Advertisement

Are ‘Water Smart Landscapes’ Contagious? An Epidemic Approach on Networks to Study Peer Effects

  • Christa Brelsford
  • Caterina De Bacco
Article

Abstract

We test the existence of a neighborhood based peer effect around participation in an incentive based conservation program called ‘Water Smart Landscapes’ (WSL) in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada. We use 15 years of geo-coded daily records of WSL program applications and approvals compiled by the Southern Nevada Water Authority and Clark County Tax Assessors rolls for home characteristics. We use this data to test whether a spatially mediated peer effect can be observed in WSL participation likelihood at the household level. We show that epidemic spreading models provide more flexibility in modeling assumptions, and also provide one mechanism for addressing problems associated with correlated unobservables than hazards models which can also be applied to address the same questions. We build networks of neighborhood based peers for 16 randomly selected neighborhoods in Las Vegas and test for the existence of a peer based influence on WSL participation by using a Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered epidemic spreading model (SEIR), in which a home can become infected via autoinfection or through contagion from its infected neighbors. We show that this type of epidemic model can be directly recast to an additive-multiplicative hazard model, but not to purely multiplicative one. Using both inference and prediction approaches we find evidence of peer effects in several Las Vegas neighborhoods.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Alfredo Braunstein and Joshua K Abbott for helpful comments. Research sponsored by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy. CB also received partial support from the ASU/SFI Center for Biosocial Complexity. CDB was supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altarelli F, Braunstein A, Dall’Asta L, Lage-Castellanos A, Zecchina R (2014a) Bayesian inference of epidemics on networks via belief propagation. Phys Rev Lett 112(11):118701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altarelli F, Braunstein A, Dall’Asta L, Wakeling JR, Zecchina R (2014b) Containing epidemic outbreaks by message-passing techniques. Phys Rev X 4(2):021024Google Scholar
  4. Anderson RM, May RM, Anderson B (1992) Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and control, vol 28. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
  5. Angrist JD (2014) The perils of peer effects. Labour Econ 30:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aral S, Walker D (2012) Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science 337(6092):337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A (2009) Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(51):21544–21549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baranzini A, Carattini S, Péclat M (2017) What drives social contagion in the adoption of solar photovoltaic technology? Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 308Google Scholar
  9. Barthélemy M, Flammini A (2009) Co-evolution of density and topology in a simple model of city formation. Netw Spatial Econ 9(3):401–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bollinger B, Gillingham K (2012) Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Market Sci 31(6):900–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brelsford C (2014) Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over: population growth, infrastructure change, and conservation policy as drivers of residential water demand. Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Brelsford C, Abbott JK (2017) Growing into water conservation? Decomposing the drivers of reduced water consumption in Las Vegas, NV. Ecol Econ 133:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brelsford C, Abbott JK (2018) How smart are ‘Water Smart Landscapes’? arXiv:1803.04593
  14. Brock WA, Durlauf SN (2001) Interactions-based models. Handb Econ 5:3297–3380Google Scholar
  15. Byrd RH, Lu P, Nocedal J, Zhu C (1995) A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM J Sci Comput 16(5):1190–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ducruet C, Beauguitte L (2014) Spatial science and network science: Review and outcomes of a complex relationship. Netw Spatial Econ 14(3–4):297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2018) New private housing units authorized by building permits: 1-Unit structures for Las Vegas-Paradise, NV (MSA) [lasv832bp1fhsa]. Technical Report [LASV832BP1FHSA], FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  18. Graziano M, Gillingham K (2015) Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: the influence of neighbors and the built environment. J Econ Geogr 15 (4):815–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogan J (2016) Strip left reeling: picking up the pieces after the Great Recession. Las Vegas Review-JGoogle Scholar
  20. Höhle M (2008) Spatio-temporal epidemic modelling using additive-multiplicative intensity models. University of Munich, Department of Statistics, Technical Report Number 041 https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6366/2/hoehle-techrep41.pdf
  21. Höhle M (2009) Additive-multiplicative regression models for spatio-temporal epidemics. Biom J 51(6):961–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Höhle M, Jørgensen E, O’Neill PD (2005) Inference in disease transmission experiments by using stochastic epidemic models. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 54 (2):349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iyengar R, Van den Bulte C, Valente TW (2011) Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Mark Sci 30(2):195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (2011) The statistical analysis of failure time data, vol 360. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Kermack WO, McKendrick AG (1932) Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics. ii. the problem of endemicity. Proc R Soc London, Ser A, containing papers of a mathematical and physical character 138(834):55–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manski CF (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 60(3):531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manski CF (2000) Economic analysis of social interactions. J Econ Perspect 14(3):115–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer S, Held L, Höhle M (2017) Spatio-temporal analysis of epidemic phenomena using the R package surveillance. J Stat Softw, Articles 77(11):1–55Google Scholar
  29. Pawitan Y (2001) In all likelihood: statistical modelling and inference using likelihood. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Richter L-L (2013) Social effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic technology in the UK. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1357,  https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5680
  31. Ryan C (2017) Measurement of Peer Effects. Aust Econ Rev 50(1):121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scheike TH, Zhang M-J (2002) An additive–multiplicative cox–aalen regression model. Scand J Stat 29(1):75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Segall E (2017) Number of vacant homes in Las Vegas rises. Las Vegas Rev-JGoogle Scholar
  34. Shalizi CR, Thomas AC (2011) Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociol Methods Res 40(2):211–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shao J (1993) Linear model selection by cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 88 (422):486–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Soetevent AR (2006) Empirics of the identification of social interactions; an evaluation of the approaches and their results. J Econ Surv 20(2):193–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Southern Nevada Water Authority (2018) Frequent questions - water smart landscapes. www.snwa.com/rebates/wsl_faq.html. Accessed 3 Jan 2018
  38. Sovocool KA, Morgan M, Bennett D (2006) An in-depth investigation of xeriscape as a water conservation measure. J Am Water Works Assoc 98(2):82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Towe C, Lawley C (2013) The contagion effect of neighboring foreclosures. Am Econ J Econ Pol 5(2):313–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2018) Total gross domestic product for Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV (MSA) [NGMP29820]. Technical Report [NGMP29820], FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  41. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018) Unemployment rate in Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV (MSA) [lasv832urn]. FRED Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Federal Reserve Bank, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  42. U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (2018) All-transactions house price index for Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV (MSA) [ATNHPIUS29820q]. Technical Report [ATNHPIUS29820Q], FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  43. Vallès-Català T, Peixoto TP, Guimerà R, Sales-Pardo M (2017) On the consistency between model selection and link prediction in networks. arXiv:1705.07967
  44. Young HP (2009) Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning. Am Econ Rev 99(5):1899–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Santa Fe InstituteSanta FeUSA

Personalised recommendations