Working Paper
                                  ISSN No. 2193-7214

                                      CEN Paper
                                      No. 02-2018

        Challenges for sustainable environmental policy -
          Influencing factors of the rebound effect in
            energy efficiency improvements *

           Bianca Blum a; Julian Hübner b; Sarah Müller c;
                Bernhard Neumärker d
            * Developed first as a Thesis at the Department of Economic Policy &
                     Constitutional Economic Theory.
          a, b, d Department of Economic Policy & Constitutional Economic Theory,

                     University of Freiburg, Germany.
        c Master Student in Business Administration Public and Non-Profit Management,

                     University of Freiburg, Germany

        E-Mail: bianca.blum@vwl.uni-freiburg.de; julian.huebner@vwl.uni-freiburg.de;

                      15th, March, 2018
University of Freiburg
Institute for Economic Research
Department of Economic Policy and Constitutional Economic Theory
Platz der Alten Synagoge / KG II D-79085 Freiburg

Developed as part of the collaboration project between the University of Freiburg and the
Leistungszentrum Nachhaltigkeit, as well as the partners of the project “Sustainable LED
Lighting - Technologische Herausforderungen, Marktzugangshürden und politische Akzeptanz

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.  The rebound effect of energy efficiency improvements ............................................................. 3
3.  Factors influencing the rebound effect ....................................................................................... 5
3.  Challenges for environmental policy making ............................................................................ 10
4.  Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 13
5.  References .................................................................................................................................... I
1. Introduction

In the light of climate change, topics of sustainability and environmental protection are becoming
increasingly important. In particular, the pursuit of technological advances and efficiency gains,
coupled with steady economic growth, has become an integral part of policies worldwide. Also at
this year's G20 summit were "economic growth, sustainable development and prosperity [..] at
the center of cooperation" (Die Bundesregierung, 2017), whereby the promotion of energy
efficiency was explicitly taken into account. However, often the projected energy savings are not
as high as expected and the targets set cannot be achieved. The freed-up resources as a result of
increased energy efficiency, lead to an increase in demand for energy services and thus to
increased energy consumption1. This phenomenon is called the Jevons' paradox or rebound effect.
Although technological progress generates efficiency gains and the potential for savings reduces
overall consumption, the rebound effect leads to more energy and resource consumption2. Since
the earliest mention of this effect by the economist William Jevons in 1865 in his prestigious work
The Coal Question and the resumption of this discussion by Khazzoom (1980) and Brookes (1978)
in the 1980s, numerous notions of the rebound effect have been developed. For example,
Santarius (2012, p. 11) mentions 13 different rebound effects, Madlener & Alcott (2009, p. 372)
claim to have even compiled 28 definitions.

However, not only the large number of scientific studies and the different classifications of the
rebound effect, but also measures such as the handbook published by the Federal Environment
Agency in 20163, show how important the rebound effect is for energy and environmental policy.

This paper explores the factors that influence the emergence and extent of rebound effects and
the challenges that arise for a sustainable environmental policy. The focus here is on increasing
energy efficiency and the energy consumption decisions on the consumer side. The starting point
of this investigation is the concept of the rebound effect, whose definition is based on the most
common classification in the much-cited works by Greening et. al. (2000) and Berkhout et. al.
(2000). Based on this, the main part of this paper is dedicated to the different factors influencing
the rebound effect. The last section addresses the challenges arising for an environmental policy
to promote energy efficiency.

 cf: (Hertwich, 2005, S. 86); (Maxwell, McAndrew, Muehmel, & Neubauer, 2011, S. 30); (Santarius, 2015, S. 39).
 cf: (Berkhout, Muskens, & Velthuijsen, 2000, S. 425); (Santarius, 2015, S. 48).
 cf: (Semmling, Peters, Marth, Kahlenborn, & De Haan, 2016).

2. The rebound effect of energy efficiency improvements

Since the rebound effect occurs as a result of efficiency increases, the concept of energy efficiency
should first be briefly considered. This is understood to mean the ratio between the amount of
input and output, with input in the form of energy or raw materials, such as electricity and
gasoline. The output defines the resulting energy service, such as the luminosity and burning time
of a lamp or the distance traveled by car. Consequently, if one requires less input while
maintaining the same output or one achieves a higher output while maintaining the same input,
there is an increase in efficiency4.

Santarius (2015, p. 48) defines the rebound effect as "[...] an increased demand for an energy
service that was conditioned or at least made possible by an increase in energy efficiency". Holding
all other factors as constant, the rebound effect is thus understood as the deviation of the
potential savings from the indeed realized decline in consumption. For example, replacing a light
bulb with an LED would reduce energy consumption for identical lighting performance without
the presence of a rebound effect. But if a higher consumption occurs in response to the more
efficient lighting, such as a longer burning time per day or by the installation of multiple lights, it
is called a rebound effect5.

In most cases, not only the demand for energy but also the use of energy-driven technologies, the
so-called energy services, is regarded. Sorrell and Dimitropoulos (2008, p. 637) also define the
concept of energy service as "useful work", in what a rebound effect occurs. The changes in
consumer behavior lead to a compensation of the efficiency measures and the potential for
savings cannot be fully exploited. The rebound effect is usually stated as the percentage deviation
of the actual energy savings from the expected savings6. If the possible savings are
overcompensated by an increased consumption and thus the rebound effect is over 100%, this is
referred to as a so-called "backfire"7.

Most definitions of the rebound effect include only the positive correlation between resource
efficiency and increasing consumption, with a positive rebound effect for the increased
consumption of energy8. Schleich, Mills, & Dütschke (2014, p. 37) argue that even negative

 cf: (Herring & Roy, 2007, S. 195); (Santarius, 2015, S. 30); (Sorrell, 2009, S. 1459); (Sorrell & Dimitropoulos,
2008, S. 638).
 cf: (Schipper & Grubb, 2000, S. 369); (Schleich, Mills, & Dütschke, 2014, S. 36).
 cf: (Berkhout, Muskens, & Velthuijsen, 2000); (Greening, Greene, & Difiglio, 2000) (Sorrell, 2007).
 cf: (Jenkins, Nordhaus, & Shellenberger, 2011); (Saunders, 2000); (Sorrell, 2009).
 cf: (Madlener & Alcott, 2011); (Peters, Sonnberger, & Deuschle, 2012).

rebound effects are possible in principle. These occur when, as a result of an increase in efficiency,
demand is lower than before and the expected savings are even surpassed.

Although there are a multitude of definitions, the most common three categories of the rebound
effect, the direct, the indirect and the macroeconomic rebound effect, are presented below. A
direct rebound effect is understood to be the increased demand for the same product or service,
which has become more efficient as a result of technological progress9. The energy using good is
therefore used more frequently, or more intensively and thus directly compensates a part of the
potential energy savings. A common example of the direct rebound effect is the use of a car. If a
more efficient car requires less fuel, then a direct rebound effect occurs if the more fuel-efficient
car is driven for longer distances, or if the consumer buys a more powerful car.

While the direct rebound effect examines the demand for the immediate benefit of increasing
efficiency, the indirect rebound effect summarizes all other impacts and behavioral changes10. This
includes any increase in demand for other goods or services related to the energy savings of the
directly affected good11. For example, the savings realised by using a more efficient car will be re-
invested in air travel. In most cases, direct and indirect rebound effects are not clearly separated,
which makes consistent determination and measurement difficult. Thus, a more frequent use of
a car does not exclude that due to the savings achieved additional vacation trips are made by

The direct and indirect rebound effect sum up to the macroeconomic rebound effect. This
describes the effects of efficiency-induced additional demand on the entire market and its
production structures12. In some cases, it is also called a structural rebound effect13 or market
price effect14. The prices of intermediate and end products in the market are changing following
an increase in efficiency resulting in price and quantity adjustments for energy-intensive sectors15..
However, the focus of this paper is on the microeconomic level, thus on the factors influencing
the direct and indirect rebound effect.

 cf: (Santarius, 2015, S. 50).
  cf: (Madlener & Alcott, 2011, S. 7)
  cf: (Druckman, Chitnis, Sorrell, & Jackson, 2011, S. 3573); (Sorrell, 2007, S. 41).
  cf: (Peters, Sonnberger, & Deuschle, 2012, S. 4f).
  cf: (Berkhout, Muskens, & Velthuijsen, 2000, S. 425).
  cf: (Jenkins, Nordhaus, & Shellenberger, 2011, S. 22).
  cf: (Sorrell & Dimitropoulos, 2008, S. 637).

3. Factors influencing the rebound effect

The following section presents the factors influencing the rebound effect. A distinction is made
here between economic factors and psychological factors. These factors are intended to define
challenges for an environmental policy that deals with energy efficiency measures to promote a
sustainable economy. It is clear from the overview in Table 1 that some factors can trigger a
rebound behavior both economically and psychologically and therefore cannot be clearly assigned
to one category.

Table 1: Economic and psychological factors of rebound behavior

       Economic Factors                  Psychological Factors

Price Effect                    Moral Hazard & Moral Leaking

Household Income                  Personal Norms

Preferences and Needs               Moral Lizensing

Time Saving                    Mental Accounting

                   Lack of Information

Reference: Own contribution.

The analysis of economic rebound effects assumes the rational decision-making of inpiduals
under utility maximization behavior. Frequently mentioned as a driving factor for rebound effects
is the reduction of the operation costs or the decrease in the price for energy services. In this
context, we talk also about financial rebound effects. 16

Price effects, household income and needs

The economic analysis of the rebound effect is often based on the factor of price elasticity, which
is the ratio of a percentage change in demand to the percentage change in price. To calculate the
rebound effect, it is also possible to take other elasticities into account.17

If a product becomes more efficient, the operation costs decrease, and the consumer is given a
higher real income while the budget remains constant. In turn that can lead to increasing
consumption of other energy-intensive products18. But not only the actual, but also the perceived

  cf: (Berkhout, Muskens, & Velthuijsen, 2000); (Birol & Keppler, 2000); (Freire-González, 2017); (Greening,
Greene, & Difiglio, 2000).
  cf: (Frondel, Ritter, & Vance, 2012); (Schleich, Mills, & Dütschke, 2014); (Sorrell & Dimitropoulos, 2008).
  cf: (Madlener & Alcott, 2011); (Nässén & Holmberg, 2009); (Sorrell, 2007).

costs are important for the amount of rebound effects. Semmling, et. al. (2016, p. 10) state that
the more consumers are aware of savings through efficiency gains compared to previous operating
costs, the more likely they are to provoke rebound effects. Consumers perceive energy efficiency
improvements as a price reduction of the energy service. As a result, a rational consumer chooses
an optimal bundle of goods that meets the new relative prices. Thus, the change in the price of a
good has economically two effects, the income effect and the substitution effect. These two
effects are often presented as a subcategory of the direct rebound effect.19

The level of the direct rebound effect is mainly determined by the price-elasticity of demand, in
response to the price reduction, as well as the substitution possibilities of a good. The higher the
price-elasticity of demand and the higher the elasticity of substitution, the greater will be the
rebound effect20.

While the income effect represents the increased consumption of energy services as a
consequence of the change in real income, the substitution effect is understood to be the
increased demand for the more efficient commodity, where previously an alternative (inefficient)
good was consumed21. Lancaster (1966, p. 140f) calls this "efficiency substitution." The
substitution effect thus shifts the consumption allocation within the same utility level. For
example, a commuter would now use the more efficient car instead of the train more frequently.
The income effect, on the other hand, reflects the change in behavior as a reaction to improving
the efficiency of a good. Here, the consumer reaches a higher level of utility. The more efficient
car of the commuter allows the consumer to realize real savings. These savings could be
compensated, for example by driving longer distances and thus generate additional utility for the
consumer. Greening et. al. (2000, p. 395) argue that the increase in utility can also be achieved by
switching to a more comfortable car, which is for example provided by an air conditioner and thus
consumes more gasoline than the previous car. Peters et. al. (2012) concludes that the main
reason for the new acquisition of more efficient mobility products is the economic reason and
thus the reduction of costs per energy service.

In addition to the price effect, household income is also an important economic factor for the
emergence and extent of rebound effects. Several studies conclude that low-income households
generate higher rebound effects than households with higher incomes22. One explanation for this

  cf: (Greening, Greene, & Difiglio, 2000); (Jenkins, Nordhaus, & Shellenberger, 2011); (Sorrell, 2007).
  cf: (Birol & Keppler, 2000, S. 461).
  cf: (Chitnis, Sorrell, Duckman, Firth, & Jackson, 2013, S. 235).
  cf: (Chitnis, Sorrell, Duckman, Firth, & Jackson, 2014); (Galvin, 2015); (Roy, 2000).

is the aspect mentioned by Murray (2013, p. 247) that low-income households generally have less
scope for investing in efficiency gains. Boardman and Milne (2000, p. 412), on the other hand,
using the example of household heating costs and room temperature. They argue that direct
rebound effects are higher in lower income classes because these households are still far from the
saturation level of most relevant energy services. Galvin (2015, p. 766) also notes that a general
statement on rebound effects and income levels should be made cautiously, as low-income
households generate higher direct rebound effects, but the total energy consumption does not
necessarily have to be greater than the share of consumption of high-income households.

When looking at the economic factors influencing rebound behavior, it quickly becomes clear that
a restriction to the financial analysis is not sufficient to adequately explain rebound effects. For
example, the needs of consumers must be taken into account. They reflect consumers'
preferences and are therefore essential for rational decision-making. From a purely economic
point of view, an increase in demand takes place until the satisfaction of needs reaches a
maximum in compliance with the given restrictions. A rebound effect in the economic sense thus
goes hand in hand with a rational decision-making process. The overconsumption compared to
the initial level thus reflects the new consumption choice of the inpidual, brought about by a
change in the restrictions.

Theoretical considerations on the relationship between unsatisfied needs and observed rebound
effects suggest that the efficient product offers greater comfort, costs less, or is less burdensome
to the environment23. Greening et. al. (2000, p. 391) further argue that technological change and
progress can also influence consumer needs. It therefore seems necessary to incorporate the
change in need perception in the estimation of possible rebound effects.

Time savings

The time saving factor does not come into play in every energy efficiency improvement. For
example, replacing a conventional incandescent lamp with an LED does not save time for a
consumer. However, if a consumer purchases an electric car and consequently drives more
distances by car, which he had previously mastered by bicycle or on foot, the use of a more energy-
efficient technology constitutes real savings of time for the consumer. Brenčič and Young (2009),
in their study of time-saving household appliances and services, conclude that the time savings
resulting from an increase in efficiency generate higher rebound effects. The time saved, such as

   cf: (Semmling, Peters, Marth, Kahlenborn, & De Haan, 2016, S. 8).

the use of a dishwasher, can be used to engage in other energy-intensive activities, such as the
more frequent use of the television. In his analysis, Binswanger (2001) describes the time savings
as a side effect, generating a rebound effect because it allows for more consumption elsewhere.
In Sorrell & Dimitropoulos (2008, p. 644f) study, time is considered a cost item with increasing
value, which should be taken into account when estimating rebound effects. If the cost of time
increases relatively more than the cost of energy for the consumer, a substitution of time-
consuming to energy-intensive consumption activities can take place.

The consideration of the time savings in the use of energy-consuming products thus also
represents an economic factor in the evaluation of the factors influencing the rebound effect. The
consumer thereby weighs the costs of the energy-saving alternative against the cost of the time-
efficient alternative. Thus, rebound behavior can arise when the consumer, adjusts his time
allocation and switches from a time consuming to an energy consuming action.

Lack of information

The problem of incomplete information represents both an economic and a psychological factor
for rebound effects. Economically speaking, complete information is a necessary condition for
rational decision-making. For example, if a consumer does not have the knowledge of how the
more efficient technology is comparable to the inefficient technology already in use, it may
unconsciously create a rebound effect. Schleich et. al. (2014, p. 40f) concluded from their research
that the ignorance of how different types of lamps are to be substituted for one another leads to
purchases of stronger lighting intensities when choosing a more efficient light source.

Peters et. al. (2012, p. 38f) also argue that even ignorance of the proper operation of energy-
efficient products can trigger rebound effects. For example, the presumption of a shortened life
of energy-saving lamps by switching on and off more often can lead consumers to burn them
longer and thus produce a direct rebound effect. Steg (2008) argues that consumer heuristics can
often be wrong and consumers underestimate the actual energy consumption, for example, when
heating water with a kettle. Aside from the rational, economic decision-making, inadequate
consumer knowledge also leads to psychological caused rebound effects.

Moral Hazard and Moral Leaking

If products become more efficient and more environmentally friendly, they not only generate a
monetary benefit for the consumer, but also change their symbolic content24. The increased use
of an energy service becomes tolerable, since, for example, the lighting consumes less energy and
is therefore more resource-efficient than before. Santarius (2012) mentions the moral hazard
effect as an explanation for the direct rebound effect. This arises when the increase in efficiency
causes disincentives for inpiduals, that they change their energy consumption behavior in favor
of the rebound effect. The moral leaking effect is not dissimilar to the moral hazard effect. The
energy savings are considered away from monetary savings and their effect on consumer
consumption. If the change to an energy-efficient product brings savings in time and effort, then
this saving can lead to as less careful use of the energy consuming product. Attention is not paid
to whether the window is closed or the light is switched off25. The moral leaking effect then causes
an increase in consumption of the more efficient product, as its use has become more convenient
for the consumer. The time and effort saved by consuming the new product is then more
important to the consumer than ecological motives. Peters et. al. (2012, p. 41), for example, find
that users use the lower-power product more often for convenience reasons26.

Personal Norms, Moral Lizensing and Mental Accounting

The normative motivation and a strong environmental awareness play an important role in the
energy saving of consumers. Thus, rebound effects may be lower, if consumers have a strong
environmental awareness or a moral norm for the conscious use of energy, since energy
consumption decisions are initiated away from the economic utility maximization27. Semmling et.
al. (2016, p. 8) also point out that the moral obligation of an inpidual can also be weakened by
the knowledge of using a more energy-efficient good. This leads to a re-evaluation of behavior, as
it has changed the personal, financial and environmental consequences for the consumer.

Not only the inpidual norm, but also the social norm can affect the level of potential savings
achieved. Thus, increased social acceptance of resource-saving products can also lead to rebound
behavior. However, if social and personal norms are that strongly internalized that an increase in

  cf: (Santarius, 2015, S. 87).
  cf: (Peters, Sonnberger, & Deuschle, 2012, S. 32).
  For example, to use a scooter instead of a car, increasingly for shorter distances, which were previously
mastered by bicycle.
  cf: (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007); (Semmling, Peters, Marth, Kahlenborn, & De Haan, 2016); (Steg, 2008); (Steg &
Vlek, 2009).

energy efficiency has no effect on consumption decisions on the energy service, they represent a
factor that can reduce the rebound28.

In addition to affecting direct rebound effects, psychological factors can produce indirect rebound
effects. Thus Girod & de Haan (2009) develop a model according to Thaler (1999), in which
inpiduals generate a rebound effect through the evaluation of actions by means of mental
accounting. In this so-called mental accounting or moral accounting, goods, actions and
transactions are mentally recorded in different accounts in order then to relate the aggregated
costs and benefits to each other29. As a result, the purchase of a more efficient and more
environmentally friendly product leads to a higher demand for other, more energy-intensive
goods, as their consumption is now considered justified30. Accordingly, behavioral changes arise
through the evaluation or balancing of ecologically motivated acts that conscientiously affect
morally questionable behavior31. It is the construction of an inner moral account that balances
altruistic and self-interested actions. In some cases, therefore, a moral licensing effect is used32.

3. Challenges for environmental policy making

The previous analysis has shown that rebound effects can emerge and be influenced both
economically and psychologically. It should be noted that different factors simultaneously
influence the rebound behavior of consumers and these factors are often inseparable.

As the price effect comes from reducing the cost of energy services, it seems intuitive to use fiscal
resources such as taxes to reduce rebound effects. These counteract cost reduction and thus
overconsumption by keeping the prices for energy services at a constant level33. In the Handbook
published by the Federal Environment Agency (2016), taxes and fees are explicitly recommended
as a measure that can reduce the rebound effect. These are intended to reduce, in whole or in
part, the financial savings due to efficiency, with the aim of reducing the additional purchasing
power of the consumer. Furthermore, these fiscal measures generate an incentive for the
consumer to consciously and economically use the taxed resources34. Santarius (2012, p. 20) also
concludes that the use of an eco-tax to reduce rebound effects is expedient, whereby it refers

  cf: (Peters, Sonnberger, & Deuschle, 2012, S. 39f).
  cf: (Thaler, Mental Accounting Matters, 1999, S. 184f).
  cf: (Girod & De Haan, 2009, S. 11f).
  cf: (Santarius, 2015, S. 109).
  cf: (Santarius, 2012, S. 14).
  cf: (Sorrell, 2007, S. 93).
  cf: (Semmling, Peters, Marth, Kahlenborn, & De Haan, 2016, S. 19f).

exclusively to eco-taxes, while the Handbook of the Federal Environment Agency also takes into
account taxes on renewable energies such as electricity. An approach to calculate the amount of
a hypothetical tax on carbon dioxide (CO2) is provided by the work of Brännlund et. al. (2007).
Based on data from Swedish households, the authors estimate that in order to completely
eliminate a rebound effect of 25%, the CO2 tax would have to be increased by about 130%. With
the help of this tax, the gasoline prices are designed in such a way that, despite efficiency
improvements, a constant total CO2 emission is generated. However, it must be remembered that
such measures alone are associated with low political acceptance by consumers.35 However, the
use of tax measures can not only prevent disincentives from price signals, but also change
consumers' awareness of energy saving and counteract possible behavioral changes36.

Tradable certificates are another way of achieving an increase in the price of an asset by creating
an absolute cap. The effectiveness of this measure depends on the substitution possibilities of the
higher-priced good with other goods.37 However, the creation of an absolute pollution threshold
may raise concerns, given the unsatisfied needs of consumers. In this regard, the study of Roy
(2000) in the introduction of electrically powered solar lights in Indian households, which
previously had no access to electrical energy, could show that among other things due to
unsatisfied needs, in developing countries particularly high rebound effects from 50% to
sometimes even 80% arise. Although low-income households have higher rebound effects, the
focus of policymakers on rebounding measures should be on high-income households. Not only
do they have greater room for consumption in general, but they also cause greater environmental
pollution as a result of higher overall energy consumption38. A stronger burden of low-income
households by fiscal instruments does not appear to be compelling, as only a low level of
acceptance can be expected from this consumer group39. It is therefore important for
environmental policies to account for the potentially unsatisfied needs of consumers. Thus,
anticipatory and targeted energy-saving alternatives for satisfying needs must be identified and

In addition to the economic factors, measures must also consider psychological factors of rebound
effects. A change in the personal and social norms of the consumer can have a stabilizing effect
on consumer behavior. This can be achieved by so-called Nudging. Nudging is a form of libertarian

  cf: (Sonnberger & Deuschle, 2014); (Mennel & Sturm, 2008).
  cf: (Wang, Han, & Lu, 2016, S. 360).
  cf: (Madlener & Alcott, 2011); (Semmling, Peters, Marth, Kahlenborn, & De Haan, 2016).
  cf: (Chitnis, Sorrell, Duckman, Firth, & Jackson, 2014); (Galvin, 2015); (Murray, 2013).
  cf: (Wang, Han, & Lu, 2016, S. 360).

paternalism designed to steer consumers in a particular direction without the need to enforce
decisions through the use of regulations or prohibitions. While these non-monetary incentives in
decision-making situations should help people make more rational choices, ultimately inpiduals
still have a free choice as to whether or not to follow these incentives40. Sunstein (2014, p. 586)
argues that most people use the behavior of others, which is commonly considered normal, as the
benchmark for their own moral sense. A possible approach to nudging would be, for example, to
provide consumers with the anonymous billing of energy and water consumption of comparable
households. These data then provide a kind of orientation mark for the inpidual and can change
their norms in such a way that rebound effects are reduced.

Otto et. al. (2014, p. 104) conclude with regard to the personal norm that the attitude of a person
and the resulting actions are decisive for environmentally friendly behavior. They argue that only
by a strong intrinsic motivation to save energy the rebound effect can be combated, otherwise
time and resources are used to increase one's own benefit.

In the light of the psychological factors for rebound behavior, consumers should be alerted to this
issue of indirect rebound effects as a result of their behavioral choices41 and consumers'
environmental awareness strengthened42.

Finally, consumers should be able to obtain clearer information in order to facilitate the optimal
use of efficient technologies43. One possibility would be to provide consumers, through labeling
requirements such as energy labels or labeling standards, with the necessary information about
the products to prevent unconscious rebound effects44. However, these must be defined that clear
that consumers do not need much time or effort when making a purchase decision in order to
make a suitable and energy-efficient choice45.

In addition to the policy measures already mentioned, various scientific research calls for a
combination of different instruments as a means of limiting rebound effects46.

  cf: (Sunstein & Reisch, 2014, S. 582).
  cf: (Maxwell, McAndrew, Muehmel, & Neubauer, 2011, S. 61).
  cf: (Girod & De Haan, 2009, S. 22).
  cf: (Peters, Sonnberger, & Deuschle, 2012, S. 61).
  cf: (Vivanco, Kemp, & van der Voet, 2016, S. 119).
  cf: (Sonnberger & Deuschle, 2014, S. 25).
  cf: (Birol & Keppler, 2000); (Madlener & Alcott, 2011); (Santarius, 2012); (Vivanco, Kemp, & van der Voet,
2016); (Wang, Han, & Lu, 2016).

4. Conclusion

It has been shown that the factors influencing the rebound effect are perse and complex, and
therefore the implications of energy and environmental policies to counteract the rebound effect
call for a mixed strategy of different instruments. Since the factors of influence are not mutually
exclusive in their different forms, an increase in efficiency of an energy service can be caused by
both financial and psychological incentives or a combination of both.

The reduction of rebound effects on the consumer side must therefore be considered
interdisciplinarily with means and measures of economics, social science and psychology. As
technological advances change the possibilities and thus the needs of consumers, it is necessary
to supplement the conventional standard models accordingly. Likewise, above all, uniform
measurement methods are required in order to be able to effectively combat the influencing
factors and thus the development of rebound effects.

5. References

Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons' Paradox. Ecological Economics(54), S. 9-21.

Alfredsson, E. C. (2004). "Green" Conspumption - No Solution for Climate Change. Energy(29), S. 513-

Berkhout, P. , Muskens, J., & Velthuijsen, J. (2000). Defining the Rebound Effect. Energy Policy(28), S.

Binswanger, M. (2001). Technological Progress and sustainable Development: What about the
    Rebound Effekt? Ecological Economics(36), S. 119-132.

Birol, F., & Keppler, J. (2000). Prices, Technology Development and the Rebound Effect. Energy Policy,
     S. 457-469.

Boardman, B., & Milne, G. (2000). Making cold Homes warmer: The Effect of Energy Efficiency
   Improvements in low-income Homes. Energy Policy(28), S. 411-424.

Borenstein, S. (2015). A Mircoeconomic Framework for Evaluating Energy Efficiency Rebound and
    Some Implications. The Energy Journal, 36(1), S. 1-21.

Brännlund, R., Ghalwash, T., & Nordström, J. (2007). Increased Energy Efficiency and the Rebound
    Effect: Effects on Consumption and Emissions. Ecological Economics(29), S. 1-17.

Brenčič, V., & Young, D. (2009). Time-saving Innovations, Time Allocation and Energy Use: Evidence
    from Canadian Households. Ecological Economics(68), S. 2859-2867.

Brookes, L. (1978). Energy policy, the energy price fallacy and the role of nuclear energy in the UK.
    Energy Policy(6), S. 94-106.

Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Duckman, A., Firth, S., & Jackson, T. (2013). Turning Lights into Flights:
     Estimating the direct and indirect Rebound Effects for UK Households. Energy Policy(55), S.

Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Duckman, A., Firth, S., & Jackson, T. (2014). Who rebounds most? Estimating
     direct and indirect Rebound Effects for different UK socieeconomic Groups. Ecological
     Economics(106), S. 12-32.

Die Bundesregierung. (2017). Annex zur Abschlusserklärung G20-Gipfel. Aktionsplan der G20 von
    Hamburg zu Klima und Energie für Wachstum. (G20Germany, Hrsg.) Von
    de.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5 abgerufen

Druckman, A., Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., & Jackson, T. (2011). Missing Carbon Reductions? Exploring
   Rebound and Backfire Effects in UK Households. Energy Policy(39), S. 3572-3581.

Freire-González, J. (2017). Evidence of direct and indirect rebound effect in households in EU-27.
    Energy Policy(102), S. 270–276.

Frondel, M., Ritter, N., & Vance, C. (2012). Heterogeneity in the rebound effect: Further evidence for
    Germany. Energy Economics(34), S. 461-467.

Galvin, R. (2015). The Rebound Effect, Gender and Social Justice: A Case Study in Germany. Energy
    Policy(86), S. 759-769.

Gillingham, K., Rapson, D., & Wagner, G. (2014). The Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency Policy.
    Working Papers from Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei(FEEM Working Paper No.107.2014)).

Girod, B., & De Haan, P. (2009). Mental Rebound. Rebound Research Report 3. ETH Zurich, IED-NSSI.
    Von Download: www.nssi.ethz.ch/res/emdm/ abgerufen

Greening, L., Greene, D., & Difiglio, C. (2000). Energy Efficiency and Consumption - the Rebound
    Effect - a Survey. Energy Policy(28), S. 389-401.

Herring, H., & Roy, R. (2007). Technological Innovation, Energy Efficient Design and the Rebound
    Effect. Technovation(27), S. 194-203.

Hertwich, E. (2005). Consumption and the Rebound Effect - An Industrial Ecology Perspective. Journal
    of Industrial Ecology, Vol.9(Nb.1-2), S. 85-98.

Jenkins, J., Nordhaus, T., & Shellenberger, M. (2011). Energy Emergence - Rebound & Backfire as
    emergent Phenomena. Breakthrough Institute.

Jevons, W. (1865). The Coal Question: An Iquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation on the
    Probable Exhaustion of Coal. London: Macmillan.

Khazzoom, J. (1980). Economic Implications of mandated Efficiency in Standards for Household
    Appliances. Energy Journal(1), S. 21-40.

Lancaster, K. (1966). A New Approach on Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, Vol 74(Issue
    2), S. 132-157.

Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, Gain and hedonic Goal-Frames guiding Environmental
    Behavior. Journal of Social Issues(63 (1)), S. 117-137.

Madlener, R., & Alcott, B. (2009). Energy Rebound and Economic Growth: A Review of the main
   Research Needs. Energy(34), S. 370-376.

Madlener, R., & Alcott, B. (2011). Herausforderungen für eine technisch-ökonomische Entkopplung
   von Naturverbrauch und Wirtschaftswachstum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von
   Rebound Effekten und Problemverschiebungen. Enquete‐Kommission “Wachstum,
   Wohlstand, Lebensqualität” des Deutschen Bundestags(Kommissionsmaterialie M-17(26)13).

Maxwell, D., McAndrew, L., Muehmel, K., & Neubauer, A. (2011). Adressing the Rebound Effect. a
   report for the European Commission DG Environment.

Mennel, T., & Sturm, B. (2008). Energieeffizienz – eine neue Aufgabe staatlicher Regulierung? ZEW
    Discussion Paper (No. 08-004). Von ftp://ftp. zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp08004.pdf

Murray, C. (2013). What if Consumers decided to all ‘go green’? Environmental Rebound Effects from
    Conspumption Decisions. Energy Policy(54), S. 240-256.

Nässén, J., & Holmberg, J. (2009). Quantifying the Rebound Effects of Energy Efficiency
    Improvements and Energy Conserving Behaviour in Sweden. Energy Efficiency(2), S. 221-231.

Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (2017). Informing Versus Nudging in Environmental Policy. J Consum
    Policy(37), S. 341-356. doi:10.1007/s10603-014-9256-2

Otto, S., Kaiser, F., & Arnold, O. (2014). The Critical Challenge of Climate Change for Psychology -
     Preventing Rebound and Promoting More Inpidual Irrationality. European Psychologist,
     Vol.19(Nb.2), S. 96–106. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000182

Peters, A., Sonnberger, M., & Deuschle, J. (2012). Rebound-Effekte aus sozialwissenschaftlicher
    Perspektive - Ergebnisse aus Fokusgruppen im Rahmen des REBOUND-Projektes. Working
    Paper Sustainability and Innovation(No. S 5/2012).

Roy, J. (2000). The Rebound Effect: Some Empirical Evidence from India. Energy Policy(28), S. 433-

Santarius, T. (2012). Der Rebound-Effekt: Über die unerwünschten Folgen der erwünschten
    Energieeffizienz. Impulse zur WachstumsWende.

Santarius, T. (2014). Der Rebound-Effekt: ein blinder Fleck der sozial-ökologischen
    Gesellschaftstransformation. GA/A, 23(2), S. 109-117. doi:10.14512/gaia.23.2.8

Santarius, T. (2015). Der Rebound-Effekt. Ökonomische, psychische und soziale Herausforderungen für
    die Entkopplung von Wirtschaftswachstum und Energieverbrauch. Marburg: Metropolis-

Saunders, H. (2000). A View from the Macro Side: Rebound, Backfire, and Khazzoom Brookes. Energy
    Policy(28), S. 439-449.

Schipper, L., & Grubb, M. (2000). On the Rebound? Feedback between Energy Intensities and Energy
    Uses in IEA Countries. Energy Policy(28), S. 367-388.

Schleich, J., Mills, B., & Dütschke, E. (2014). A brighter Future? Quantifying the Rebound Effect in
    Energy efficient Lighting. Energy Policy(72), S. 35-42.

Semmling, E., Peters, A., Marth, H., Kahlenborn, W., & De Haan, P. (2016). Rebound-Effekte: Wie
   können sie effektiv begrenzt werden? Ein Handbuch für die umweltpolitische Praxis. Für
   Mensch & Umwelt. Umweltbundesamt. Von
   http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/reboundeffekte- abgerufen

Sonnberger, M., & Deuschle, J. (2014). Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung von Rebound-Effekten im
    Wohn- und Mobilitätsbereich - Ergebnisse aus zwei Expertenworkshops. Stuttgarter Beiträge
    zur Risiko-und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung(Nb.31).

Sorrell, S. (2007). The Rebound Effect: an Assessment of the Evidence for economy-wide Energy
     Savings from improved Energy Efficiency. UK Energy Research Centre(ISBN 1-903144-0-35).

Sorrell, S. (2009). Jevons’ Paradox revisited: The Evidence for Backfire from improved Energy
     Efficiency. Energy Policy(37), S. 1456-1469.

Sorrell, S., & Dimitropoulos, J. (2008). The Rebound Effect: Microeconomic definitions, Limitations
     and Extensions. Ecological Economics(65), S. 636-649.

Steg, L. (2008). Promoting Household Energy Conservation. Energy Policy(36), S. 4449-4453.

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental Behaviour: An integrative Review and
     Research Agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology(29), S. 309-317.

Sunstein, C. (2017). Nudging: A Very Short Guide. J Consum Policy(37), S. 583-588.

Sunstein, C., & Reisch, L. (2014). Automatically Green: Behavioral Economics and Environmental
    Protection. Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol.38, S. 127-158.

Thaler, R. (1999). Mental Accounting Matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making(12), S. 183-206.

Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge - Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness.
    New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Vivanco, D., Kemp, R., & van der Voet, E. (2016). How to deal with the Rebound Effect? A policy-
    oriented Approach. Energy Policy(94), S. 114-125.

Wang, Z., Han, B., & Lu, M. (2016). Measurement of Energy Rebound Effect in Households: Evidence
    from Residential Electricity Consumption in Beijing, China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
    Reviews(58), S. 852-861.