IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v39y2020i4p1076-1099.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Managers Can Reduce Household Water Use Through Communication: A Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Heather Hodges
  • Colin Kuehl
  • Sarah E. Anderson
  • Phillip J. Ehret
  • Cameron Brick

Abstract

As populations increase and droughts intensify, water providers are using tools such as persuasive messaging to decrease residential water use. However, district‐led messaging campaigns are rarely informed by psychological science, evaluated for effectiveness, or strategically disseminated. In collaboration with a water district, we report a field experiment among single‐family households using persuasive messaging based on the information‐motivation‐behavioral skills model (IMB). We randomly assigned 10,000 households to receive different mailings and measured household water use. All messaging reduced water consumption relative to the control. On average, water use dropped 0.68 hundred cubic feet (HCF) (509 gallons) per household in the first month. Had all 10,000 single‐family, occupied, non‐agricultural residences been mailed the IMB messaging, more than five million gallons would have been saved in the first month. The effects declined but persisted for approximately three months and were three to six times greater in households with high water use (75th to 90th percentiles) relative to average water use. These findings suggest that combining message elements from the IMB model can reduce residential water use and that targeting high‐use households is particularly cost‐effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Heather Hodges & Colin Kuehl & Sarah E. Anderson & Phillip J. Ehret & Cameron Brick, 2020. "How Managers Can Reduce Household Water Use Through Communication: A Field Experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1076-1099, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:39:y:2020:i:4:p:1076-1099
    DOI: 10.1002/pam.22246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22246
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pam.22246?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer L. Doleac, 2019. "“Evidence‐Based Policy” Should Reflect A Hierarchy Of Evidence," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 517-519, March.
    2. Bertrand, Marianne & Karlan, Dean S. & Mullainathan, Sendhil & Shafir, Eldar & Zinman, Jonathan, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Center Discussion Papers 28441, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    3. Darwin C. Hall, 2009. "Politically Feasible, Revenue Sufficient, And Economically Efficient Municipal Water Rates," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 27(4), pages 539-554, October.
    4. Peter Bergman & Jeffrey T. Denning & Dayanand Manoli, 2019. "Is Information Enough? The Effect of Information about Education Tax Benefits on Student Outcomes," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(3), pages 706-731, June.
    5. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "What's Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(1), pages 263-306.
    6. Susan Clayton & Patrick Devine-Wright & Paul C. Stern & Lorraine Whitmarsh & Amanda Carrico & Linda Steg & Janet Swim & Mirilia Bonnes, 2015. "Psychological research and global climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 640-646, July.
    7. Cameron Brick & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Steven Wooding & William J. Skylark & Theresa M. Marteau & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2018. "Winners and losers: communicating the potential impacts of policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Daniel Gubits & Marybeth Shinn & Michelle Wood & Scott R. Brown & Samuel R. Dastrup & Stephen H. Bell, 2018. "What Interventions Work Best for Families Who Experience Homelessness? Impact Estimates from the Family Options Study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 835-866, September.
    9. Lori S. Bennear & Jonathan M. Lee & Laura O. Taylor, 2013. "Municipal Rebate Programs for Environmental Retrofits: An Evaluation of Additionality and Cost‐Effectiveness," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 350-372, March.
    10. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    11. Philip Oreopoulos & Reuben Ford, 2019. "Keeping College Options Open: A Field Experiment to Help all High School Seniors Through the College Application Process," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 426-454, March.
    12. Paul J. Ferraro & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 64-73, March.
    13. Sarah E. Anderson & Heather E. Hodges & Terry L. Anderson, 2013. "Technical Management in an Age of Openness: The Political, Public, and Environmental Forest Ranger," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 554-573, June.
    14. Hainmueller, Jens & Mummolo, Jonathan & Xu, Yiqing, 2019. "How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 163-192, April.
    15. Saurabh Bhargava & George Loewenstein, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy 102: Beyond Nudging," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 396-401, May.
    16. Hyunhoe Bae, 2012. "Reducing Environmental Risks by Information Disclosure: Evidence in Residential Lead Paint Disclosure Rule," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 404-431, March.
    17. Matthew Harding & Carlos Lamarche, 2016. "Empowering Consumers Through Data and Smart Technology: Experimental Evidence on the Consequences of Time‐of‐Use Electricity Pricing Policies," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(4), pages 906-931, September.
    18. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    19. Verena Tiefenbeck & Lorenz Goette & Kathrin Degen & Vojkan Tasic & Elgar Fleisch & Rafael Lalive & Thorsten Staake, 2018. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1458-1476, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bonan, J. & Cattaneo, C. & d’Adda, G. & Galliera, A. & Tavoni, M., 2024. "Widening the scope: The direct and spillover effects of nudging water efficiency in the presence of other behavioral interventions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    2. Ahsanuzzaman, & Eskander, Shaikh & Islam, Asad & Wang, Liang Choon, 2024. "Non-price energy conservation information and household energy consumption in a developing country: Evidence from an RCT," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Komatsu, Hidenori & Nishio, Ken-ichiro, 2015. "An experimental study on motivational change for electricity conservation by normative messages," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 35-43.
    4. Damgaard, Mette Trier, 2021. "A decade of nudging: What have we learned?," Nationaløkonomisk tidsskrift, Nationaløkonomisk Forening, vol. 2021(1), pages 1-21.
    5. Paul Dolan & Robert Metcalfe, 2013. "Neighbors, Knowledge, and Nuggets: Two Natural Field Experiments on the Role of Incentives on Energy Conservation," Natural Field Experiments 00404, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Mette T. Damgaard, 2020. "A decade of nudging: What have we learned?," Economics Working Papers 2020-07, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    7. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    8. Peters, Jörg & Langbein, Jörg & Roberts, Gareth, 2016. "Policy evaluation, randomized controlled trials, and external validity—A systematic review," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 51-54.
    9. Fang, Ximeng & Goette, Lorenz & Rockenbach, Bettina & Sutter, Matthias & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Schoeb, Samuel & Staake, Thorsten, 2023. "Complementarities in behavioral interventions: Evidence from a field experiment on resource conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    10. Lanz, Bruno & Wurlod, Jules-Daniel & Panzone, Luca & Swanson, Timothy, 2018. "The behavioral effect of Pigovian regulation: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 190-205.
    11. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg, 2022. "Information campaigns for residential energy conservation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    12. Ekström, Mathias, 2021. "The (un)compromise effect: How suggested alternatives can promote active choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Brick, Kerri & De Martino, Samantha & Visser, Martine, 2023. "Behavioural nudges for water conservation in unequal settings: Experimental evidence from Cape Town," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    14. Ito, Yuki & Hara, Konan & Kobayashi, Yasuki, 2020. "The effect of inertia on brand-name versus generic drug choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 364-379.
    15. Wichman, Casey J. & Taylor, Laura O. & von Haefen, Roger H., 2016. "Conservation policies: Who responds to price and who responds to prescription?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 114-134.
    16. Grant Miller & A. Mushfiq Mobarak, 2015. "Learning About New Technologies Through Social Networks: Experimental Evidence on Nontraditional Stoves in Bangladesh," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 480-499, July.
    17. Peter Andre & Teodora Boneva & Felix Chopra & Armin Falk, 2021. "Misperceived Social Norms and Willingness to Act Against Climate Change," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 101, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    18. Kast, Felipe & Meier, Stephan & Pomeranz, Dina, 2018. "Saving more in groups: Field experimental evidence from Chile," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 275-294.
    19. Andor, Mark Andreas & Götte, Lorenz & Price, Michael Keith & Schulze Tilling, Anna & Tomberg, Lukas, 2023. "Differences in how and why social comparisons and real-time feedback impact resource use: Evidence from a field experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 1059, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    20. Tonke, Sebastian, 2020. "Imperfect Procedural Knowledge: Evidence from a Field Experiment to Encourage Water Conservation," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224536, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:39:y:2020:i:4:p:1076-1099. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.