Described above contracting form needs to be tested using controlled randomized trial. As a further research, the field experiment can shed light on the mechanisms involved in the contract and lower the errors before going commercial.
The aim of the experiment is to see the treatment effect of the prepaid contracting form on the household’s electricity consumption. To capture the real effect, field experiment will provide a real setting with real subjects. The incentives to respondents are quasi-artificial: the electricity bill, satisfaction level, peer pressure, environmental responsibility. The most valid way would be an automatic enrollment of the chosen target group. It will help to avoid the selection bias. As well, automatic enrollment factor will require cooperation with the municipality officials and energy company. At the same time, field experiment will not provide control over the subjects, and they will act according to their preferences and habits. The experiment should last at least three months with the extension to a year to show that the change, if happens, is habitual and sustainable.
As the controls for the analysis, there has to be information on a number of people in a household, socio-demographic factors, size of household, income level, ownership of the apartment, heating/cooling source, temperature, and the pre- and post- questionnaire. Questionnaires have to capture the qualitative characteristics of the household’s residents such as environmental responsibility, values, and lifestyle habits.
Chapter 11: Bibliography
Borenstein, S. (2015) A Microeconomic Framework for Evaluating Energy Efficiency Rebound and Some Implications. Energy Journal forthcoming. Energy Policy, 28(6-7): 425-432. Brennan, G. (2009) Climate change: a rational choice politics view. The Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53: 309-326
Cole, D.H. (2008) Climate change and collective action. Current Legal Problems, 61:229-264 Costa, D. L. & Kahn, M. E. (2011) Energy Conservation “Nudges” and Environmentalist Ideology:
Evidence from a Randomized Residential Electricity Field Experiment. The National
Bureau of Economic Research, 11:680-702
Dietz, T., Fitzerald, A., Shwon, R. (2005) Environmental Values. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, 30:335-372
Fryer, R. G., Levitt, S. D., List, J., Sadoff, R. (2012) Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment. NBER Working Paper Series, Working paper 18237
Gillingham, K. (2011) The Consumer Response to Gasoline Price Changes: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications (Ph.D. Dissertation)
Gillingham, K., David, R., Gernot, W. (2015) The Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency Policy Forthcoming, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. Review of
EnvironmentalEconomics and Policy, 10(1): 66-88
Grønhø, A. & Thøgersen, J. (2011) Feedback on household electricity consumption: learning and social influence processes. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(2): 138-145 Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, New Series, 162, 3859: 1243-1248
Harrison, G.W., & List, J.A., (2004) Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 42(4):1009–1055.
Hausman M. D., Welch B. (2010) Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge Philosophy, University of Madison: Wisconsin,
Hechter, M. (1994) The role of values in rational-choice theory. Rationality and Society 6(3): 318- 333
Heikkilä, S. (2014) Mobility as a Service - A Proposal for Action for the Public Administration, Case Helsinki MSc dissertation, Aalto University.
Inglehart, R. (1971) The silent revolution in Europe: intergenerational change in postindustrial societies. American Political Science Review. 65(4):991–1017 .
Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science & Politics. 28(1):57–72 .
Inglehart, W. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jaeger, O. R. (2001) Risk, Uncertainly and Rational Action. London: Earthscan.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., Thaler, R. H. (1991) Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss
Aversion, and Status Quo Bias by The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 193-
206
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.
Econometrica, 47(2): 263-292.
Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamueas, T.P., & Stengos, T., (2003) Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the European Economic Association 1(6):1346– 1366.
LaRiviere, J., Holladay, S., Novgorodsky, D., Price, M. (2014) Prices vs. Nudges: A Large Field Experiment on Energy Efficiency Fixed Cost Investments. Working Paper, University of Tennessee
List, A. J. (2011) Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off. Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(3): 3–16
Ostrom V., Tiebout, C.M., Warren R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review 55(4): 831-842
Ostrom, E. (2008) The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources. Environment: Science And Policy
For Sustainable Development 50(4): 8-21
Ostrom, E. (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4): 550-557
Ostrom, E., & Parks & R. B. (1999) Neither gargantuan nor the land of Lilliputs: Conjectures on mixed systems of metropolitan organization. In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies: readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis, (pp. 284-305). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 1(1): 7-59.
Sandler, T. (2004) Global Collective Action, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, W. B. (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 550-562.
Simon, H.A. (1955) A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1): 99–118.
Simon, H.A. (1956) Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment. Psychological Review, 63(2): 129–138.
Stern, T. D. (1993) Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environmental
Behavior. 25(5):322–348.
Stern, T. D. (1998) A brief inventory of values. Educational and. Psychological Measurement, 58(6):884–1001.
Tetri, E., Sarvaranta, A., Syri, S. (2014) Potential of new lighting technologies in reducing household lighting energy use and CO2 emissions in Finland. Energy Efficiency 7(4): 559–570
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Thaler, Richard H., and Shlomo Benartzi. (2004) Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of political Economy 112(1):164- 187.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003) Libertarian Paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2): 175-179.
Thaler, R. H., C. R. Sunstein, and J. P. Balz. (2010) Choice Architecture (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1583509)." Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
APPENDIX
Table 1. The descriptive analysis of biospheric altruism value “It is important to this person looking after the environment”
Schwartz: It is important to this person looking after the environment
Frequency Percent Valid Pernt Cumulative
Valid Very much like me 207 20.4 20.5 20.5
Like me 434 42.8 42.9 63.3
Somewhat like me 252 24.9 24.9 88.2
A little like me 91 9.0 9.0 97.2
Not like me 23 2.3 2.3 99.5
Not at all like me 5 .5 .5 100.0
Total 1012 99.8 100.0
Table 2. The Environmental Values regression model
Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 2.770 .163 17.033 .000 SWB -.023 .011 -.066 -2.025 .043 EnvirOverEc -.434 .066 -.206 -6.602 .000 Active/Inactive membership of environmental organization -.200 .084 -.074 -2.382 .017 Neighbours: Homosexuals -.211 .075 -.089 -2.821 .005
Important child qualities: tolerance and respect for other people
-.135 .092 -.047 -1.476 .140
How much freedom of choice and control
.012 .019 .021 .647 .518
a. Dependent Variable: Schwartz: It is important to this person looking after the environment
Table 5. Descriptive statistic of Smart vs Normal households
Table 6. Descriptive statistic of seasonal consumption for the whole sample
Table 8. Descriptive statistic of consumption throughout the day for the whole sample