Framing Effects on Public Support for Rate Increases: Experimental Evidence

Water and wastewater utilities that are operated by local governments rely on public support to secure the financial resources that they need to succeed. Naturally, customers-who are also voters-prefer lower prices, and tend to pressure their elected officials to resist rate increases. Securing public resources, then, requires utility leaders to communicate to their customers the benefits of their services. But which kinds of appeals are most likely to win support? Water and wastewater utilities provide a wide variety of benefits to the communities they serve: a cleaner environment, safer, better-tasting drinking water, and more. Although each of these benefits is valuable, it is not clear which will resonate with the public in ways that will drive support for rate increases. Despite the significance of public support for water and wastewater systems is widely recognized, little systematic evidence exists on how to frame utility services in ways that garner support for rate increases. Advice on crafting effective public appeals abounds, but it is mainly anecdotal. This reliance on case studies and isolated experiences limits the reliability and generalizability of advice on public communications in the water sector. This presentation brings scientific evidence to bear on the effects of messaging on public support for rate increases using experimental data from the Value of Water survey (VOWs). Each since 2016, the U.S. Water Alliance has conducted the VOWs, a national poll gauging public perceptions about and opinions on water and wastewater utilities. VOWs results from 2016-2020 indicate that 60-75% of respondents are willing to support 'modest' rate increases when presented with information about the benefits that their water and wastewater utilities provide. However, it is not clear which benefits are important in the public's evaluation of prospective rate increases. Moreover, analysis of VOWs to date has not analyzed simultaneous variation in support for rate increases across gender, race, ethnicity, and partisans. The 2021 VOWs included an embedded experiment in its question about support for water and wastewater rate increases. As in prior VOWs, respondents were asked whether they would be willing to pay for 'modest' rate increases, and found similar average support (61.3%). But rather than being presented with a list of benefits associated with water and wastewater utility services, 2021 respondents were assigned at random to one of four 'treatments' that highlighted a different benefit: 1)Pollution reduction treatment: 'Reduce pollution and make local streams and rivers cleaner' 2)Safe drinking water treatment: 'Make your area's drinking water safer and healthier' 3)Taste and smell treatment: 'Make your area's drinking water taste and smell better' 4)Affordability treatment: 'Ensure that everyone in your community has basic water and sewer service, and to prevent shut-offs for non-payment' Although each of these benefits is objectively important, they may yield very different average levels of support for rate increases. Examining responses to these four randomized treatments allows evaluation of the effects various messaging approaches. Analysis of 2021 VOWs data finds similar support for rate increases in three conditions, with average support ranging from 56-60%. However, one treatment yielding markedly higher willingness to pay higher rates: Pollution Reduction: 58.7% Safe Drinking Water: 69.6% Taste and Smell: 59.6% Affordability: 56.8% On average, respondents who received the Safe Drinking Water experimental condition reported 11.2% higher willingness to pay rate increases compared with the other groups-a large, statistically significant difference (p<.01) in support for rate increases. Multivariate statistical analysis of sub-populations shows that the effect of the Safe Drinking Water frame varies significantly by gender: women presented with the safe drinking water treatment responded with 14.7% greater support for rate increases. These framing effects persist in statistical models that adjust for race, ethnicity, income, and partisanship. This dynamic, data-driven presentation will carry important implications for utility leaders generally, and for communications professionals specifically. Public efforts to win resources for water and wastewater system should emphasize their health and safety benefits. Outreach to women framed in terms of health may prove especially fruitful in winning public support. More generally, this study demonstrates the value of a scientific approach to communications for the water sector, and sets the stage for similar efforts in the future.