The Power of a Bad Example: A Field Experiment in Household Garbage Disposal

被引:27
作者
Dur, Robert [1 ]
Vollaard, Ben [2 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Dept Econ, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Tilburg Univ, Dept Econ, Econ, NL-5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands
关键词
littering; public services; free riding; field experiment; PUBLIC-GOODS; SOCIAL INFORMATION; LITTERING BEHAVIOR; PROVISION; WELFARE; NORMS; CROWD; SIGNS;
D O I
10.1177/0013916514535085
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Field-experimental studies have shown that people litter more in more littered environments. Inspired by these findings, many cities around the world have adopted policies to quickly remove litter. While such policies may prevent people from following the bad example of litterers, they may also invite free riding on public cleaning services. We are the first to show that both forces are at play. We conduct a natural field experiment where, in a randomly assigned part of a residential area, the frequency of cleaning was drastically reduced during a 3-month period. We find evidence that some people start to clean up after themselves when public cleaning services are diminished. However, the tendency to litter more dominates. We also find that these responses continue to exist for some time after the treatment has ended.
引用
收藏
页码:970 / 1000
页数:31
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Fixed-effects negative binomial regression models [J].
Allison, PD ;
Waterman, RP .
SOCIOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY 2002, VOL 32, 2002, 32 :247-265
[2]   Environmental cleanliness as a public good: Welfare and policy implications of nonconvex preferences [J].
Anderson, S ;
Francois, P .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1997, 34 (03) :256-274
[3]   ON THE PRIVATE PROVISION OF PUBLIC-GOODS [J].
BERGSTROM, T ;
BLUME, L ;
VARIAN, H .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 1986, 29 (01) :25-49
[4]   How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? [J].
Bertrand, M ;
Duflo, E ;
Mullainathan, S .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2004, 119 (01) :249-275
[5]   Network effects and welfare cultures [J].
Bertrand, M ;
Luttmer, EFP ;
Mullainathan, S .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2000, 115 (03) :1019-1055
[6]   Heterogeneous agents in public goods experiments [J].
Burlando, RM ;
Guala, F .
EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS, 2005, 8 (01) :35-54
[7]   A FOCUS THEORY OF NORMATIVE CONDUCT - RECYCLING THE CONCEPT OF NORMS TO REDUCE LITTERING IN PUBLIC PLACES [J].
CIALDINI, RB ;
RENO, RR ;
KALLGREN, CA .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1990, 58 (06) :1015-1026
[8]   EFFECTS OF LITTER ON LITTERING BEHAVIOR IN A FOREST ENVIRONMENT [J].
CRUMP, SL ;
NUNES, DL ;
CROSSMAN, EK .
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, 1977, 9 (01) :137-146
[9]  
Engel C., 2011, 20115 M PLANCK I RES
[10]   First impressions are more important than early intervention: Qualifying broken windows theory in the lab [J].
Engel, Christoph ;
Beckenkamp, Martin ;
Gloeckner, Andreas ;
Irlenbusch, Bernd ;
Hennig-Schmidt, Heike ;
Kube, Sebastian ;
Kurschilgen, Michael ;
Morell, Alexander ;
Nicklisch, Andreas ;
Normann, Hans-Theo ;
Towfigh, Emanuel .
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS, 2014, 37 :126-136