保护政策有效吗?来自住宅用水的证据

Oliver Browne, L. Gazzè, M. Greenstone
{"title":"保护政策有效吗?来自住宅用水的证据","authors":"Oliver Browne, L. Gazzè, M. Greenstone","doi":"10.1086/711310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to the historic 2011–17 California drought, local governments enacted a raft of conservation policies, and little is known about which ones explain the sharp decline in residential water consumption. To answer this question, we use a novel data set of hourly water consumption data for more than 82,300 households in Fresno, California, where water consumption declined by nearly a third, and have three main findings. First, we estimate the price elasticity of demand for water to be 0.16 for marginal rates and 0.39 for average rates. Second, reducing the number of days where outdoor watering is allowable from 3 to 2 substantially decreases water use, despite the availability of opportunities to substitute between permitted and nonpermitted hours, days, and seasons. Third, “bully pulpit” pronouncements about the water crisis increased public awareness of drought conditions but did not contribute to water savings. Overall, higher water prices explain 40%–44% of the changes in residential water use observed during our sample period in Fresno, and reductions in the number of days when outdoor watering is allowable explain 45%–51% of these changes. However, the absence of experimental or quasi-experimental variation in these policies means that we interpret this associational evidence cautiously.","PeriodicalId":87249,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and energy policy and the economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Conservation Policies Work? Evidence from Residential Water Use\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Browne, L. Gazzè, M. Greenstone\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/711310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In response to the historic 2011–17 California drought, local governments enacted a raft of conservation policies, and little is known about which ones explain the sharp decline in residential water consumption. To answer this question, we use a novel data set of hourly water consumption data for more than 82,300 households in Fresno, California, where water consumption declined by nearly a third, and have three main findings. First, we estimate the price elasticity of demand for water to be 0.16 for marginal rates and 0.39 for average rates. Second, reducing the number of days where outdoor watering is allowable from 3 to 2 substantially decreases water use, despite the availability of opportunities to substitute between permitted and nonpermitted hours, days, and seasons. Third, “bully pulpit” pronouncements about the water crisis increased public awareness of drought conditions but did not contribute to water savings. Overall, higher water prices explain 40%–44% of the changes in residential water use observed during our sample period in Fresno, and reductions in the number of days when outdoor watering is allowable explain 45%–51% of these changes. However, the absence of experimental or quasi-experimental variation in these policies means that we interpret this associational evidence cautiously.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental and energy policy and the economy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental and energy policy and the economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/711310\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and energy policy and the economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/711310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

为了应对2011-17年加州历史性的干旱,地方政府制定了大量的保护政策,但人们对哪些政策解释了住宅用水量的急剧下降知之甚少。为了回答这个问题,我们使用了加利福尼亚弗雷斯诺82300多户家庭每小时用水量的新数据集,那里的用水量下降了近三分之一,我们有三个主要发现。首先,我们估计水需求的价格弹性在边际费率下为0.16,在平均费率下为0.39。第二,将允许室外浇水的天数从3天减少到2天,大大减少了用水量,尽管可以在允许和不允许的时间、天数和季节之间进行替代。第三,关于水危机的“讲坛式”声明提高了公众对干旱状况的认识,但无助于节约用水。总体而言,高水价解释了我们在弗雷斯诺采样期间观察到的40%-44%的住宅用水变化,室外浇水天数的减少解释了这些变化的45%-51%。然而,在这些政策中缺乏实验或准实验变化意味着我们要谨慎地解释这一关联证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do Conservation Policies Work? Evidence from Residential Water Use
In response to the historic 2011–17 California drought, local governments enacted a raft of conservation policies, and little is known about which ones explain the sharp decline in residential water consumption. To answer this question, we use a novel data set of hourly water consumption data for more than 82,300 households in Fresno, California, where water consumption declined by nearly a third, and have three main findings. First, we estimate the price elasticity of demand for water to be 0.16 for marginal rates and 0.39 for average rates. Second, reducing the number of days where outdoor watering is allowable from 3 to 2 substantially decreases water use, despite the availability of opportunities to substitute between permitted and nonpermitted hours, days, and seasons. Third, “bully pulpit” pronouncements about the water crisis increased public awareness of drought conditions but did not contribute to water savings. Overall, higher water prices explain 40%–44% of the changes in residential water use observed during our sample period in Fresno, and reductions in the number of days when outdoor watering is allowable explain 45%–51% of these changes. However, the absence of experimental or quasi-experimental variation in these policies means that we interpret this associational evidence cautiously.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信