Pro-Social Change for the Most Challenging: Marketing and Testing Harm Reduction for Conservation

Last registered on May 24, 2023

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Pro-Social Change for the Most Challenging: Marketing and Testing Harm Reduction for Conservation

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0011447

Initial registration date

May 18, 2023

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published

May 24, 2023, 1:09 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country

United States of America

Region

California

Primary Investigator

Name

Kristina Brecko

Affiliation

University of Rochester

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Wesley Hartmann

PI Affiliation

Stanford University

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2015-06-01

End date

2022-03-25

Keywords

Behavior, Environment & Energy

Additional Keywords

JEL code(s)

D12, L32, M30, Q25

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

This paper considers harm reduction for conservation: promoting a product that attracts and reduces harm from an inframarginal consumer unmoved by calls for abstinence. We analyze residential water use, where lawn removal is favored by policymakers but is unappealing to heavy irrigators' aesthetic preferences. Using sequential field experiments, we show that a smart irrigation controller that efficiently maintains stigmatized ornamental landscapes appeals to the heaviest irrigators and generates large and long-lasting individual and social benefits: cost recovery in six months and water savings covering another household's basic needs. We find no evidence it cannibalizes abstinence (lawn removal).

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Brecko, Kristina and Wesley Hartmann. 2023. "Pro-Social Change for the Most Challenging: Marketing and Testing Harm Reduction for Conservation." AEA RCT Registry. May 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.11447-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date

2016-06-09

Intervention End Date

2017-12-03

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Set of outcomes 1: adoption and / or activation of smart irrigation controller
Set of outcomes 2: water usage (aggregate, by year, by year and billing period)
Set of outcomes 3: size of irrigable area, greenness of the irrigable area

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experiment 1: We varied the discount and professional installation incentives for the smart irrigation controller across four treatment arms: (1) 10% discount, (2) 80% discount, (3) 60% discount, or (4) 60% discount plus free professional installation. We communicated the offers to the households in the treatment groups via a postcard and emails. Customers who had an email on file with the water agency also received an email notification on either June 17th, 2016 or June 18th, 2016 that included their discount or installation offer (see Figure 11). These same customers received an offer reminder email on July 28th, 2016. The control group received comparable communications that, instead of communicating an irrigation controller offer, asked customers to answer a few short questions about household characteristics relevant to the potential for installing a controller, (e.g. presence of WiFi) and actions taken to adapt to the ongoing drought. For fairness reasons, the 10% discount was also available to all control group households were they to navigate to the study portal and enter their account number; however, the control households did not receive communications informing them about the portal or the availability of a discount.
Experiment 2: The treatment in this experiment included a free controller with discounted installation. The treated households received an email communication informing them of the offer on December 1st, 2017. The control group did not receive any communications.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization done in office by a computer for both experiments.

Randomization Unit

Experiment 1: randomization done at the household level
Experiment 2: randomization done at the street level

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Experiment 1: 7000 households
Experiment 2: 663 streets

Sample size: planned number of observations

Experiment 1: 7000 households Experiment 2: 19131 households

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

Experiment 1: 1401 control, 1416 10% discount, 1388 80% discount, 1397 60% discount, 1398 60% discount and free professional install
Experiment 2: 10,224 treatment, 8,907 control

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB