New research published in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists challenges the perception that input-efficient technologies, such as water-saving devices and fuel-saving stoves, are a win-win solution for both consumers and the environment. The study, titled “Input Efficiency as a Solution to Externalities and Resource Scarcity: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” concludes that the benefits to consumers from adopting input-efficient technologies are, on average, negative.
The study focused on water-efficient technology adoption in Costa Rica, where overexploitation of public aquifers is a pressing concern. Nearly 900 households, randomly selected from a larger group, were provided with water-efficient showerheads and faucet aerators. The engineers predicted a reduction in water use of around 30%, but the actual reduction observed during the trial was only about 9%.
According to the authors of the study, this difference between prediction and reality can be attributed to faulty engineering and behavioral assumptions. For instance, engineers assumed that households would not change their water usage behaviors after adopting the technology, but survey data indicated that households often compensated for the lower flow rate of the efficient devices by leaving the water running longer.
When the researchers evaluated how the participating households valued the water savings over the long term and compared it to the upfront cost of the technologies, they found that, on average, the net benefits of input-efficient technologies were negative for consumers.
The study’s findings suggest that the efficiency paradox, which refers to the low adoption rates of input-efficient technologies despite their perceived benefits, may not actually exist. Simply informing consumers about the advantages of these technologies is unlikely to significantly increase their adoption rates. The research indicates that the main reason for the low adoption rates is the modest savings offered by the technologies, coupled with the uncertainty and delayed nature of those savings.
In conclusion, the study challenges the notion that adopting input-efficient technologies is a win-win solution for consumers and the environment. In the context of water scarcity and climate change mitigation, other solutions will be necessary. The researchers highlight the need to explore alternative approaches in order to effectively address these issues.
While input-efficient technologies still hold potential for improving resource efficiency and reducing environmental impacts, the study emphasizes the importance of considering consumer perspectives and behavioral dynamics before implementing such technologies on a large scale.
*Note:
1. Source: Coherent Market Insights, Public sources, Desk research
2. We have leveraged AI tools to mine information and compile it