Preferences for change: Do individuals prefer voluntary actions, soft regulations, or hard regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption?

1
Preferences for changeDo individuals prefer
voluntary actions, soft regulations, or hard
regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption?
Shahzeen Z. Attari shahzeen.attari_at_gmail.com Car
negie 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 I
Conserve Do Not Conserve
Others Conserve WIN Free ride
Others Do Not Conserve 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 ACTIONS Lack of regulations e.g. Recycling, Pledging
SOFT REGULATIONS Incentives (taxes) or changes in default e.g. Tobacco, Carbon, Organ donation
HARD REGULATIONS Enforced 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 Reactance
People respond negatively to any force
which restricts their freedom of action (Brehm
et al. 1966)
Women forced to switch their laundry detergent
brand expressed strong negative attitudes towards
the law Some even smuggled phosphate detergent
from neighboring counties
(Mazis et al. 1973)
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, Environment
Soft, National Security
Hard, Environment
Hard, National Security
Voluntary Action
Regulation
17
Results Green Energy
Soft, National Security
Soft, Environment
Hard, National Security
Hard, Environment
Voluntary Action
Regulation
18
Voluntary
Intercept -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 lt 0.05 p lt 0.01 p lt 0.001) Significance level (p lt 0.05 p lt 0.01 p lt 0.001) Significance level (p lt 0.05 p lt 0.01 p lt 0.001)
18
19
Regulation
Intercept -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 lt 0.05 p lt 0.01 p lt 0.001) Significance level (p lt 0.05 p lt 0.01 p lt 0.001) Significance level (p lt 0.05 p lt 0.01 p lt 0.001)
19
20
Reasons for Preferences
Reason category Count Count
Economic incentives 167 167
Personal freedom and need for choice 129 129
Environmental reasons and cost 109 109
Lifestyle requirement Lifestyle requirement 70
I already do this I already do this 60
More information is needed More information is needed 31
Safety and health reasons Safety and health reasons 31
Better choices needed Better choices needed 24
Other reasons (mentioned only once) Other reasons (mentioned only once) 24
Government needed Government needed 19
Foreign dependency, cost, environment Foreign dependency, cost, environment 11
I do not believe in global warming I do not believe in global warming 7
People will accept this People will accept this 5
This requires too much effort This requires too much effort 2
This is a drop in the bucket This is a drop in the bucket 2
I do not care I do not care 2
21
Findings

• - Framing did not matter
• - For SUVs and Trucks Soft gtgt Voluntary gtgt Hard
• For Green Energy Soft Voluntary gtgt Hard
• - Voluntary Actions ?? female, pro-environmental
  Regulations ?? soft, pro-environmental
• - Reasons
• Economic incentives
• Personal 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 gtgt Soft gtgt Voluntary
24
Acknowledgments
Cliff Davidson
ICSD Conference Travel Funding Environmental
Research and Education Foundation National
Science Foundation
Mitch Small
Funding
Robyn Dawes
Mary Schoen
Mike DeKay
Wändi Bruine de Bruin
Liz Hohenstein
25
(No Transcript)
26
Demographics of Participants

• 209 Pittsburgh residents
• Median Income 20,001-50,000
• Median Age 28 years
• 47 Male
• 52 Dem, 16 Rep, 13 Ind
• 46 Liberal, 24 Conservative
• 21 Own SUV
• 9 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 SUV
• Use alternative energy
• Purchase green energy
• Political party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind, Not
  sure)
• Political views (extremely liberal ? ? extremely
  conservative)
• Gender
• Age
• Income
• Education

28
Logistic Regressions
Used for categorical, dichotomous responses
Probability of saying yes
Regression results
29
Who are the major carbon players?
The U.S. emits 21 of the worlds carbon
emissions, but has only 5 of the worlds
population.
25
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)