1. Pricing 2. Programming 3. Pleading 4. Prohibiting 5. Pressuring 6. Plastering
ample evidence but it depends on local conditions monitoring regressive
Efficient Households: 11.6 11.6 Demand reduction attributable to EMWD’s 10 Number of months budget-based rates (Baerenklau et al. 2014) 8 6 5% 4 0% 2 -5% 0 -10% Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 -15% 2008 2013 -20% Inefficient Households: 3.4 8.6 -25% 10 Number of months -30% 8 Mar-09 Jul-09 Nov-09 Mar-10 Jul-10 Nov-10 Mar-11 Jul-11 Nov-11 Mar-12 Jul-12 Nov-12 Mar-13 Jul-13 Nov-13 Mar-14 6 4 2 Full sample Inefficient Average Efficient 0 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 2008 2013
expectations vary significantly are not as cost-effective equity issues
Demand reduction attributable to Estimated Water Savings from Various Turf WMWD sprinkler nozzle give-away Replacement Programs (Addink 2014) 62 70 (Schwabe et al. 2014) Gallons per square foot 60 30 Pre (July-Sep 2010) Post (July-Sep 2012) 50 33 40 Water Use (CCF) Avg. Monthly 30 19 18 20 20 10 0 10 No Voucher Voucher North Marin Albuquerque, Southern El Paso, Texas Differences (2010-12) Water District NM since Nevada Water 2004 (n=385) +1.66 CCF (8% increase) -0.22 CCF (0.8% decrease) 1989 (n=46) 1996 Authority -1.88 CCF (9% decrease) Difference in Difference (Voucher minus No Voucher) Cost/AF: $512 $718 $532 $1834 Did not require irrigation improvements
• Voluntary requests no reduction 2.7% reduction 5% effect • Mandatory restrictions
• Pressuring 4.8% reduction 5.6% reduction • Plastering • Message source variety
robust rate structure complements avoid mandatory restrictions • Messaging • Understanding targeting evaluating
Recommend
More recommend
