
Environmentally friendly alternatives (EFA) are touted as a key component of a transition towards lowering the impact of human activity on the environment. Still, the environmental costs of these technologies are seldom null; they are simply less environmentally damaging than existing options. In this paper, we investigate consumer behavior when an EFA is introduced. Using a carefully constructed field experimental design, we look at plastic bags vis-a-vis biodegradable (bio) bags, when the latter are offered for free versus at a price. Moreover, we explore offering costly biodegradable bags as part of the default choice. We find that giving away the bio bags for free results in a large behavioral rebound effect, resulting in a substantial increase in the total number of bags. Setting a small, rather symbolic price offsets this rebound effect completely. Interestingly, when the bio bag is offered as a default, the behavioral rebound remains. Our results lead us to conclude against providing these EFA for free and to caution against the use of subsidies to promote their uptake.
Plastic pollution, Behavioral rebound effect, Field experiment
Plastic pollution, Behavioral rebound effect, Field experiment
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
