Search

Recent research has indicated high economic and environmental costs of human paper usage. Technologies have been developed to reduce consumers' paper use behavior, including mechanical dispensers that institute a delay between opportunities to obtain each consecutive unit. However, there is no empirical evidence that these dispensers or delays reduce paper use. In Experiment 1, implementing a delay between paper-unit deliveries using mechanical dispensers in a university cafe resulted in a significant decrease in units per person, material per person, and cost per person, compared to free-access dispensers. In Experiment 2, a relatively long delay was more effective than a short delay in reducing paper consumption in a laboratory experiment using mechanical dispensers. These results indicate that delays could be used to decrease paper use in many contexts on a larger scale. More research is necessary to determine the underlying behavioral mechanisms responsible for the observed reduction and the cost-benefit relationship under different circumstances. Keywords Reinforcement delays * Paper dispensers * Sustainability * Climate change * Behavioral nudges, Sustainability is rooted in human behavior, which is controlled by variables that can be manipulated (Baum, 2005; Skinner, 1953; Ylek & Steg, 2007). Verbal strategies (e.g., requests, education, information) to [...]

This paper presents a benefit-cost analysis of the ongoing, state-level tobacco prevention and control programs in the United States. Using state-level panel data for the years 1991-2007, the study applies several variants of econometric modeling approaches to estimate the state-level tobacco demand. The paper finds a statistically significant evidence of a sustained and steadily increasing long-run impact of the tobacco control program spending on cigarette demand in states. The study also shows that, If individual states follow the Best Practices funding guidelines, potential fixture annual benefits of the tobacco control program can he as high as 14-20 times the cost of program implementation. (JEL C2, H5, 11), I. INTRODUCTION State-level tobacco control programs gath-ered momentum in the United States during the early 1990s and have since been continuing with a varying degree of success in lowering smoking [...]