Limits of low-cost environmentalism: Experimental evidence on tap- versus bottled-water consumption

Many studies show that individuals are more likely to engage in voluntary pro-environmental behavior when the personal costs of doing so are low. Policymakers, in turn, are interested in identifying such opportunities in order to minimize heavy-handed government interventions and thus maintain public support for environmental policy. We revisit this issue by examining a case where low-cost environmentalism should be prevalent: choosing tap water over bottled water, a form of pro-environmental behavior that not only saves consumers’ money but also has a very substantial environmental protection benefit. Using an experimental approach with a large representative sample of Switzerland’s adult resident population (N=6893), we tested whether increasing awareness of three key advantages of tap water — (1) health effects, (2) environmental benefits, and (3) cost savings — could shift consumption behavior toward tap water. We find that only combined information addressing all three aspects increases the likelihood of choosing tap water over bottled water, and even this effect is very small. These results suggest that even under seemingly ideal conditions for voluntary pro-environmental action, information campaigns alone may be insufficient for reducing the environmental footprint of consumption, and that policymakers should consider measures providing stronger (dis-)incentives in this domain.