Effectiveness Of Incentive Programs Research Articles

Evaluating Incentive-Driven Policies to Reduce Social Losses Associated with Wildfire Risk Misinformation

Wildfires have caused significant ecological and social losses in terms of forest benefits, private dwellings, and suppression costs. Although great efforts have been made in wildfire policies and wildfire-mitigating strategies on private and public lands, devastating wildfires continue to occur. This implies there is a need for effective incentive-driven policies to encourage forest owners to undertake an increasing level of wildfire-mitigating actions. This study evaluates the effectiveness of alternative incentive-driven policies for the problem of two adjacent forest owners under various scenarios of misinformation about wildfire occurrence and spread using a stochastic dynamic model. The study also investigates how the implementation of these policies encourages wildfire-mitigating actions, yields larger reductions in social losses, and alleviates free-riding behavior. The outcomes of the analysis confirm that the effectiveness of incentive programs in reducing social losses and increasing forest value is influenced by the level of misinformation held by a forest owner when making wildfire prevention decisions. The results also revealed that fuel stock regulation is more effective at mitigating wildfire damages and associated costs than cost-share programs under all misinformation scenarios. It was also found that fuel stock regulation could correct free-riding behavior due to the restrictive nature of this policy. The findings provide additional motivation for educational programs that seek to improve forest owners’ knowledge about the private benefits of fuel removal and collaboration efforts between neighboring forest owners. Collaborative efforts could yield substantial savings for the government through eliminating cost-share programs and reducing suppression costs.

Energising households: a financial analysis of incentivised energy efficiency measures in remote Australia

Governments in developed economies are making considerable investments in energy efficiency technologies and encouraging residential households to conserve energy. A major programme in Australia has invested A$280 million to encourage residential households to become more energy aware and make additional investment in energy efficiency measures. This paper examines the adoption of energy efficiency measures by residential households participating in this programme in a geographically remote Australian town. It uses data collected by the programme developers. It examines the financial return of the investment in terms of payback period and internal rate of return. It then discusses the financial return with respect to adoption of a range of products offered by the programme. Results show that adoption of energy efficiency measures by households was not solely guided by rational economic-maximising principles. For example, some frequently adopted measures had negative financial effectiveness. A range of important determining factors are discussed, and the consequent impact this has for analysis of the effectiveness of incentive programmes. Finally, this paper proposes considerations for future programmes to more effectively measure and target efficient adoption of energy efficient measures, both in remote and non-remote residential settings.

Anreize für Eigenverantwortung: Begriffsbestimmung und Evidenzlage

Two meanings of personal responsibility are distinguished, and different policy options for promoting health and responsibility are presented. Key insights from research seeking to promote personal responsibility through health information and incentives are outlined and discussed with regard to their potential to improve health and reduce cost. Data is presented on the socioeconomic characteristics of incentive programme users. It is concluded that due to different factors the availability of data regarding the effectiveness of incentive programmes is unsatisfactory. Evaluation requirements set out in the German Social Security Code (SGB V) should focus not only on cost, but should also extend to changes in health status and the socioeconomic status of users: provisions should be revised accordingly.