1 preferences for change: do individuals prefer voluntary actions, soft regulations, or hard...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Preferences for change:
Do individuals prefer voluntary actions,
soft regulations, or hard regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption?
Shahzeen Z. Attari
Carnegie Mellon University
Ecological Economics, Volume 68, Issue 6, Pages 1701-1710
International Conference on Social Dilemmas 2009
2
Risk Reduction Through Governmental Regulations
(Viscusi, 1993) 2
3
Impacts of Climate Change(IPCC, 2007)
3
4
The Social Dilemma of Conservation
Private Interests at odds with collective interests
I
ConserveDo Not
Conserve
Others
Conserve
WIN Free ride
Do Not Conserv
e
Drop in the bucket
LOSE
5
How to Solve Tragedy of Commons
“the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by… coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat pollutants than to discharge”
- Garrett Hardin (1968)
6
Regulations Rest OnPolitical Will and Public Support
6
7
Ways to Change Public Behavior
VOLUNTARY ACTIONSLack of regulations:
e.g. Recycling, Pledging
SOFT REGULATIONSIncentives (taxes) or changes in default: e.g. Tobacco, Carbon, Organ donation
HARD REGULATIONSEnforced rules or bans:
e.g. Seat belt law, Ban smoking, Ban trans fats
8
One Hypothesis…
Hard regulations will be preferred as “we are all in this together” and we may not trust the other person to do the right thing
(Debated in Behavioral Economics)
9
…or Psychological ReactancePeople respond negatively to any force which
restricts their freedom of action (Brehm et al. 1966)
(Mazis et al. 1973)
Women forced to switch their laundry detergent brand expressed strong negative attitudes towards the law
Some even smuggled phosphate detergent from neighboring counties
10
U.S. CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel
(EPA, 2007)
11
Issues Studied
11
12
Survey Asks:
Voluntary Action
Would you pledge not to buy low mileage or high emission vehicle?
Would you pledge to buy green energy from energy supplier?
Soft Regulation
Would you support tax breaks for high mileage or low emission vehicles?
Would you support automatic purchase green energy with opt-out allowance?
Hard Regulation
Would you support government restricting purchases of SUVs and trucks?
Would you support government regulation requiring energy mix?
12
13
Framing Affects Behavior
75% Lean 25% Fat
(Levine & Gaeth, 1988)
14
Study Contrasts Two Frames
Environment“damages ecosystem” “pollutes the atmosphere with toxic substances and contributes to climate change”
National Security“dependence on foreign oil”“decreases our national energy security – that is our ability to ensure and control our energy supply.”
15
Four Survey Versions
1 2 3 4
Voluntary?Voluntary
? Voluntary
? Voluntary
?
Soft? Hard? Soft? Hard?
Voluntary? Voluntary
? Voluntary
? Voluntary
?
Soft? Hard? Soft? Hard?
All participants provided reasons for each choice
16
Results: SUV
Soft, National Security
Soft, Environment
Hard, National Security
Hard, Environment
Voluntary Action Regulation
17
Results: Green Energy
Soft, National Security
Soft, Environment
Hard, National Security
Hard, Environment
Voluntary Action Regulation
18
VoluntaryIntercept -2.3 -1.2
Frame (environmental = 1) -0.14 -0.19
Regulatory option (soft = 1) -0.090 -0.62
Pro-environmental attitudes 0.69 0.84
SUV ownership -1.5 0.74
Alternative energy 0.090 12
Green energy 1.3 14
Democrat 0.50 -0.32
Republican -0.67 0.29
Independent 0.13 -0.051
Political views 0.24 0.11
Gender (male = 1) -0.81 -1.0
Age 0.0030 0.0079
Income -0.016 -0.27
Education 0.098 0.15
Max-rescaled R2 0.31 0.29
Significance level: (p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001)
18
19
RegulationIntercept -2.9 -2.8
Frame (environmental = 1) -0.088 -0.20
Regulatory option (soft = 1) 2.2 1.21
Pro-environmental attitudes 0.62 0.73
SUV ownership -0.29 0.081
Alternative energy 0.64 0.72
Green energy 0.98 1.51
Democrat -0.44 0.43
Republican -1.5 -0.19
Independent -1.4 -0.61
Political views 0.089 0.16
Gender (male = 1) -0.28 -0.69
Age 0.0070 0.0032
Income 0.064 -0.069
Education -0.032 0.14
Max-rescaled R2 0.31 0.29
Significance level: (p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001) 19
20
Reasons for PreferencesReason category Count
Economic incentives 167
Personal freedom and need for choice 129
Environmental reasons and cost 109
Lifestyle requirement 70
I already do this 60
More information is needed 31
Safety and health reasons 31
Better choices needed 24
Other reasons (mentioned only once) 24
Government needed 19
Foreign dependency, cost, environment 11
I do not believe in global warming 7
People will accept this 5
This requires too much effort 2
This is a drop in the bucket 2
I do not care 2
21
Findings- Framing did not matter
- For SUVs and Trucks: Soft >> Voluntary >> HardFor Green Energy: Soft ~ Voluntary >> Hard
- Voluntary Actions female, pro-environmental Regulations soft, pro-environmental
- Reasons: Economic incentivesPersonal freedom
22
Defaults Save Lives
Johnson and Goldstein (2003)
23
Future Work
- Are there ways to decrease psychological reactance ?
Introduce soft regulations first
- Preferences for other behaviors:
Health, Safety : Hard >> Soft >> Voluntary
24
Acknowledgments Cliff Davidson
Mike DeKay
Robyn Dawes
Mitch Small
WändiBruine de Bruin
Liz Hohenstein
Funding
ICSD Conference Travel Funding
Environmental Research and Education Foundation
National Science Foundation
Mary Schoen
25
26
Demographics of Participants
209 Pittsburgh residentsMedian Income: $20,001-$50,000Median Age: 28 years47% Male52% Dem, 16% Rep, 13% Ind46% Liberal, 24% Conservative21% Own SUV9% Buy Green Energy
Although a Convenience Sample,Reasonably Representative of Pittsburgh
Demographic
27
Other Measures Used in the Survey
Pro-environmental attitudes (NEPs, Dunlap et al. 2000)
Currently own SUVUse alternative energyPurchase green energyPolitical party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind, Not sure)
Political views (extremely liberal extremely conservative)
GenderAgeIncomeEducation
28
Logistic Regressions
)....(
)....(
2211
2211
1 ii
ii
xxx
xxx
e
e
ii xxxx
xxit
....)(1
)(ln)]([log 2211
Probability of saying yes
Used for categorical, dichotomous responses
Regression results
29
Who are the major carbon players?
India
Russia
Other
China
European Union
U.S.
25% The U.S. emits 21% of the world’s carbon emissions, but has only 5% of the world’s population.
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2007)
30
How to Address the Problem
Supply Side Demand Side
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Renewable electricity generation
Efficient electricity generation
Efficient technologies
Fuel Switching
Adopting efficient technologies
Buying renewable energy
Changing preferences
Changing lifestyle
Conservation
31
Carbon Cycle
(Vaclav Smil, 2007)