Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 124 references

How Viable are Energy Savings in Smart Homes? A Call to Embrace Rebound Effects in Sustainable HCI

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Across five databases, smart home energy efficiency research largely ignores rebound effects.

desk verdict A careful, transparent mapping showing rebound effects are rarely named in smart home energy research; the central finding likely holds, with a manageable terminology caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14653 v1 pith:LDAQJCVT submitted 2025-06-17 cs.HC

Christina Bremer , Harshit Gujral , Michelle Lin , Lily Hinkers , Christoph Becker , Vlad C. Coroamă This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords reboundeffectsmarthomeenergyefficiencysustainableHCIliteraturemappingJevonsparadoxdigitalsavings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that rebound effects—the economic phenomenon in which efficiency gains are partially or fully offset by increased demand—are almost entirely absent from smart home energy efficiency research. It reports a systematic literature mapping across Scopus, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, the ACM Full-Text Collection, and a corpus of SIGCHI venues, using keyword clusters for smart homes, energy efficiency, and rebound effects. Its headline finding is that a title/abstract/keyword search found no computing paper at all combining all three topics, while the small number of intersection papers in general databases has not grown over time even as smart home research has flourished. If this is right, the viability of many efficiency claims in sustainable HCI is not yet established, and reported savings may be upper bounds rather than realized outcomes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a systematic literature mapping built as a three-set Venn intersection of keyword clusters: 'smart home*', 'energy efficien*', and 'rebound effect*' (plus 'Jevons paradox' and 'Khazzoom-Brookes postulate'). Two search strategies run in four databases plus a SIGCHI corpus: Search 1 restricted to titles, abstracts, and keywords, and Search 2 full-text searches. The quantitative core is the set-intersection counts together with two ratios, $R_{in E}(\%) = (E \cap R) \times 100 / E$ and $R_{in E \text{ for } S}(\%) = (E \cap R \cap S) \times 100 / (E \cap S)$, which let the authors compare rebound awareness across disciplines and show that computing lags the general energy literature by one to two orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

Run the same Search 1 and Search 2 in Scopus and IEEE with an expanded synonym set—'take-back', 'induced demand', 'behavioural response to efficiency', 'energy performance gap'—joined to smart home and energy efficiency terms; if the expanded intersection yields dozens of papers per database or a rising temporal trend, the paper's central conclusion would be an artifact of terminology rather than a fact about the literature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that rebound effects are poorly represented in smart home energy efficiency research, in the authors' terms. In the metadata-focused search, Scopus and ScienceDirect returned 4 and 1 papers at the triple intersection, while IEEE and ACM returned zero; full-text searching raised these counts to 25, 12, and 92 in IEEE, ACM, and ScienceDirect, but the proportions remain low relative to the large energy efficiency literature. Temporal analysis shows that smart home energy efficiency research grew strongly from 2011 to 2020 while attention to rebound effects stayed flat or near zero. Within the SIGCHI corpus, 6 of 41 smart home energy efficiency papers (14.63%) mention rebound effects somewhere in the full text, a higher share than in the other computing databases, but closer reading shows the concept is usually mentioned in passing rather than placed at the core of analysis. From this, the authors conclude that the HCI community is relatively more aware of rebound effects than other computing communities yet has not systematically investigated them, and they respond with a taxonomy of actions for identifying, measuring, explaining, and mitigating direct, indirect, and structural rebound effects.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that papers engaging with rebound-like dynamics reliably use the search terms 'rebound effect', 'Jevons paradox', or 'Khazzoom-Brookes postulate'; if researchers discuss the same phenomenon as take-back, induced demand, or energy performance gap, the mapping will under-count them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, reported smart home efficiency savings in the computing literature are best read as upper bounds, because rebound dynamics that would reduce them are generally not accounted for.
  • HCI is better positioned than other computing fields to take up rebound research, given its higher relative awareness of the concept and its existing expertise in in-situ, qualitative, and systems-oriented methods.
  • The taxonomy supplies a concrete agenda: for direct, indirect, and structural rebound, researchers can identify cases, measure effect sizes, explain mechanisms, and mitigate rebound through design and policy engagement.
  • Efficiency-only strategies for smart homes cannot be assumed to deliver climate benefits; sufficiency measures, emissions constraints, or design choices that anticipate rebound may be needed for savings to be real.
  • If HCI moves rebound to the core of its energy research, it can produce context-specific rebound estimates useful to policy makers and to more technically oriented fields that currently omit the effect.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The keyword-based conclusion could be tested against a synonym-expanded replication: if terms like 'take-back', 'induced demand', 'behavioural response to efficiency', or 'energy performance gap' surface many smart home efficiency papers, the reported gap may be partly terminological rather than substantive.
  • A similar mapping could be run for other efficiency domains, such as electric vehicles, teleworking, or industrial IoT, to see whether digital rebound neglect is a general pattern across computing research rather than a peculiarity of smart homes.
  • A practical next step would be to build a shared measurement protocol for rebound in HCI field studies, combining longitudinal energy data with qualitative accounts of how saved money and time are re-spent, since the paper's own review shows that no existing study combines all three well.
  • The paper's evidence implies that policy evaluations relying on smart home efficiency estimates should discount those estimates until rebound magnitudes are measured; the authors gesture at this consequence but do not quantify it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports a systematic literature mapping of how often rebound effects are considered in smart home energy efficiency research. The authors search four bibliographic databases (Scopus, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, ACM Full-Text Collection) plus a curated SIGCHI corpus, using three keyword clusters: 'smart home*', 'energy efficien*', and 'rebound effect*' with two rarer alternatives. Searches are performed twice: once on titles, abstracts, and keywords (Search 1) and once on full text (Search 2). The reported counts show very small numbers at the triple intersection, zero in IEEE, ACM, and SIGCHI in Search 1, and only a handful of full-text mentions in Search 2. Temporal analysis shows flat or zero annual counts of rebound-focused smart home papers despite growth in the broader research area. The paper interprets this as evidence that rebound effects are neglected in smart home energy efficiency research and proposes a taxonomy of actions for HCI to identify, measure, explain, and mitigate direct, indirect, and structural rebound effects.

Significance. If the central conclusion is robust, the paper is a useful and timely contribution to Sustainable HCI and to the broader energy efficiency literature: it quantifies an important gap, connects a well-established economics concept to HCI practice, and offers a practical taxonomy. The strengths are the transparent and replicable search protocol, the dual metadata/full-text strategy, the shared scripts on Zenodo, the manual checks on IEEE result sets, and the candid limitations discussion. The paper is also careful to distinguish between 'mentioning' and 'substantively engaging with' rebound effects in its qualitative review of the SIGCHI papers. The main weakness is that the quantitative conclusion rests on a narrow set of search terms, and this vulnerability is not resolved by the reported limitations discussion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 and §5.4] The three-keyword operationalization of 'rebound effects' is too narrow, and the claim that false negatives are minimal is unsupported. The query in §3 uses only 'rebound effect*' OR 'Jevons paradox' OR 'Khazzoom-Brookes postulate'; the first term does nearly all the work in the reported counts (Tables 1 and 2). The paper's own background defines 'backfire' as another name for the same phenomenon (§2.2.1) and discusses the 'energy performance gap' as a rebound-related failure of predicted savings (§2.1), yet neither term is searched. Also absent are standalone 'rebound', 'take-back'/'takeback', 'induced demand', and 'behavioural response to efficiency'. Because Search 2 re-uses the same narrow term set anywhere in the full text, it cannot detect papers that discuss rebound-like mechanisms under these labels. Section 5.4 asserts that the terminology is 'well established' and that the number of missed papers should be minimal, but no false-negative check is reported. Since the central finding of neglect is a count of papers using particular words, this vocabulary choice is load-bearing; I ask for an expanded synonym search, or a manual check of a random sample of smart-home efficiency papers for conceptual engagement with rebound, before the conclusion can be considered robust.
  2. [§4.3 and §5.2] The comparative claim that HCI is 'most aware' of rebound effects is based on very small counts. Table 2 row 7 gives SIGCHI 6 of 41 energy-efficiency smart-home papers (14.63%), versus single-digit numerators in IEEE and ACM; a one-paper shift changes the SIGCHI percentage by roughly 2.4 percentage points, and the manual reading in Table 3 reduces the six results to five substantive papers, none of which places rebound at the core of the analysis. The paper acknowledges the small counts in places, but §5.2 later uses the comparison as a positive finding ('HCI shows more awareness of rebound effects than all of the other research communities we included in our search'). Either add uncertainty quantification or soften the claim to 'a few SIGCHI papers mention rebound, mostly in passing'.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3] The search terms include 'Jevons paradox' without the possessive apostrophe, although the paper elsewhere writes 'Jevons' paradox' or 'Jevons' Paradox'; adding both variants would be a cheap robustness improvement.
  2. [§4.1] The sentence 'not a single paper in the field of computing ... based on Search 1' is accurate for the IEEE and ACM rows in Table 1, but it should be qualified as applying to the metadata search, since the SIGCHI full-text search does return ESR results.
  3. [Table 3] The table title promises a list of papers but the footnote explains that one of the six results is the full proceedings of CSCW'17, leaving five entries; consider retitling the table or stating the reduction in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the mapping's central evidence comes from external database counts and is not derived from the authors' own prior claims.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that rebound effects are poorly represented in smart home energy efficiency research—is supported by independent, externally generated database counts (Scopus, ScienceDirect, IEEE, ACM, SIGCHI) reported in Tables 1 and 2 and the temporal analysis in Figure 3. The derivation chain is descriptive: counts of keyword intersections are computed directly from external search results using the simple ratios in Equations 1 and 2, with no fitted parameters, no model, and no reduction of the conclusion to a prior claim by the authors. Self-citations (e.g., Coroamă and Mattern's 'digital rebound', Coroamă and Pargman's 'skill rebound', Bremer et al.'s critique of sustainable HCI, and Widdicks et al.'s systems-thinking paper) appear in background discussion and in the proposed taxonomy of actions for HCI, but they do not function as evidence for the quantitative finding; removing them would not change any count or trend. The paper's acknowledged search-term limitation (Section 5.4) is a validity concern about false negatives and terminology coverage, not a circularity: the keyword set defines what is measured, but the claim is about papers using that terminology, and the paper discusses rather than conceals this scope. There is no step in which a 'prediction' is equivalent to an input by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The result is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated. The study's results depend on domain assumptions about database coverage and keyword validity, all disclosed in Section 5.4. The taxonomy in Table 5 is a synthesis, not an invented entity.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The selected four databases plus the constructed SIGCHI corpus adequately represent the literature on smart homes, energy efficiency, and rebound effects.
    The paper chooses Scopus, ScienceDirect, IEEE, ACM and a 20-conference SIGCHI corpus to stand for general science, computing, and HCI literatures; it notes in Section 5.4 that databases do not cover all existing literature.
  • domain assumption The presence of the exact search terms 'rebound effect', 'Jevons paradox', or 'Khazzoom-Brookes postulate' in metadata or full text is a valid indicator that a paper considers rebound effects.
    The central quantitative conclusion is built on keyword matches; the paper acknowledges false negatives from papers using different terminology in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption The SIGCHI library (20 conferences plus PACMHCI) is a representative sample of HCI publication venues.
    The paper's comparison of HCI awareness to other computing fields depends on this corpus definition, described in Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Viable are Energy Savings in Smart Homes? A Call to Embrace Rebound Effects in Sustainable HCI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDAQJCVT

@misc{pith2026250614653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Viable are Energy Savings in Smart Homes? A Call to Embrace Rebound Effects in Sustainable HCI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDAQJCVT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14653}
}
read the original abstract

As part of global climate action, digital technologies are seen as a key enabler of energy efficiency savings. A popular application domain for this work is smart homes. There is a risk, however, that these efficiency gains result in rebound effects, which reduce or even overcompensate the savings. Rebound effects are well-established in economics, but it is less clear whether they also inform smart energy research in other disciplines. In this paper, we ask: to what extent have rebound effects and their underlying mechanisms been considered in computing, HCI and smart home research? To answer this, we conducted a literature mapping drawing on four scientific databases and a SIGCHI corpus. Our results reveal limited consideration of rebound effects and significant opportunities for HCI to advance this topic. We conclude with a taxonomy of actions for HCI to address rebound effects and help determine the viability of energy efficiency projects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Intersections of energy efficiency, smart homes, and rebound effects. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A flowchart showing each step of the literature mapping process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal trends in smart home energy efficiency research (ES) and corresponding engagement with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Greening, David L

    Lorna A. Greening, David L. Greene, and Carmen Difiglio. 2000. Energy efficiency and consumption -— the rebound effect -— a survey.Energy Policy28, 6 (June 2000), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0301-4215(00)00021-5 2000

  2. [2]

    Dirk Ahlers. 2020. Challenges of Sustainable Urban Mobility Integration. In22nd International Conference on Human- Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 1–3

    2020

  3. [3]

    Alper T Alan, Mike Shann, Enrico Costanza, Sarvapali D Ramchurn, and Sven Seuken. 2016. It is too hot: An in-situ study of three designs for heating. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5262–5273

    2016

  4. [4]

    Blake Alcott. 2005. Jevons’ paradox.Ecological Economics54 (2005), 9–21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0921800905001084

    2005

  5. [5]

    Inês ML Azevedo. 2014. Consumer end-use energy efficiency and rebound effects.Annual Review of Environment and Resources39, 1 (2014), 393–418

    2014

  6. [6]

    Terry Barker, Athanasios Dagoumas, and Jonathan Rubin. 2009. The macroeconomic rebound effect and the world economy.Energy Efficiency2, 4 (May 2009), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-009-9053-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s12053-009-9053-y 2009

  7. [7]

    Eric PS Baumer and M Six Silberman. 2011. When the implication is not to design (technology). InProceedings of the 2011 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2271–2274

    2011

  8. [8]

    Coroamă, and Friedemann Mattern

    Vincent Becker, Wilhelm Kleiminger, Vlad C. Coroamă, and Friedemann Mattern. 2018. Estimating the savings potential of occupancy-based heating strategies.Energy Informatics1, S1 (Oct. 2018), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s42162-018-0022-6 ACM J. Comput. Sustain. Soc., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. 1:20 Christina Bremer, Harshit ...

    2018

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    Lucas Beltram, Morten Herget Christensen, and Rongling Li. 2019. Demonstration of heating demand peak shaving in smart homes.Journal of Physics: Conference Series1343, 1 (Nov. 2019), 012055. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/1343/1/012055

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Peter H. G. Berkhout, Jos C. Muskens, and Jan W. Velthuijsen. 2000. Defining the rebound effect.Energy Policy28, 6 (June 2000), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00022-7

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    Mathias Binswanger. 2001. Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect? Ecological Economics36, 1 (Jan. 2001), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00214-7

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    Laetitia Bornes, Catherine Letondal, and Rob Vingerhoeds. 2022. Could Systemic Design Methods Support Sustainable Design Of Interactive Systems?. InRelating Systems Thinking and Design 2021 Symposium

    2022

  5. [13]

    Christina Bremer, Bran Knowles, and Adrian Friday. 2022. Have We Taken On Too Much?: A Critical Review of the Sustainable HCI Landscape. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11

    2022

  6. [14]

    Len Brookes. 1990. The greenhouse effect: the fallacies in the energy efficiency solution.Energy Policy18, 2 (1990), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(90)90145-T

    1990 doi

  7. [15]

    Johannes Buhl, Justus von Geibler, Laura Echternacht, and Moritz Linder. 2017. Rebound effects in Living Labs: Opportunities for monitoring and mitigating re-spending and time use effects in user integrated innovation design. Journal of cleaner production151 (2017), 592–602

    2017

  8. [16]

    Miriam Börjesson Rivera, Cecilia Håkansson, Åsa Svenfelt, and Göran Finnveden. 2014. Including second order effects in environmental assessments of ICT.Environmental Modelling & Software56 (June 2014), 105–115. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.02.005

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    John M Carroll and Mary Beth Rosson. 2013. Wild at home: The neighborhood as a living laboratory for HCI.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)20, 3 (2013), 1–28

    2013

  10. [18]

    Ko-jung Chen, Ziyang Li, Ta-Ping Lu, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, and Dinglong Huang. 2018. Influence of Rebound Effect on Energy Saving in Smart Homes. InCross-Cultural Design. Applications in Cultural Heritage, Creativity and Social Development, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau (Ed.). Vol. 109...

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Mona Chitnis and Steve Sorrell. 2015. Living up to expectations: Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households.Energy Economics52 (2015), S100–S116

    2015

  12. [20]

    Sunny Consolvo, Beverly Harrison, Ian Smith, Mike Y Chen, Katherine Everitt, Jon Froehlich, and James A Landay

  13. [21]

    Coroamă, Pernilla Bergmark, Mattias Höjer, and Jens Malmodin

    Vlad C. Coroamă, Pernilla Bergmark, Mattias Höjer, and Jens Malmodin. 2020. A Methodology for Assessing the Environmental Effects Induced by ICT Services: Part I: Single Services(ICT4S2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 36––45. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Vlad C Coroamă and Friedemann Mattern. 2019. Digital Rebound – Why Digitalization Will not Redeem us our Environmental Sins. InProc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S). Lappeenranta, Finland. http://ceur- ws.org/Vol-2382/ICT4S2019_paper_31.pdf

    2019

  15. [23]

    Coroamă and Daniel Pargman

    Vlad C. Coroamă and Daniel Pargman. 2020. Skill rebound: On an unintended effect of digitalization. InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on ICT for Sustainability. ACM, Bristol United Kingdom, 213–219. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3401335.3401362

    2020

  16. [24]

    Enrico Costanza, Joel E Fischer, James A Colley, Tom Rodden, Sarvapali D Ramchurn, and Nicholas R Jennings. 2014. Doing the laundry with agents: a field trial of a future smart energy system in the home. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syst...

    2014

  17. [25]

    Nana Kesewaa Dankwa. 2020. Investigating Smart Home Needs for Elderly Women Who Live Alone. An Interview Study. InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 32–38

    2020

  18. [27]

    Tawanna Dillahunt, Jennifer Mankoff, Eric Paulos, and Susan Fussell. 2009. It’s not all about "Green": energy use in low-income communities. InProceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing. 255–264

    2009

  19. [28]

    Carl DiSalvo, Phoebe Sengers, and Hrönn Brynjarsdóttir. 2010. Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1975–1984

    2010

  20. [29]

    2009.The fundamental law of road congestion: evidence from US cities

    Gilles Duranton and Matthew A Turner. 2009.The fundamental law of road congestion: evidence from US cities. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research

    2009

  21. [30]

    Steve Easterbrook. 2014. From Computational Thinking to Systems Thinking: A conceptual toolkit for sustainability computing. InICT for Sustainability 2014 (ICT4S-14). Atlantis Press, 235–244

    2014

  22. [31]

    European Commission. 2015. Towards an Integrated Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan: Accelerating the European Energy System Transformation. ACM J. Comput. Sustain. Soc., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. How Viable are Energy Savings in Smart Homes...

    2015

  23. [32]

    Fanning, Daniel W

    Andrew L. Fanning, Daniel W. O’Neill, Jason Hickel, and Nicolas Roux. 2022. The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations | Nature Sustainability.Nature Sustainability5, 1 (Jan. 2022), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41893-021-00799-z

    2022

  24. [33]

    Rebecca Ford, Marco Pritoni, Angela Sanguinetti, and Beth Karlin. 2017. Categories and functionality of smart home technology for energy management.Building and Environment123 (Oct. 2017), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. buildenv.2017.07.020

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    Charlotte Freitag, Mike Berners-Lee, Kelly Widdicks, Bran Knowles, Gordon Blair, and Adrian Friday. 2021. The climate impact of ICT: A review of estimates, trends and regulations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02622(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Kotchen, David S

    Kenneth Gillingham, Matthew J. Kotchen, David S. Rapson, and Gernot Wagner. 2013. The rebound effect is overplayed. Nature493, 7433 (Jan. 2013), 475–476. https://doi.org/10.1038/493475a

    2013 doi

  27. [37]

    Olivia Guerra Santin. 2013. Occupant behaviour in energy efficient dwellings: evidence of a rebound effect.Journal of Housing and the Built Environment28, 2 (2013), 311–327

    2013

  28. [38]

    Reinhard Haas and Peter Biermayr. 2000. The rebound effect for space heating Empirical evidence from Austria. Energy Policy28, 6-7 (2000), 403–410

    2000

  29. [39]

    Helmut Haberl, Dominik Wiedenhofer, Doris Virág, Gerald Kalt, Barbara Plank, Paul Brockway, Tomer Fishman, Daniel Hausknost, Fridolin Krausmann, Bartholomäus Leon-Gruchalski, Andreas Mayer, Melanie Pichler, Anke Schaffartzik, Tânia Sousa, Jan Streeck, and Felix Creutzig. 2020....

    2020 doi

  30. [40]

    Tom Hargreaves, Michael Nye, and Jacquelin Burgess. 2010. Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors.Energy policy38, 10 (2010), 6111–6119

    2010

  31. [41]

    Tom Hargreaves, Charlie Wilson, and Richard Hauxwell-Baldwin. 2018. Learning to live in a smart home.Building Research & Information46, 1 (Jan. 2018), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1286882

    2018

  32. [42]

    Hugo Hens, Wout Parijs, and Mieke Deurinck. 2010. Energy consumption for heating and rebound effects.Energy and buildings42, 1 (2010), 105–110

    2010

  33. [43]

    2020.Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World

    Jason Hickel. 2020.Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. Penguin Random House

    2020

  34. [44]

    Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis. 2020. Is Green Growth Possible?New Political Economy25, 4 (June 2020), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964

    2020

  35. [45]

    O’Neill, Andrew L

    Jason Hickel, Daniel W. O’Neill, Andrew L. Fanning, and Huzaifa Zoomkawala. 2022. National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017.The Lancet Planetary Health6, 4 (April 2022), e342–e349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(2...

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    Lorenz Hilty, Wolfgang Lohmann, and Elaine M Huang. 2011. Sustainability and ICT-an overview of the field.Notizie di POLITEIA27, 104 (2011), 13–28

    2011

  37. [47]

    Lorenz M Hilty and Bernard Aebischer. 2015. ICT for sustainability: An emerging research field.ICT innovations for Sustainability(2015), 3–36

    2015

  38. [48]

    Sara Ilstedt and Josefin Wangel. 2014. Altering expectations: How design fictions and backcasting can leverage sustainable lifestyles. InDRS (Design Research Society) 2014: Design’s Big Debates-Pushing the Boundaries of Design Research. Umeå, Sweden, June 16-19 2014

    2014

  39. [49]

    Timo Jakobi, Corinna Ogonowski, Nico Castelli, Gunnar Stevens, and Volker Wulf. 2017. The catch(es) with smart home: Experiences of a living lab field study. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1620–1633

    2017

  40. [50]

    Rikke Hagensby Jensen, Yolande Strengers, Jesper Kjeldskov, Larissa Nicholls, and Mikael B Skov. 2018. Designing the desirable smart home: A study of household experiences and energy consumption impacts. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    2018

  41. [51]

    Rikke Hagensby Jensen, Yolande Strengers, Dimitrios Raptis, Larissa Nicholls, Jesper Kjeldskov, and Mikael B Skov

  42. [52]

    1865.The Coal Question; An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines

    William Stanley Jevons. 1865.The Coal Question; An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines. Macmillan and Co

  43. [53]

    Meghan Elizabeth Kallman and Scott Frickel. 2019. Power to the people: industrial transition movements and energy populism.Environmental Sociology5, 3 (2019), 255–268

    2019

  44. [54]

    Samuel J Kaufman and M Six Silberman. 2011. Rebound effects in sustainable HCI. InSustainable Interaction Design in Professional Domains, workshop at CHI 2011. Citeseer. ACM J. Comput. Sustain. Soc., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. 1:22 Christina Brem...

    2011

  45. [55]

    Daniel Khazzoom

    J. Daniel Khazzoom. 1980. Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency in Standards for Household Appliances. The Energy Journal1, 4 (1980), 21–40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41321476 Publisher: International Association for Energy Economics

    1980

  46. [56]

    Lorraine Kisselburgh, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Lorrie Cranor, Jonathan Lazar, and Vicki L Hanson. 2020. HCI ethics, privacy, accessibility, and the environment: A town hall forum on global policy issues. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2020

  47. [57]

    Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman

    Barbara Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review.Information and software technology51, 1 (2009). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/...

    2009

  48. [58]

    2014.Cyber-sustainability: towards a sustainable digital future

    Bran Knowles. 2014.Cyber-sustainability: towards a sustainable digital future. PhD thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/68468/

    2014

  49. [59]

    Jonathan Koomey, Stephen Berard, Marla Sanchez, and Henry Wong. 2011. Implications of Historical Trends in the Electrical Efficiency of Computing.IEEE Annals of the History of Computing33, 3 (2011), 46–54. https: //doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2010.28

    2011 doi

  50. [60]

    Tarun Kumar and Monto Mani. 2017. An Energy-Neutrality based Evaluation into the Effectiveness of Occupancy Sensors in Buildings: An integrated Life-cycle Study. InProceedings of 33rd PLEA International Conference: Design to Thrive, PLEA 2017. NCEUB 2017 - Network for Comfort ...

    2017

  51. [61]

    Steffen Lange, Maximilian Banning, Anne Berner, Florian Kern, Christian Lutz, Jan Peuckert, Tilman Santarius, Alexander Silbersdorff, and ReCap Arbeitsbericht. 2019. Economy-Wide Rebound Effects: State of the art, a new taxonomy, policy and research gaps.ReCap Makro-Rebounds b...

    2019

  52. [62]

    Myles Lennon. 2021. Energy transitions in a time of intersecting precarities: From reductive environmentalism to antiracist praxis.Energy Research & Social Science73 (March 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101930

    2021

  53. [63]

    Diane Lewis. 1973. Anthropology and colonialism.Current anthropology14, 5 (1973), 581–602

    1973

  54. [64]

    Li Jiang, Da-You Liu, and Bo Yang. 2004. Smart home research. InProceedings of 2004 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04EX826), Vol. 2. IEEE, Shanghai, China, 659–663. https://doi.org/10. 1109/ICMLC.2004.1382266

    2004 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Remo Lutolf. 1992. Smart home concept and the integration of energy meters into a home based system. InSeventh international conference on metering apparatus and tariffs for electricity supply 1992. IET, 277–278

    1992

  56. [66]

    Samuel Mann, Oliver Bates, and Raymond Maher. 2018. Shifting the maturity needle of ICT for Sustainability. ICT4S2018. 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Sustainability(2018), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.29007/d6g3

    2018 doi

  57. [67]

    Christine Milchram, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Geerten van de Kaa, Neelke Doorn, and Rolf Künneke. 2018. Energy justice and smart grid systems: evidence from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.Applied Energy229 (2018), 1244–1259

    2018

  58. [68]

    Bonnie Nardi. 2019. Design in the Age of Climate Change.She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation5, 1 (March 2019), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.01.001

    2019 doi

  59. [69]

    Lisa P Nathan, Batya Friedman, Predrag Klasnja, Shaun K Kane, and Jessica K Miller. 2008. Envisioning systemic effects on persons and society throughout interactive system design. InProceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems. 1–10

    2008

  60. [70]

    Sophie Naylor, Mark Gillott, and Tom Lau. 2018. A review of occupant-centric building control strategies to reduce building energy use.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews96 (Nov. 2018), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2018.07.019

    2018 doi

  61. [71]

    Jonas Nässén and John Holmberg. 2009. Quantifying the rebound effects of energy efficiency improvements and energy conserving behaviour in Sweden.Energy Efficiency2, 3 (Aug. 2009), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053- 009-9046-x

    2009 doi

  62. [72]

    Daniel Pargman and Barath Raghavan. 2014. Rethinking sustainability in computing: From buzzword to non- negotiable limits. InProceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational. 638–647

    2014

  63. [73]

    Daniel Pargman and Barath Raghavan. 2014. Rethinking Sustainability in Computing: From Buzzword to Non- Negotiable Limits(NordiCHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 638––647. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639228

    2014

  64. [74]

    Parrique, J

    T. Parrique, J. Barth, F. Briens, C. Kerschner, A. Kraus-Polk, A. Kuokkanen, and J.H. Spangenberg. 2019.Decoupling debunked – Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau. https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/

    2019

  65. [75]

    Birgit Penzenstadler, Leticia Duboc, Colin C Venters, Stefanie Betz, Norbert Seyff, Krzsztof Wnuk, Ruzanna Chitchyan, Steve M Easterbrook, and Christoph Becker. 2018. Software engineering for sustainability: Find the leverage points! IEEE Software35, 4 (2018), 22–33. ACM J. Co...

    2018

  66. [76]

    Birgit Penzenstadler, Ankita Raturi, Debra Richardson, and Bill Tomlinson. 2014. Safety, security, now sustainability: The nonfunctional requirement for the 21st century.IEEE software31, 3 (2014), 40–47

    2014

  67. [77]

    Kai Petersen, Robert Feldt, Shahid Mujtaba, and Michael Mattsson. 2008. Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) 12. 1–10

    2008

  68. [78]

    Kai Petersen, Sairam Vakkalanka, and Ludwik Kuzniarz. 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update.Information and Software Technology64 (Aug. 2015), 1–18. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007

    2015 doi

  69. [79]

    James Pierce. 2012. Undesigning technology: considering the negation of design by design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 957–966

    2012

  70. [80]

    James Pierce and Eric Paulos. 2012. Beyond energy monitors: interaction, energy, and emerging energy systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 665–674

    2012

  71. [81]

    Schiano, and Eric Paulos

    James Pierce, Diane J. Schiano, and Eric Paulos. 2010. Home, Habits, and Energy: Examining Domestic Interactions and Energy Consumption. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Atlanta, Georgia, USA)(CHI ’10). Association for Computing Mach...

    2010

  72. [82]

    Ales Podgornik, Boris Sucic, Peter Bevk, and Damir Stanicic. 2013. The impact of smart metering on energy efficiency in low-income housing in Mediterranean. InClimate-Smart Technologies: Integrating Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Mitigation and Adaptation Responses....

    2013

  73. [83]

    Hilty, and Matthias Finkbeiner

    Johanna Pohl, Lorenz M. Hilty, and Matthias Finkbeiner. 2019. How LCA contributes to the environmental assessment of higher order effects of ICT application: A review of different approaches.Journal of Cleaner Production219 (May 2019), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepr...

    2019 doi

  74. [84]

    Chris Preist, Daniel Schien, and Eli Blevis. 2016. Understanding and mitigating the effects of device and cloud service design decisions on the environmental footprint of digital infrastructure. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1324–1337

    2016

  75. [85]

    Luis Pérez-Lombard, José Ortiz, and Christine Pout. 2008. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Buildings40, 3 (Jan. 2008), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.03.007

    2008 doi

  76. [86]

    Christian Reinisch, MarioJ Kofler, Félix Iglesias, and Wolfgang Kastner. 2011. Thinkhome energy efficiency in future smart homes.EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems2011 (2011), 1–18

    2011

  77. [87]

    Christian Remy, Oliver Bates, Alan Dix, Vanessa Thomas, Mike Hazas, Adrian Friday, and Elaine M Huang. 2018. Evaluation beyond usability: Validating sustainable HCI research. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2018

  78. [88]

    Tom A Rodden, Joel E Fischer, Nadia Pantidi, Khaled Bachour, and Stuart Moran. 2013. At home with agents: exploring attitudes towards future smart energy infrastructures. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1173–1182

    2013

  79. [89]

    Yvonne Rogers and Paul Marshall. 2017. Research in the Wild.Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics10, 3 (2017), i–97. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00764ED1V01Y201703HCI037

    2017 doi

  80. [90]

    Soroush Safarzadeh, Morteza Rasti-Barzoki, and Seyed Reza Hejazi. 2020. A review of optimal energy policy instruments on industrial energy efficiency programs, rebound effects, and government policies.Energy Policy139 (2020), 111342

    2020

  81. [91]

    Tilman Santarius. 2017. Digitalization, Efficiency and the Rebound Effect. https://www.degrowth.info/blog/ digitalization-efficiency-and-the-rebound-effect

    2017

  82. [92]

    Saunders

    Harry D. Saunders. 1992. The Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate and Neoclassical Growth.The Energy Journal13, 4 (1992), 131–148. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41322471 Publisher: International Association for Energy Economics

    1992

  83. [93]

    Saunders

    Harry D. Saunders. 2000. A view from the macro side: rebound, backfire, and Khazzoom–Brookes.Energy Policy28, 6 (2000), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00024-0

    2000 doi

  84. [94]

    Harry D Saunders. 2013. Historical evidence for energy efficiency rebound in 30 US sectors and a toolkit for rebound analysts.Technological Forecasting and Social Change80, 7 (2013), 1317–1330

    2013

  85. [95]

    Saunders and Jeffrey Y

    Harry D. Saunders and Jeffrey Y. Tsao. 2012. Rebound effects for lighting.Energy Policy49 (Oct. 2012), 477–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.050

    2012 doi

  86. [96]

    Sebastian Seebauer. 2018. The psychology of rebound effects: Explaining energy efficiency rebound behaviours with electric vehicles and building insulation in Austria.Energy research & social science46 (2018), 311–320

    2018

  87. [97]

    Robert Soden, Pradnaya Pathak, and Olivia Doggett. 2021. What we speculate about when we speculate about sustainable HCI. InACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies. 188–198

    2021

  88. [98]

    Steve Sorrell. 2009. Jevons’ Paradox revisited: The evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency.Energy Policy37, 4 (April 2009), 1456–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.003

    2009 doi

  89. [99]

    Sovacool, Shannon Elizabeth Bell, Cara Daggett, Christine Labuski, Myles Lennon, Lindsay Naylor, Julie Klinger, Kelsey Leonard, and Jeremy Firestone

    Benjamin K. Sovacool, Shannon Elizabeth Bell, Cara Daggett, Christine Labuski, Myles Lennon, Lindsay Naylor, Julie Klinger, Kelsey Leonard, and Jeremy Firestone. 2023. Pluralizing energy justice: Incorporating feminist, anti-racist, ACM J. Comput. Sustain. Soc., Vol. 1, No. 1,...

    2023

  90. [100]

    Fiona Ssozi-Mugarura, Thomas Reitmaier, Anja Venter, and Edwin Blake. 2016. Enough with ‘In-The-Wild’. In Proceedings of the First African Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 182–186

    2016

  91. [101]

    David I Stern. 2020. How large is the economy-wide rebound effect?Energy Policy147 (2020), 111870

    2020

  92. [102]

    Gunnar Stevens, Paul Bossauer, Stephanie Vonholdt, and Christina Pakusch. 2019. Using time and space efficiently in driverless cars: Findings of a co-design study. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2019

  93. [103]

    Yolande Strengers. 2014. Smart energy in everyday life: are you designing for resource man?interactions21, 4 (2014), 24–31

    2014

  94. [104]

    Yolande Strengers, Mike Hazas, Larissa Nicholls, Jesper Kjeldskov, and Mikael B Skov. 2020. Pursuing pleasance: Interrogating energy-intensive visions for the smart home.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies136 (2020), 102379

    2020

  95. [105]

    Yolande Strengers, Jenny Kennedy, Paula Arcari, Larissa Nicholls, and Melissa Gregg. 2019. Protection, productivity and pleasure in the smart home: emerging expectations and gendered insights from Australian early adopters. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human fa...

    2019

  96. [106]

    Yolande Strengers, Janine Morley, Larissa Nicholls, and Mike Hazas. 2016. The hidden energy costs of smart homes. The conversation12 (2016)

    2016

  97. [107]

    Strengers

    Yolande A.A. Strengers. 2011. Designing Eco-Feedback Systems for Everyday Life. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2135–2144. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2011

  98. [108]

    Sergio Tirado Herrero, Larissa Nicholls, and Yolande Strengers. 2018. Smart home technologies in everyday life: do they address key energy challenges in households?Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability31 (April 2018), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.001

    2018 doi

  99. [109]

    J. Y. Tsao, H. D. Saunders, J. R. Creighton, M. E. Coltrin, and J. A. Simmons. 2010. Solid-state lighting: an energy- economics perspective.Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics43, 35 (Aug. 2010), 354001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022- 3727/43/35/354001 Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2010 doi

  100. [110]

    Karen Turner. 2009. Negative rebound and disinvestment effects in response to an improvement in energy efficiency in the UK economy.Energy Economics31, 5 (2009), 648–666

    2009

  101. [111]

    Karen Turner. 2013. “Rebound” effects from increased energy efficiency: a time to pause and reflect.The Energy Journal34, 4 (2013)

    2013

  102. [112]

    United Nations. 2022. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022

    2022

  103. [113]

    United Nations Environment Programme. 2021. 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector

    2021

  104. [114]

    Vadén, V

    T. Vadén, V. Lähde, A. Majava, P. Järvensivu, T. Toivanen, E. Hakala, and J. T. Eronen. 2020. Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature.Environmental Science & Policy112 (Oct. 2020), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2...

    2020 doi

  105. [115]

    Van Thillo, S

    L. Van Thillo, S. Verbeke, and A. Audenaert. 2022. The potential of building automation and control systems to lower the energy demand in residential buildings: A review of their performance and influencing parameters.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews158 (2022), 112099....

    2022

  106. [116]

    Julien Walzberg, Thomas Dandres, Nicolas Merveille, Mohamed Cheriet, and Réjean Samson. 2020. Should we fear the rebound effect in smart homes?Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews125 (June 2020), 109798. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109798

    2020

  107. [117]

    Xiaolei Wang, Xiaohui Wen, and Chunping Xie. 2018. An evaluation of technical progress and energy rebound effects in China’s iron & steel industry.Energy Policy123 (2018), 259–265

    2018

  108. [118]

    Zhaohua Wang, Bai Han, and Milin Lu. 2016. Measurement of energy rebound effect in households: Evidence from residential electricity consumption in Beijing, China.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews58 (May 2016), 852–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.179

    2016 doi

  109. [119]

    Colin Watson and Ahmed Kharrufa. 2021. HCI-H is also for Hazard: Using HAZOP to Identify Undesirable Conse- quences in Socio-Technical Systems. InACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies. 230–242

    2021

  110. [120]

    Kelly Widdicks, Mike Hazas, Oliver Bates, and Adrian Friday. 2019. Streaming, multi-screens and YouTube: The new (unsustainable) ways of watching in the home. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2019

  111. [121]

    Blair, Marina Jirotka, Bran Knowles, Steven Sorrell, Miriam Börjesson Rivera, Caroline Cook, Vlad C

    Kelly Widdicks, Federica Lucivero, Gabrielle Samuel, Lucas Somavilla Croxatto, Marcia Tavares Smith, Carolyn Ten Holter, Mike Berners-Lee, Gordon S. Blair, Marina Jirotka, Bran Knowles, Steven Sorrell, Miriam Börjesson Rivera, Caroline Cook, Vlad C. Coroamă, Timothy J. Foxon, ...

    2023

  112. [122]

    Wiedmann, Heinz Schandl, Manfred Lenzen, Daniel Moran, Sangwon Suh, James West, and Keiichiro Kanemoto

    Thomas O. Wiedmann, Heinz Schandl, Manfred Lenzen, Daniel Moran, Sangwon Suh, James West, and Keiichiro Kanemoto. 2015. The material footprint of nations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 20 (May 2015), 6271–6276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220362110 Publi...

    2015 doi

  113. [123]

    Eric Williams. 2011. Environmental effects of information and communications technologies.Nature479, 7373 (Nov. 2011), 354–358. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10682

    2011 doi

  114. [124]

    Eric D Williams and H Scott Matthews. 2007. Scoping the potential of monitoring and control technologies to reduce energy use in homes. InProceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. IEEE, 239–244. Received 16 February 2023; revised ...

    2007

  115. [2007]

    Conducting in situ evaluations for and with ubiquitous computing technologies.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction22, 1-2 (2007), 103–118

    2007

  116. [2018]

    InProceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference

    Exploring Hygge as a desirable design vision for the sustainable smart home. InProceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 355–360

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.