Heterogeneity in the rebound effect: Further evidence for Germany

Energy Economics

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 461-467

  Frondel, Manuel ^a,b,c   Ritter, Nolan ^a   Vance, Colin ^a,d  

^a RWI ^*  (Germany)

^b RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^c Ruhr Graduate School in Economics   (Germany)

^d JACOBS UNIVERSITY BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Automobile travel; Panel models; Quantile regression

Indexed keywords

DRIVING INTENSITY; EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT; FUEL PRICES; GERMANY; HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL; IN-LINE; PANEL MODEL; PRIVATE TRANSPORT; QUANTILE REGRESSION; REBOUND EFFECT;

ELASTICITY; ENERGY UTILIZATION; TRANSPORTATION;

REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ENERGY EFFICIENCY; ENERGY USE; HETEROGENEITY; PANEL DATA; PRICE DYNAMICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

GERMANY;

EID: 84857358637     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.016     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Angrist J.D., Pischke J.-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics - An Empiricists Companion 2009, Princeton University Press.
2. ARAL http://www.aral.de/.
3. Berkhout P.H.G., Muskens J.C., Velthuisjen J.W. Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy 2000, 28:425-432.
4. Binswanger M. Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect?. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 36:119-132.
5. Breusch T., Pagan A. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 1979, 47:1287-1294.
6. Brookes L. Energy efficiency fallacies revisited. Energy Policy 2000, 28:355-367.
7. COM (2007) Commission of the European Communities. Results of the Review of the Community Strategy to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Passenger Cars and Light-commercial Vehicles: Impact Assessment, 19 final, SEC(2007) 61, 2007.
8. Crandall R.W. Corporate average fuel economy standards. J. Econ. Perspect. 1992, 6(2):171-180.
9. DESTATIS (Federal Statistical Office Germany) http://www.destatis.de/.
10. Frondel M., Vance C. Driving for fun? Comparing the effect of fuel prices on weekday and weekend fuel consumption. Energy Econ. 2010, 32(1):102-109.
11. Frondel M., Vance C. Fixed, random, or something in between? A variant of Hausman's specification test for panel data estimators. Econ. Lett. 2010, 107:327-329.
12. Frondel M., Peters J., Vance C. Identifying the rebound: evidence from a German household panel. Energy J. 2008, 29(4):154-163.
13. Frondel M., Schmidt C.M., Vance C. A regression on climate policy: the European commission's legislation to reduce CO2 Emissions from automobiles. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 2011, 45:1043-1051.
14. Graham D.J., Glaister S. The demand for automobile fuel: a survey of elasticities. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 2002, 36(1):1-26.
15. Graham D.J., Glaister S. Road traffic demand elasticity estimates: a review. Transp. Rev. 2004, 24(3):261-274.
16. Greening L.A., Greene D.L., Difiglio C. Energy efficiency and consumption - the rebound effect - a survey. Energy Policy 2000, 28(6-7):389-401.
17. Kayser H.A. Gasoline demand and car choice: estimating gasoline demand using household information. Energy Econ. 2000, 22:331-348.
18. Koenker R. Quantile Regression. Econometric Society Monographs No. 38 2005, Cambridge University Press, New York.
19. Koenker R., Bassett G. Robust tests for heteroscedasticity based on regression quantiles. Econometrica 1982, 50(1):43-61.
20. Koenker R., Hallock K.F. Quantile regression. J. Econ. Perspect. 2001, 15(4):143-156.
21. MOP (German Mobility Panel) http://www.ifv.uni-karlsruhe.de/MOP.html.
22. Sorrell S., Dimitroupoulos J. The rebound effect: microeconomic definitions, limitations, and extensions. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65(3):636-649.
23. Sorrell S., Dimitroupoulos J., Sommerville M. Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: a review. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1356-1371.
24. Sterner T. Fuel taxes: an important instrument for climate policy. Energy Policy 2007, 35:3194-3202.
25. Wadud Z., Graham G.J., Noland R.B. Gasoline demand with heterogeneity in household responses. Energy J. 2010, 31(1):47-74.
26. West S.E. Distributional effects of alternative vehicle pollution control policies. J. Public Econ. 2004, 88(3-4):735-757.