This article investigates the phenomenon of rebound effects in relation to a transition to a Circular Economy (CE) through qualitative inquiry. The aim is to gain insights in manifestations of rebound effects by studying the Dutch textile industry as it transitions to a circular system, and to develop appropriate mitigation strategies that can be applied to ensure an effective transition. The rebound effect, known originally from the energy efficiency literature, occurs when improvements in efficiency or other technological innovations fail to deliver on their environmental promise due to (behavioral) economic mechanisms. The presence of rebound in CE contexts can therefore lead to the structural overstatement of environmental benefits of certain innovations, which can influence reaching emission targets and the preference order of recycling. In this research, the CE rebound effect is investigated in the Dutch textile industry, which is identified as being vulnerable to rebound, yet with a positive potential to avoid it. The main findings include the very low awareness of this effect amongst key stakeholders, and the identification of specific and general instances of rebound effects in the investigated industry. In addition, the relation of these effects to Circular Business Models and CE strategies are investigated, and placed in a larger context in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding about the place and role of this effect in the transition. This concerns the necessity for a new approach to how design has been practiced traditionally, and the need to place transitional developments in a systems perspective. Propositions that serve as theory-building blocks are put forward and include suggestions for further research and recommendations about dealing with rebound effects and shaping an eco-effective transition. Thomas Siderius, Kim Poldner, Reconsidering the Circular Economy Rebound effect: Propositions from a case study of the Dutch Circular Textile Valley, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 293, 2021, 125996, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125996.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: To examine the effects of different small-sided games (SSGs) on physical and technical aspects of performance in wheelchair basketball (WB) players. Design: Observational cohort study. Methods: Fifteen highly trained WB players participated in a single 5v5 (24-s shot clock) match and three 3v3 SSGs (18-s shot clock) on a (1) full court, (2) half-court, and (3) modified-length court. During all formats, players’ activity profiles were monitored using an indoor tracking system and inertial measurement units. Physiological responses were monitored via heart rate and rating of perceived exertion. Technical performance, that is, ball handling, was monitored using video analysis. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and effect sizes (ESs) were calculated to determine the statistical significance and magnitude of any differences between game formats. Results: Players covered less distance and reached lower peak speeds during half-court (P ≤ .0005; ES ≥ very large) compared with all other formats. Greater distances were covered, and more time was spent performing moderate- and high-speed activity (P ≤ .008; ES ≥ moderate) during full court compared with all other formats. Game format had little bearing on physiological responses, and the only differences in technical performance observed were in relation to 5v5. Players spent more time in possession, took more shots, and performed more rebounds in all 3v3 formats compared with 5v5 (P ≤ .028; ES ≥ moderate). Conclusions: Court dimensions affect the activity profiles of WB players during 3v3 SSGs yet had little bearing on technical performance when time pressures (shot clocks) were constant. These findings have important implications for coaches to understand which SSG format may be most suitable for physically and technically preparing WB players. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0500 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rienkvdslikke/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/moniqueberger/
MULTIFILE
In this article it is argued that we will no longer be able to spare the elephant in the room, technology, which has gradually evolved into technocracy, governing our day-to-day behaviour without being consciously or politically chosen. We do this on a large scale and meanwhile worldwide. For example, who knows the Jevons Paradox, dating back to 1865? Or the Khazzoom Brookes postulate? The rebound effect perhaps? All observations that showed that technologically more efficient applications irrevocably lead to an increase in the use of resources and thus to a decrease in ecology and ecological diversity. In other words, technology and sustainability are in a paradoxical relationship (Jason spoke of an oxymoron, so two terms that exclude each other, such as an uncrowned king, or the chaos that reigns). Unbridled technological growth, in every conceivable direction (often greenwashed under the heading of necessary innovation), is not sustainabl
MULTIFILE
