study estimates the combined direct and indirect rebound effects from various types of energy efficiency improvement and behavioural change by UK households and explores how these effects vary with total expenditure. The methodology is based upon estimates of the expenditure elasticity and GHG intensity of 16 categories of goods and services, and allows for the capital cost and embodied emissions of the energy efficiency measures themselves. The study finds that rebound effects, in GHG terms, are modest (0–32%) for measures affecting domestic energy use, larger (25–65%) for measures affecting vehicle fuel use and very large (66–106%) for measures that reduce food waste. Furthermore, measures undertaken by low income households are associated with the largest rebound effects, with direct emissions forming a larger proportion of the total rebound effect for those households. Measures that are subsidised or affect highly taxed energy commodities may be less effective in reducing aggregate emissions. These findings highlight the importance of allowing for rebound effects within policy appraisals, as well as reinforcing the case for economy-wide carbon pricing.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e7a2df9903805fa2d0e0878e57cd361a9da8abb2

How researchers see this paper

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

In Environmental Engineering

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Measures in the Residential Sector Gas Consumption Through Dynamic Treatment Effects: Evidence from England and Wales (2022, background): “Chitnis et al. (2014) conduct ex ante modelling of the rebound effect of six heating and lighting EE measures in households in terms of GHG emission reductions.”
Living up to expectations: Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households (2015, background): “These values are broadly comparable with those estimated from cross-sectional data in our previous work (Chitnis et al., 2014) where we showed that highincome groups have very low expenditure elasticities for these commodities – which in turn has a significant influence on the overall mean.”
The foundations of the environmental rebound effect and its contribution towards a general framework (2016, background): “…420 Moreover, some scholars argue that conservation decisions (reduced consumption) and consumption 421 shifts can also lead to rebound effects, arguing that the economic mechanisms derived from cost-422 saving measures would be comparable (Chitnis et al., 2014; Murray, 2013; van den Bergh, 2011).”
Residential energy expenditures and the relevance of changes in household circumstances (2015, unknown): “Although environmental policies aiming at changing the behaviours and patterns of consumption (Chitnis et al., 2014; Tukker et al., 2010) and improving energy efficiency are useful and necessary (Dresner and Ekins, 2006), this research suggests that an additional positive environmental impact may re”
Income inequality and carbon consumption: Evidence from Environmental Engel curves (2019, background): “That literature has thus far focused on understanding the drivers of emissions as contained in household consumption (Weber and Matthews, 2008; Buechs and Schnepf, 2013) and quantifying the “rebound effect” (Thomas and Azevedo, 2013; Chitnis et al., 2014).”
Does the Circular Economy Grow the Pie? The Case of Rebound Effects From Smartphone Reuse (2018, background): “, personal transport and heating) (Hymel et al., 2010; Antal and van den Bergh, 2014; Chitnis et al., 2014), it is likely that smartphone reuse might lead to backfire.”
Household time use, carbon footprints, and urban form: a review of the potential contributions of everyday living to the 1.5 °C climate target (2018, background): “A commonly cited example is that the emission reductions due to the use of more efficient cars, which require less fuel and therefore cause lower costs, may be partially compensated by increased driving [62,92 ,93,95].”
How to deal with the rebound effect? A policy-oriented approach (2016, background): “It is also important to consider socioeconomic factors to avoid essential welfare losses through regressive policies, for example, by reducing employment or bounding income from low income groups (Chitnis et al., 2014).”