Overcoming the tragedy of the commons with financial rewards
A report and proposal
|
|
ABSTRACT We waste more energy at work and school than we do at home, because as individuals we are rarely rewarded for reducing consumption of community resources. In November 2009, SMART conducted an experiment at the University of Georgia to determine how much money could be saved on the Athens campus if building occupants were financially motivated to reduce energy consumption. Occupants of the Army's Military Sciences Building reduced their electricity use 27% over control periods and won a $2,500 cash prize. Here we describe the experiment, its results, and propose a plan that if followed should reduce campus energy use 10 - 20% within a year without any outlay of funds. By financially motivating people across campus to save resources, we could save UGA $5 million in FY2010-11, assuming energy prices remain the same as this year's. In addition to saving money, the successful implementation of our plan would make UGA a leader in energy conservation and a showcase for campuses and workplaces around the world to follow. METHODS Experiment design Between 26 October and 1 December 2009, SMART collected detailed data on the electricity use in 36 buildings on the UGA campus. These buildings were divided into three treatments. In 12 INCENTIVE+SIGNS buildings, we offered $2,500 to the building that reduced electricity consumption the most and placed signs urging people to save energy. In 12 SIGNS-ONLY buildings, we placed signs but did not motivate occupants with the cash prize. In 12 CONTROL buildings, we did nothing other than to monitor energy use. We started contacting building occupants and placing signs after 1 November. We use the October data to help assess the impact of the different treatments. Monitoring meters Teams of students from SMART used their cell phones and digital cameras to document a total of 1,351 readings from 53 electricity meters. They took photographs on weekday mornings and afternoons, uploaded them to secure photo albums on the web, and then edited web forms to associate photographs with (1) each meter's unique identifying code, (2) a precise time (standardized to the minute by photographing cell phone clocks), and (3) a meter reading, from which our software calculated usage in kilowatt-hours (kwh) by multiplying by a constant specific to each meter. Automated software flagged errors in data entry, generated tables of precise time series of electricity use for each meter, and compared use during the experimental period in November 2009, with similar data from the last week in October and with historical data provided by UGA's Physical Plant for the two previous Novembers. Educational efforts In mid-October the 24 undergraduate students in UGA's "Environment and Humans" course conceived of and began the SMART initiative. They organized into 12 2-person teams that, with help of UGA's Physical Plant, each selected a INCENTIVE+SIGNS building and a SIGNS-ONLY building. Starting in November, each team contacted occupants in their building to ask permission to place signs urging occupants to reduce electricity use. They also explained the challenge and negotiated how to split the $2,500 prize among their INCENTIVE+SIGNS building's office staff, janitors, and other participants, should the building win. They built the website, made educational videos, designed a logo, and produced signs at their own expense. Building differences With the help of UGA's Physical Plant, we tried to match pairs of buildings by age, size, and energy efficiency with each other and with a CONTROL building. However, because of logistical constraints and the students' desire to work with particular buildings, we did not randomly assign campus buildings to the three treatments. RESULTS We present the time series of energy use for each of the meters in individual tables (see the HTML and tab delimited text files on SMART's website). These 53 tables present the average kilowatts used since the previous meter reading and contain links to their associated photographs. Calculated to the minute, the data are sufficiently frequent and accurate to compare peak weekday (approximately 9:00AM-3:00PM), off-peak weekday (3:00PM-9:00AM), and non-weekday (weekend and holidays) periods over the course of the study. The web site also presents a summary table by building treatment (INCENTIVE+SIGNS, SIGNS-ONLY, or CONTROL) for the 53 meters that compares electricity use in November, 2009, with the control period in October (see ACROSS MONTHS). Similarly, a second summary table, does the same in comparison with data for the previous Novembers (see ACROSS YEARS). DISCUSSION There are considerable differences across buildings in the change in electricity use both across months and across years. For example, while the meters in the INCENTIVE+SIGNS buildings recorded a mean 1.1% decrease in use between October and November, values ranged from a 27.2% reduction in the Military Sciences Building to a 17.5% increase(!) in the Office of University Architects. These differences reflect the success of the teams in motivating occupants to reduce energy. Some teams managed to gain considerable participation from building occupants. Others did not. The teams were severely limited by time, lack of resources, and logistical constraints. Only in one building, Connor Hall, for example, did the team manage to convince the occupants, gain permission, and get a work order implemented that reduced the building's steam heat before the end of the experiment. The results were also affected by the physical attributes of the buildings, such as whether lighting was under automatic or manual control. In general, the teams were more successful in smaller buildings than in larger ones, which may have been too large for the time and resources that the teams could commit. Overall, SMART succeeded in two goals. It developed and successfully tested a simple method to collect detailed data on electricity use using cameras, cell phones, and the web. It also learned a considerable amount about what is possible in terms of motivating individuals in a community setting to save energy and what are some of the stumbling blocks to gaining such savings. We now focus on three specific buildings. SMART awarded the $2,500 prize to the Army Cadets Fund of the Military Sciences Building. This building was the clear winner, using 27% less electricity in November than during both the October control week and the mean usage of the previous two Novembers. It may exemplify the top end of what can be achieved in terms of energy savings through behavioral changes. Under the leadership of Lieutenant Colonel John Fickel, the building's commander, and the top cadet, Jackson McGehee, a SMART member, the building's military and civilian personnel worked together as a team to save as much energy as they could. They switched off lights, unplugged the soda machine, charged their laptops elsewhere, and went to other creative lengths to reduce energy. The lesson is that a disciplined, motivated team can save a considerable amount of energy by cutting unnecessary use. Connor Hall's SMART team was highly successful in motivating the building's occupants to save resources. They started by treating administrators, office staff, and janitors to a lunch to explain SMART and get them involved. This was the only building that reduced the building's heat before the end of the experiment. Building occupants actually survived for a week at 66-68°F without complaining! They reduced electricity use 4.9% in November in comparison with the October period. Because the building is steam heated, they also saved UGA an unmeasured amount in heating costs. The graph for this building shows how the variance between peak and off-peak periods was reduced between October and November, largely because occupants reduced consumption during peak times in November. The Ecology Building's team also succeeded in motivating the building's occupants to save resources. However, this is not reflected in the overall change in consumption over the October control period. Use increased 8.9% because the Physical Plant had to switch on a large water chiller in the building that overwhelmed the occupants' savings. This is shown by the large peak in use in this building's graph. Because the chiller is shared by other buildings, this graph illustrates the level of detailed data that would be necessary to apportion electricity use across buildings fairly. Without the chiller's consumption, Ecology reduced electricity use approximately 7%, a savings of about $5,000, if such conservation were extended for a year at current prices. CONCLUSIONS SMART was conceived in October 2009, as a team project of a University of Georgia course, "Environment and Humans." Its novel idea is that the tragedy of the commons can be solved by rewarding individuals to change their behavior. The experiment from conception to awards ceremony on 9 December took less than two months. Despite limited resources, SMART's team of 24 enthusiastic and dedicated students managed to raise prize money, complete an experiment, and show that considerable savings are possible in the workplace through behavioral changes alone. They also successfully tested a simple, inexpensive data collection method that permits precise monitoring of electricity use. Based on our findings, we propose to continue SMART at UGA and, through partnerships with the National Council for Science and the Environment and the Polistes Foundation, extend it elsewhere. At UGA, our goal is to save the campus $5 million in FY2010-11 by motivating people to save energy. PROPOSAL What is truly novel about SMART is that we have shown that we can overcome the tragedy of the commons with financial rewards. We recommend the following four steps to maximize energy savings at UGA through campus-wide behavioral change:
Physical Plant Review
Ken Crowe, Director of Energy Services, UGA Physical Plant
|
| Updated: 25 January, 2010 |
| Discover Life | SMART |
| © Designed by The Polistes Corporation |