Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 539–565 | Cite as

Household Adoption of Water-Efficient Equipment: The Role of Socio-Economic Factors, Environmental Attitudes and Policy

  • Katrin Millock
  • Céline Nauges
Article

Abstract

Using survey data of around 10,000 households from 10 OECD countries, we identify the driving factors of household adoption of water-efficient equipment by estimating Probit models of a household’s probability to invest in such equipment. The results indicate that environmental attitudes and ownership status are strong predictors of adoption of water-efficient equipment. In terms of policy, we find that households that were both metered and charged for their water individually had a much higher probability to invest in water-efficient equipment compared to households that paid a flat fee.

Keywords

Attitudes Metering Residential water use Technology adoption 

JEL Classification

D12 O33 Q25 Q58 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arbués-Gracia F, García-Valiñas MA, Martínez-Espiñeira R (2003) Estimation of residential water demand: a state of the art review. J Socio Econ 32(1): 81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) What do Australians think about protecting the environment? Paper prepared for the 2006 Australian state of the environment committee. Department of the Environment and Heritage, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  3. Berk R, Schulman D, McKeever M, Freeman H (1993) Measuring the impact of water conservation campaigns in California. Clim Change 24: 233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkhout PHG, Muskens JC, Velthuijsen JW (2000) Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy 28: 425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brännlund R, Ghalwash T, Nordström J (2007) Increased energy efficiency and the rebound effect: effects on consumption and emissions. Energy Econ 29: 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell HE, Johnson RM, Hunt Larsen E (2004) Prices, devices, people or rules: the relative effectiveness of policy instruments in water conservation. Rev Policy Res 21(5): 637–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dandy G, Nguyen T, Davies C (1997) Estimating residential water demand in the presence of free allowances. Land Econ 73(1): 125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Oliver M (1999) Attitudes and inaction: a case study of the manifest demographics of urban water conservation. Environ Behav 31(3): 372–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Domene E, Sauri D (2006) Urbanisation and water consumption: influencing factors in the metropolitan region of Barcelona. Urban Stud 43(9): 1605–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleming CM, Bowden M (2009) Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. J Environ Manag 90(1): 284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilg A, Barr S (2006) Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from a study of environmental actions. Ecol Econ 57(3): 400–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grafton RQ, Ward M (2008) Prices versus rationing: Marshallian surplus and mandatory water restrictions. Econ Rec 84: 57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hausman J (1979) Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. Bell J Econ 10: 33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kantola SJ, Syme GJ, Nesdale AR (1983) The effects of appraised severity and efficacy in promoting water conservation: an informational analysis. J Appl Soc Psychol 13(2): 164–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kenney DS, Goemans C, Klein R, Lowrey J, Reidy K (2008) Residential water demand management: lessons from Aurora, Colorado. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44:192–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiernan NE, Kiernan M, Oyler MA, Gilles C (2005) Is a web survey as effective as a mail survey? A field experiment among computer users. Am J Eval 26(2): 245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lam SP (2006) Predicting intention to save water: theory of planned behavior, response efficacy, vulnerability, and perceived efficiency of alternative solutions. J Appl Soc Psychol 36(11): 2803–2824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2008) Internet CV surveys—a cheap fast way to get large samples of biased values? MPRA Paper No. 11471. Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11471/
  20. Mizobuchi K (2008) An empirical study of the rebound effect considering capital costs. Energy Econ 30: 2486–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nauges C, Thomas A (2000) Privately operated water utilities, municipal price negotiation, and estimation of residential water demand; the case of France. Land Econ 76(1): 68–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nesbakken R (2001) Energy consumption for space heating: a discrete-continuous approach. Scand J Econ 103(1): 165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2009) OECD household survey on environmental attitudes and behaviour: data corroboration. Background paper available on http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/19/44101274.pdf
  24. Renwick ME, Archibald SO (1998) Demand side management policies for residential water use. Land Econ 74(3): 343–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Renwick ME, Green R (2000) Do residential water demand side management policies measure up? An analysis of eight California water agencies. J Environ Econ Manag 40(1): 37–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roibás D, García-Valiñas MA, Wall A (2007) Measuring welfare losses from interruption and pricing as responses to water shortages: an application to the case of Seville. Environ Res Econ 38(2): 231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sorrell S, Dimitropoulos J (2008) The rebound effect: microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions. Ecol Econ 65: 636–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Statistics Canada (2009) Households and the Environment 2007. Catalogue no. 11-526-XGoogle Scholar
  29. Sutherland RJ (1991) Market barriers to energy-efficiency investments. Energy J 12: 15–34Google Scholar
  30. Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE, Seligman C (2000) The evaluation of information campaigns to promote voluntary household water conservation. Eval Rev 24(6): 539–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thøgersen J, F (2002) Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J Econ Psychol 23(5): 605–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van den Bergh J (2008) Environmental regulation of households: an empirical review of economic and psychological factors. Ecol Econ 66(4): 559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Vugt M, Samuelson CD (1999) The impact of personal metering in the management of a natural resource crisis: a social dilemma analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25(6): 735–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paris School of Economics, CNRS, Centre d’Economie de la SorbonneUniversité Paris 1 Panthéon-SorbonneParis Cedex 13France
  2. 2.Toulouse School of Economics (LERNA-INRA)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations