Saving Water with a Nudge (or Two): Evidence from Costa Rica on the Effectiveness and Limits of Low-Cost Behavioral Interventions on Water Use

Abstract

The study uses a randomized controlled trial to test the impact of simple, inexpensive, and nonpersonalized behavioral interventions (or “nudges”) on water consumption in the context of a developing country. A descriptive social norm intervention using neighborhood comparisons reduces average water consumption in the first two postintervention months by 4.9 percent relative to the control group, while a planning postcard intervention reduces consumption by 4.8 percent. A descriptive social norm intervention using a town-level comparison also reduces water consumption by 3.2 percent, but this effect is not statistically significant. Finally, the study's one-time interventions continue to generate statistically significant reductions in water use for up to four months after they are implemented.

Artificial intelligence in the water domain: Opportunities for responsible use

“…Generic nudging in the water-sector is already common-place, for example households or farmers who are provided with information on how their own water use relates to that of comparable users to "nudge" them into more conservative behavior (e.g. Chabé-Ferret et al, 2019;Miranda et al, 2019). While generic nudges seem justifiable conditional on due respect for personal autonomy and human dignity (Schmidt and Engelen, 2020), AI-based techniques open the possibility for targeted micro-nudging, where nudges are tailored to specific individuals.…”

Consumption feedback and water saving: An experiment in the metropolitan area of Milan

“…Existing water conservation experiments were largely and mainly developed in the US (i.e. Ferraro and Price, 2013;Brent et al, 2015;Hahn et al, 2016;Schultz et al,2019;Brent et al, 2020), with various applications in other parts of the world, such as Australia (Sarac et al, 2003;Fielding et al, 2013 ), Central and South America (Datta et al, 2015;Miranda et al, 2020;Torres and Carlsson, 2018), South Africa (Smith and Visser, 2013), and Asia (Sudarshan, 2017Agarwal et al, 2017;Goette, et al 2019). Very few researchers investigated the impact of a social information program on water consumption in Europe (Ansink et al, 2021 in the UK and Kažukauskas et al, 2021 in Sweden).…”

“…Adopted notification tool. Households were reached via postcards or mailers (Fielding et al, 2013;Miranda et al, 2020;Brent et al, 2020), handouts (Seyranian et al, 2015), a combination of letters and emails (Brent at al. 2015;Bhanot, 2017;Jessoe et al, 2021), a combination of letters and a website (Schultz et al,2016;Daminato et al, 2021), printed leaflets in the form of door hangers (Goette et al, 2019) or more frequently via printed letters (e.g., Ferraro and Price, 2013;Hahn et al, 2016;Landon et al, 2018;Schultz et al, 2019;Torres and Carlsson, 2018;Carlsson et al, 2021).…”

“…The aim of our choice was to provide information in as familiar terms as possible, so that it could be easily quantified and understood by non-skilled users. 7 5 Sarac et al (2003) and Fielding et al (2013) in Australia; Datta et al (2015), Miranda et al (2020), Torres and Carlsson (2018) in Central and South America; Smith and Visser (2013) in South Africa; Sudarshan (2017); Agarwal et al (2017); Goette, et al (2019) in Asia; Ansink et al (2021) and Kažukauskas et al (2021) in Europe. 6 The Northern Italian regions declared a State of Emergency in the summer of 2022 due to the worst drought in the last 70 years.…”

“…Previous experiments delivered the information mainly through printed letters, postcards or handouts (Ferraro and Price, 2013;Hahn et al, 2016;Landon et al, 2018;Schultz et al, 2019;Torres and Carlsson, 2018;Carlsson et al, 2021;Fielding et al, 2013;Miranda et al, 2020), printed leaflets in the form of door hangers (Schultz et. al 2007;Goette et al, 2019), or a combination of printed letters, emails and a website (Dolan & Metcalfe 2013;Brent at al.…”