Rebound Effects
Case Studies
Here we present two research articles in which rebound effects were found in the context of agricultural land management. They highlight the importance of considering rebound effects in impact assessments.
The first study of Paul et al. (2019) gives an overview of rebound effects related to resources used in agriculture, that were detected in current scientific literature. It furthermore presents a framework helping to assess potential rebound effects. The framework was applied to a test case of emerging technologies and practices in agricultural soil management in Germany. The authors found evidence for strong rebound effects in the context of agricultural land and soil management, especially for increases in productivity and a more efficient use of irrigation water.
The second publication of Hamidov et al. (2022) follows on from these findings, as they studied the impact of the introduction of water-saving irrigation technologies in Uzbekistan based on an expert-based assessment of potential rebound effects. Uzbekistan can be seen as a test case for countries that face water scarcity as a severe challenge and at the same time have restricted data availablility for model-based approaches. The results of the study suggest that rebound effects are likely to occur and might reduce the actual water savings, unless effective policy interventions are made.
Abstract: Increasing the efficiency of production is the basis for decoupling economic growth from resource consumption. In agriculture, more efficient use of natural resources is at the heart of sustainable intensification. However, technical improvements do not directly translate into resource savings because producers and consumers adapt their behaviour to such improvements, often resulting in a rebound effect, where part or all of the potential resource savings are offset. In extreme cases, increases in efficiency may even result in higher, instead of lower, resource consumption (the Jevons paradox).
Rebound effects are particularly complex in agricultural land and soil management, where multiple resources are used simultaneously and efficiency gains aim to lower the need for farmland, water, energy, nutrients, pesticides, and greenhouse gas emissions. In this context, quantification of rebound effects is a prerequisite for generating realistic scenarios of global food provision and for advancing the debate on land sparing versus land sharing. However, studies that provide an overview of rebound effects related to the resources used in agriculture or guidelines for assessing potential rebound effects from future innovations are lacking. This paper contributes to closing this gap by reviewing the current state of knowledge and developing a framework for a structured appraisal of rebound effects. As a test case, the proposed framework is applied to emerging technologies and practices in agricultural soil management in Germany.
The literature review revealed substantial evidence of rebound effects or even Jevons’ paradox with regard to efficiency increases in land productivity and irrigation water use. By contrast, there were few studies addressing rebound effects from efficiency increases in fertilizer use, pesticide application, agricultural energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions. While rebound effects are by definition caused by behavioural adaptations of humans, in agriculture also natural adaptations occur, such as resistance of pests to certain pesticides. Future studies should consider extending the definition of rebound effects to such natural adaptations. The test case revealed the potential for direct and indirect economic rebound effects of a number of emerging technologies and practices, such as improved irrigation technologies, which increase water productivity and may thereby contribute to increases in irrigated areas and total water use.
The results of this study indicated that rebound effects must be assessed to achieve realistic estimates of resource savings from efficiency improvements and to enable informed policy choices. The framework developed in this paper is the first to facilitate such assessments.
Citation: Paul, C., Techen, A. K., Robinson, J. S., & Helming, K. (2019). Rebound effects in agricultural land and soil management: Review and analytical framework. Journal of cleaner production, 227, 1054-1067.
Link to the study: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.115
Abstract: There is wide consensus among scholars and practitioners that improved irrigation technologies increase farm productivity and improve resource use efficiency. However, there is also growing empirical evidence that efficiency improvements in irrigation water use may create rebound effects, i.e., they may trigger changes in farmers’ behavior that partly or fully offset the technical water savings expected under ceteris paribus conditions. In extreme cases, total water consumption may even increase. We studied the impacts of introducing water-saving irrigation technologies in Uzbekistan and used structured stakeholder interviews for an expert-based assessment of potential rebound effects. Our findings contribute to the understanding of impacts of technological and institutional responses to environmental and economic pressures in sustaining water resources. The study demonstrates that although the objective of increasing irrigation efficiency may be achieved, the actual water savings under Uzbek conditions are likely to be reduced due to rebound effects. Unless there are effective policy interventions, we expect rebound effects through an increase in water supply for crops that compensates for current shortages of irrigation water availability, an increase in irrigated area, a switch to more water-intensive crops, and overall economic growth. The findings of this paper provide a reference point for estimating the water-saving potential and for evaluating and adapting policies.
Citation: Hamidov, A., Kasymov, U., Djumaboev, K., & Paul, C. (2022). Rebound effects in irrigated agriculture in Uzbekistan: a stakeholder-based assessment. Sustainability, 14(14), 8375.
Link to the study: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148375