Quantitative Marketing and Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 319–358 | Cite as

Green technology adoption: An empirical study of the Southern California garment cleaning industry

  • Bryan Bollinger


Green technology adoption may be limited by a variety of factors including a lack of sufficient private incentives, long equipment replacement cycles, or lack of information regarding the green alternatives. In California, multiple policy tools including financial incentives, command-and-control regulation, and information and training were used to overcome these obstacles in order to reduce the use of the polluting technology used in traditional dry cleaning. Exploiting the changing regulatory environment, I evaluate the effectiveness of the different policy tools by estimating a dynamic, durable goods replacement model with entry and exit. Because the strict regulations affect future years only, identifying the discount rate is crucial, which I estimate to be 0.94. Using counterfactual simulations under alternative policy regimes, I find that the provision of information and training offered through demonstrations increased adoption of that technology (wet cleaning) by over 200 %. Price incentives (via fees and grants) would have been ineffective at achieving widespread adoption of green technologies but were effective at accelerating adoption when combined with a future ban on polluting technologies. Using this combination of policy instruments led to a net welfare gain of $71 million (NPV) in 2002 when the policies were implemented.


Dynamic programming Discrete choice Technology adoption Information provision Importance sampling Regulated markets Environmental policy Green technology 

JEL Classification

D21 L16 L20 L51 033 C61 



I would like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for their support of this research. I would also like to thank Harikesh Nair, Sridhar Narayanan, and Peter Reiss for their helpful comments as well as two anonymous referees for their insightful feedback. I would especially like to thank Wesley Hartmann for his invaluable support and guidance throughout. All remaining mistakes are my own.


  1. Ackerberg, D.A. (2009). A new use of importance sampling to reduce computational burden in simulation estimation. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 7, 343–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajari, P., Hong, H., & Ryan, S. (2010). Identification and estimation of discrete games of complete information. Econometrica, 78(5), 1529–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, L.C. (2001). Managed care and technology adoption in health care: evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Health Economics, 20(3), 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bass, F.M. (1969). A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science, 15, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollinger, B., & Gillingham, K. (2012). Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Marketing Science, 31(6), 900–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chay, K.Y., & Greenstone, M. (2005). Does air quality matter? Evidence from the housing market. Journal of political economy, 113(2), 376–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doraszelski, U. (2001). The net present value method versus the option value of waiting: A note on Farzin, Huisman and Kort (1998). Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(25), 1109–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engers, M., Hartmann, M., & Stern, S. (2009). Are lemons really hot potatoes? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(2), 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farzin, Y.H., Huisman, K.J.M., & Kort, P.M. (1998). Optimal timing of technology adoption. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 22(5), 779–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fong, M., Chowdhury, H.R., Houghton, M., Komlenic, M., & Villalobos, S. (2006). California dry cleaning industry technical assessment report, Technical report, State of California Air Resources Board.Google Scholar
  11. Goettler, R.L., & Clay, K. (2011). Tariff choice with consumer learning and switching costs. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon, B. (2009). A dynamic model of consumer replacement cycles in the PC processor industry. Marketing Science, 28(5), 846–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gowrisankaran, G., & Stavins, J. (2004). Network externalities and technology adoption: Lessons from electronic payments. The RAND Journal of Economics, 35 (2), 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guyton, K.Z., Hogan, K.A., Scott, C.S., Cooper, G.S., Bale, A.S., Kopylev, L., Stanley B.J., Makris, S.L., Glenn, B., Subramaniam, R.P., Gwinn, M.R., Dzubow, R.C., & Chiu1, W.A. (2014). Human health effects of tetrachloroethylene: Key findings and scientific issues. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(4). 122(4):.Google Scholar
  15. Hannan, T.H., & McDowell, J.M. (1984). Market concentration and the diffusion of new technology in the banking industry. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66, 686–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartmann, W.R. (2006). Intertemporal effects of consumption and their implications for demand elasticity estimates. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 4, 1570–7156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartmann, W.R., & Nair, H. (2010). Retail competition and the dynamics of demand for tied goods. Marketing Science, 29(2), 366–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen, R. (1982). Adoption and diffusion of an innovation of uncertain profitability. Journal of Economic Theory, 27(1), 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Bass, F.M. (1990). New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for research. The Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mulligan, J.G. (2003). Market segmentation and the diffusion of quality-enhancing innovations: The case of downhill skiing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(3), 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nair, H. (2007). Intertemporal price discrimination with forward-looking consumers: Application to the US market for console video-games. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5(3), 239–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Narayanan, S., & Nair, H. (2013). Estimating causal installed-base effects: A bias-correction approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(1), 70–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rust, J. (1987). Optimal replacement of gmc bus engines: An empirical model of Harold Zurcher. Econometrica, 55(5), 999–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shriver, S. (2015). Network effects in alternative fuel adoption: Empirical analysis of the market for ethanol. Marketing Science, 34(1), 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh, H.B., Salas, L., & Stiles, R.E. (1982). Distribution of selected gaseous organic mutagens and suspect carcinogens in ambient air. Environmental Science and Technology, 16, 872–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith, L. (2012). Dynamics and equilibrium in a structural model of wide-body commercial aircraft markets. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 27(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, V.K., & Huang, J.-C. (1995). Can markets value air quality? a meta-analysis of hedonic property value models. Journal of Political Economy, 103(1), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tucker, C. (2008). Identifying formal and informal influence in technology adoption with network externalities. Management Science, 55(12), 2024–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke Fuqua School of BusinessDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations