175
income, hence can consume more. We will come back to this characteristic of
money being conserved, and what this implies for sustainable consumption.
2.3 Use of Freed Household Resources
2.3.1 Overview
Where the availability of any of the listed household resources is reduced by a consumption decision, other products that require the same resource(s) may be affected:
most prominently, money can be spent only once. Reduced time availability can be
compensated only in certain cases (e.g. doing two things in parallel – see chapter
“Cross Category Effects”). Reduced space means space has to be freed by another
product, while with the above-mentioned individual flexibility to expand the available space or accept a further cramping of the available space. Eating food calories
means that less other food (with calories) will generally be eaten, with the abovementioned, limited flexibility for compensation.
It is important to note that for consumption studies, the individual options how to
react to reduced household flexibility will be of less interest, but the average situation and patterns of effects will be the focus of analysis. Individual flexibility however adds to the variance of the average situation and provides options for scenario
definition on different systematic ways how to react to reduced household resources
availability.
Inversely, increased availability of any of the household resources allows the
consumer to use it for additional consumption: more available income can be spent
e.g. on a further away holiday destination (as Eyerer and Wolf (2000) have exemplified), a larger TV set, or any other good or service.
It is relevant for quantifying the environmental impacts of the changed availability of household resources, which products are quantitatively affected by the
changed consumption. Expanding on the proposal by Girod et al. (2010), we see
four distinctions:
• More of the same product
• More of the same function or need fulfilment
• Marginal shift to better fulfil the less well fulfilled needs
• General increase of average consumption
This first variant of using the freed resource is – if the household resource is
income – also termed direct rebound effect, substitution effect, or pure price effect
(Greening et al. 2000). The direct rebound effect for energy-efficiency increase has first
been postulated already by W.S. Jevons in context of increased coal efficiency (Jevons
1875), cited in Gillingham et al. 2013), and in the more recent discussion on energyefficiency policies again by Khazzoom (1980). The last three variants are also called
indirect rebound effect, income effect, or secondary effect (Greening et al. 2000).
13 From Sustainable Production to Sustainable Consumption
income, hence can consume more. We will come back to this characteristic of
money being conserved, and what this implies for sustainable consumption.
2.3 Use of Freed Household Resources
2.3.1 Overview
Where the availability of any of the listed household resources is reduced by a consumption decision, other products that require the same resource(s) may be affected:
most prominently, money can be spent only once. Reduced time availability can be
compensated only in certain cases (e.g. doing two things in parallel – see chapter
“Cross Category Effects”). Reduced space means space has to be freed by another
product, while with the above-mentioned individual flexibility to expand the available space or accept a further cramping of the available space. Eating food calories
means that less other food (with calories) will generally be eaten, with the abovementioned, limited flexibility for compensation.
It is important to note that for consumption studies, the individual options how to
react to reduced household flexibility will be of less interest, but the average situation and patterns of effects will be the focus of analysis. Individual flexibility however adds to the variance of the average situation and provides options for scenario
definition on different systematic ways how to react to reduced household resources
availability.
Inversely, increased availability of any of the household resources allows the
consumer to use it for additional consumption: more available income can be spent
e.g. on a further away holiday destination (as Eyerer and Wolf (2000) have exemplified), a larger TV set, or any other good or service.
It is relevant for quantifying the environmental impacts of the changed availability of household resources, which products are quantitatively affected by the
changed consumption. Expanding on the proposal by Girod et al. (2010), we see
four distinctions:
• More of the same product
• More of the same function or need fulfilment
• Marginal shift to better fulfil the less well fulfilled needs
• General increase of average consumption
This first variant of using the freed resource is – if the household resource is
income – also termed direct rebound effect, substitution effect, or pure price effect
(Greening et al. 2000). The direct rebound effect for energy-efficiency increase has first
been postulated already by W.S. Jevons in context of increased coal efficiency (Jevons
1875), cited in Gillingham et al. 2013), and in the more recent discussion on energyefficiency policies again by Khazzoom (1980). The last three variants are also called
indirect rebound effect, income effect, or secondary effect (Greening et al. 2000).
13 From Sustainable Production to Sustainable Consumption