Marginal pricing has long been the instrument of choice to address water conservation challenges. More recently, non-price behavioral interventions have emerged as an alternative. However, there is limited data on the relative efficacies of price and non-price interventions. We report results from long-term field experiments studying unit-level water conservation responses to both price and non-price interventions in the same group of households ( n = 64 186 household-days). Conservation habits, attitude-action gaps, principal-agent incongruities, and billing cycles help account for the heterogeneity in response between households, and across time. A non-price behavior modification intervention before the introduction of marginal pricing resulted in a large and significant effect on treated households (33%). The subsequent introduction of marginal volumetric pricing also reduced water use (8%, for previously untreated households). However, this average price effect masks how a large share (21%) of households increased water use, or how a mere 12% of the households accounted for all the aggregate reduction in water use. We investigated such heterogeneous responses as a systematic conservation maximization design question beyond statistical variance in individual responses. We used daily water consumption measurements across three years alongside a household survey to delineate structural and agentic barriers to conservation behavior. Our analysis reveals how combining price and non-price behavioral interventions could hold the key to achieving conservation effects that are both large and persistent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vivek et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: