Skip to main content

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

Environmental and Resource Economics volume 46, pages 539–565 (2010)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • 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): 81–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Canberra

  • Berk R, Schulman D, McKeever M, Freeman H (1993) Measuring the impact of water conservation campaigns in California. Clim Change 24: 233–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkhout PHG, Muskens JC, Velthuijsen JW (2000) Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy 28: 425–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brännlund R, Ghalwash T, Nordström J (2007) Increased energy efficiency and the rebound effect: effects on consumption and emissions. Energy Econ 29: 1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 637–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dandy G, Nguyen T, Davies C (1997) Estimating residential water demand in the presence of free allowances. Land Econ 73(1): 125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Oliver M (1999) Attitudes and inaction: a case study of the manifest demographics of urban water conservation. Environ Behav 31(3): 372–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domene E, Sauri D (2006) Urbanisation and water consumption: influencing factors in the metropolitan region of Barcelona. Urban Stud 43(9): 1605–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming CM, Bowden M (2009) Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. J Environ Manag 90(1): 284–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilg A, Barr S (2006) Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from a study of environmental actions. Ecol Econ 57(3): 400–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafton RQ, Ward M (2008) Prices versus rationing: Marshallian surplus and mandatory water restrictions. Econ Rec 84: 57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman J (1979) Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. Bell J Econ 10: 33–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 164–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney DS, Goemans C, Klein R, Lowrey J, Reidy K (2008) Residential water demand management: lessons from Aurora, Colorado. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44:192–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 2803–2824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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/

  • Mizobuchi K (2008) An empirical study of the rebound effect considering capital costs. Energy Econ 30: 2486–2516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 68–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesbakken R (2001) Energy consumption for space heating: a discrete-continuous approach. Scand J Econ 103(1): 165–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Renwick ME, Archibald SO (1998) Demand side management policies for residential water use. Land Econ 74(3): 343–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 37–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 231–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorrell S, Dimitropoulos J (2008) The rebound effect: microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions. Ecol Econ 65: 636–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada (2009) Households and the Environment 2007. Catalogue no. 11-526-X

  • Sutherland RJ (1991) Market barriers to energy-efficiency investments. Energy J 12: 15–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE, Seligman C (2000) The evaluation of information campaigns to promote voluntary household water conservation. Eval Rev 24(6): 539–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen J, F (2002) Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J Econ Psychol 23(5): 605–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bergh J (2008) Environmental regulation of households: an empirical review of economic and psychological factors. Ecol Econ 66(4): 559–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 735–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paris School of Economics, CNRS, Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 106/112 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75647, Paris Cedex 13, France

    Katrin Millock

  2. Toulouse School of Economics (LERNA-INRA), Manufacture des Tabacs 21, Allée de Brienne, 31000, Toulouse, France

    Céline Nauges

Authors
  1. Katrin Millock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Céline Nauges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Céline Nauges.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Millock, K., Nauges, C. Household Adoption of Water-Efficient Equipment: The Role of Socio-Economic Factors, Environmental Attitudes and Policy. Environ Resource Econ 46, 539–565 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9360-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9360-y

Keywords

  • Attitudes
  • Metering
  • Residential water use
  • Technology adoption

JEL Classification

  • D12
  • O33
  • Q25
  • Q58