IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/globus/v21y2020i5p1232-1248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Non-pecuniary-based Incentive Mechanisms to Reduce Water Usage at the Household Level and to Achieve Positive Environmental Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Jhumur Sengupta

Abstract

There has been a sixfold increase in global water use over the twentieth century. The study answers the question, ‘how can scarce water be saved in an efficient manner?’ The current study uses the non-pecuniary incentive, ‘neighbourhood comparison’, as a tool for giving signals to water users. This study stresses on the negative linkage between water usage by households and ‘neighbourhood comparison’ in the Indian context. The field survey of this study considers household-level data related to water usage. In the present study, it is revealed that ‘neighbourhood comparison’ message causes significant reductions in water consumption per capita.

Suggested Citation

  • Jhumur Sengupta, 2020. "The Effect of Non-pecuniary-based Incentive Mechanisms to Reduce Water Usage at the Household Level and to Achieve Positive Environmental Outcomes," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 21(5), pages 1232-1248, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:globus:v:21:y:2020:i:5:p:1232-1248
    DOI: 10.1177/0972150919857013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0972150919857013
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0972150919857013?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. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2013. "Heterogeneous treatment effects and mechanisms in information-based environmental policies: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 356-379.
    2. Lucas W. Davis, 2011. "Evaluating the Slow Adoption of Energy Efficient Investments: Are Renters Less Likely to Have Energy Efficient Appliances?," NBER Chapters, in: The Design and Implementation of US Climate Policy, pages 301-316, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Mansur, Erin T. & Olmstead, Sheila M., 2012. "The value of scarce water: Measuring the inefficiency of municipal regulations," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 332-346.
    4. Dora L. Costa & Matthew E. Kahn, 2013. "Energy Conservation “Nudges” And Environmentalist Ideology: Evidence From A Randomized Residential Electricity Field Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 680-702, June.
    5. Ian Ayres & Sophie Raseman & Alice Shih, 2009. "Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage," NBER Working Papers 15386, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. 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.
    7. Mohammed Aminu Sualihu & M. Arifur Rahman, 2014. "Payment Behaviour of Electricity Consumers: Evidence from the Greater Accra Region of Ghana," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 15(3), pages 477-492, September.
    8. Muhammad Shahbaz & Faridul Islam & Muhammad Sabihuddin Butt, 2016. "Finance–Growth–Energy Nexus and the Role of Agriculture and Modern Sectors: Evidence from ARDL Bounds Test Approach to Cointegration in Pakistan," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1037-1059, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2013. "Heterogeneous treatment effects and mechanisms in information-based environmental policies: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 356-379.
    2. Daniel A. Brent & Joseph H. Cook & Skylar Olsen, 2015. "Social Comparisons, Household Water Use, and Participation in Utility Conservation Programs: Evidence from Three Randomized Trials," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(4), pages 597-627.
    3. Brown, Joe & Hamoudi, Amar & Jeuland, Marc & Turrini, Gina, 2017. "Seeing, believing, and behaving: Heterogeneous effects of an information intervention on household water treatment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 141-159.
    4. Cattaneo, Cristina & D’Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo & Bonan, Jacopo, 2019. "Can We Make Social Information Programs More Effective? The Role of Identity and Values," RFF Working Paper Series 19-21, Resources for the Future.
    5. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    6. Andrea Szabo & Gergely Ujhelyi, 2014. "Can Information Reduce Nonpayment for Public Utilities? Experimental Evidence from South Africa," Working Papers 2014-114-31, Department of Economics, University of Houston.
    7. Astier, Nicolas, 2018. "Comparative feedbacks under incomplete information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 90-108.
    8. Daniel A. Brent & Corey Lott & Michael Taylor & Joseph Cook & Kimberly Rollins & Shawn Stoddard, 2020. "What Causes Heterogeneous Responses to Social Comparison Messages for Water Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 503-537, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anca Mihut & Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Taxation, redistribution, and observability in social dilemmas," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 21(5), pages 826-846, October.
    11. John List & Michael Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00447, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Delmas, Magali A. & Lessem, Neil, 2014. "Saving power to conserve your reputation? The effectiveness of private versus public information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 353-370.
    13. David P. Byrne & Andrea La Nauze & Leslie A.Martin, 2014. "Tell Me Something I Don’t Already Know:Informedness and External Validity in Information Programs," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1180, The University of Melbourne.
    14. Pratt, Bryan, 2023. "A fine is more than a price: Evidence from drought restrictions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    15. Bucciol, Alessandro & Montinari, Natalia & Piovesan, Marco, 2014. "It Wasn't Me! Visibility and Free Riding in Waste Sorting," Working Papers 2014:17, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    16. 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.
    17. Nemati, Mehdi & Buck, Steven & Soldati, Hilary, 2017. "The Effect of Social and Consumption Analytics on Residential Water Demand," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252738, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Hunt Allcott & Todd Rogers, 2012. "The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation," NBER Working Papers 18492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Alec Brandon & Paul Ferraro & John List & Robert Metcalfe & Michael Price & Florian Rundhammer, 2017. "Do the effects of social nudges persist? Theory and evidence from 38 natural field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00598, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Wichman, Casey J., 2017. "Information provision and consumer behavior: A natural experiment in billing frequency," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 13-33.

    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:sae:globus:v:21:y:2020:i:5:p:1232-1248. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.imi.edu/ .

    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.