8. Helping The Environment Flashcards

1
Q

What is the standard economic approach to global warming?

A

Carbon tax or subsidies for environmentally friendly technologies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Problems with carbon tax and subsidies when dealing with carbon emissions?

A

-hard to know efficient levels
-carbon markets aren’t popular
-tax increases even more unpopular
-subsidies for clean energy (such as solar) is often too expensive in an age of austerity and cash-strapped governments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Describe set up of typical public good game

A

-groups of 4
-everybody gets 20 money units
-describe how many to invest in group pot
-the experimenter increases every MU in the pot by 1.6 and distributed evenly among group members

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Give an example of conditional cooperation in the field. Frey & Meier (2004)

A

-each semester students at Zurich have to decide whether to donate to two social funds which have character of public good.
-2500 students randomly selected for field exp
-2000 students received info that 64%/46% contributed to the two funds in the past
-500 students were asked about their expectations of how others will behave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Results of Frey & Meier 2004

A

-students are more likely to contribute the higher the expectation of average group behaviour. However, no causal inference possible
-students who in the past never or always contributed don’t react to treatment but the occasional contributors contribute more in high than low

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Summary of Rustagi Et al 2010

A

-Forest management projects in Kenya
-n=49 groups
-Use a measure of conditional cooperation by Fischbacher, Gachter, Fehr 2001 (strategy method)
-Most groups are conditional cooperators with a lot of free riders too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Describe set up of field exp on power of social norms by Schultz Et al 2009

A

-field exp on energy conservation with 290 households
-meter readings left feedback at door:
Either
Only descriptive feedback about electricity use relative to neighbours
Or descriptive feedback plus happy or sad face (injunctive norm)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Results of exp on power of social norms Schultz Et al 2009

A

-descriptive feedback can backfire on those who are performing above average
-combination with injunctive norm can help
-this effect lasts in long term too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How does Allcott 2011 use the power of social norms by Schultz Et al 2009

A

-Allcott does study on OPOWER
-nearly 600,000 households with residential customers with sufficient electricity bill history
-first part of letter is social comparison module which highlights descriptive norm and injunctive norm
-control doesn’t receive report
-treatment group report frequency was also randomised

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Results of Allcott Et al 2011

A

-mean ATE=-2.03% which is 0.62kWh, equivalent to leaving on air con for 37 mins
-wide variation in savings by state 0.81% to 2.55%
-a 11-20% increase in price would be needed to make the same decrease in usage in short run, 5.2% in long run
-saving rate is highest in summer and winter
-the higher the baseline usage the greater the treatment effect
-important role for normative messages but categories of normative feedback don’t have discontinuous effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Describe set up of Jachimowicz Et al 2009

A

-survey for N=2001 to test for 1st and 2nd order beliefs about environment
-questions scored on a 7 point scale, 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)
-answers aggregated at state level
-dependent variable: % energy saved in treatment group relative to control group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Results of Jachimowicz Et al 2008

A

-1st order beliefs are higher than 2nd order beliefs in all 27 states
- 2nd order beliefs predicted energy saving in 211 RCTs, 1st order beliefs didn’t. Caveat, only correlational. Experimental causal evidence needed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Describe experiment on the causal role of 2nd order beliefs

A

-exp run on MTurk (N=561). Participants told scenario where they receive energy bill and they use 28% more than neighbours.
-participants randomly allocated to low or high 2nd order belief condition
-Low/High “your county is in 11th/89th percentile of energy conservation in US”
-dependent variable: “How willing are you to reduce your energy use?” 1-7

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Results of the causal role of 2nd order beliefs on MTurk

A

“How willing are you to reduce your energy use?”
High: 5.83
Low: 5.33
On a scale of 1-7
P<0.001
Robust if controlling for first order beliefs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Describe set up of Yoeli Et al (2013)

A

-Demand Response Programme (DRP) voluntary programmes where people allow their utility company to restrict their energy consumption during peak hours- features of a public good dilemma
-participants are residents of 15 homeowner associations
-sign up sheet posted on notice board next to mailboxes
-random treatment allocation where sign ups are observable or anonymous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Results of Yoeli Et al (2013)

A

-those that are observable see a roughly 8.5% sign up rate whereas anonymous has roughly 3%
-apartments sign up more
-owners of apartments sign up more than renters
-the effect of being observable vanishes when there isn’t a public good framing

17
Q

Describe set up of Kristal & Whillans 2020

A

-5 experiments on commuting with 68,000 employees of large airport
-study 1: letters about car pooling. 4 treatments: control (no letter), mere info, letter with easy sign up, letter included testimonials
-study 2: interventions for those already car pooling
-study 3: free bus trial offered and followed up
-study 4: provided personalised info about carpool matches etc

18
Q

Results of Kristal & Whillans 2020

A

-all effects are negligible
-15k letters and only 33 sign ups to carpooling
-these methods have been successful in other contexts. Interventions in new contexts should be tested

19
Q

What is the motivation for Jachimowicz 2018?

A

They hypothesise that given the large variation in savings between states, descriptive norm info combines with second order beliefs to influence behaviour. Therefore they test 2nd order beliefs

20
Q

Takeaways from Jachimowicz 2018

A

-behavioural interventions that only target first order beliefs might not be very effective
-normative info (second order beliefs) are crucial for people to act upon
-therefore normative messages need to be carefully considered

21
Q

Which papers are relevant to a question on helping the environment?

A

-Frey & Meier (2004): Swiss uni public good
-Rustagi Et Al (2010): forest Ethiopia
-Schultz Et Al (2009): energy conservation norms
-Allcott (2011): OPOWER norms
-Jachimowicz et al (2018): beliefs
-Yoeli et al (2013): DRP observability
-Kristal & Whillans (2020): airport