Miranda, Juan Jose

Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice
Profile Picture
Author Name Variants
Fields of Specialization
Development economics, Environmental economics, Behavioral economics, Urban economics, Climate impacts
Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice
Externally Hosted Work
Contact Information
Last updated January 31, 2023
Juan Jose Miranda is an Environmental Economist at the Environmental and Natural Resources Global Practice. He holds a PhD in Economics at Georgia State University's Andrew Young School of Policy Studies with focus on environmental, behavioral and urban economics. He leads analytical work on impact evaluation, conduct policy research and provide analytical economic support on sustainable development issues. Juan Jose is also a Research Associate at Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP), a research think-tank based in Lima – Peru, and an Associate Member at the Seminario Permanente de Investigación Agraria (SEPIA). He has published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, The American Journal of Political Science, American Economic Review (P&P), among others.
Citations 79 Scopus

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    A Behavioral Approach to Water Conservation: Evidence from Costa Rica
    (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2015-06) Datta, Saugato ; Miranda, Juan José ; Zoratto, Laura ; Calvo-Gonzalez, Oscar ; Darlingm, Matthew ; Lorenzana, Karina
    This paper presents the design a set of three simple and replicable behavioral interventions, which use stickers that can be added to water bills at low cost, and test their impact on water consumption in Belen, Costa Rica, using a randomized control trial. Two of the three interventions were found to decrease water consumption significantly in the months following the intervention. A descriptive social norm intervention using neighborhood comparisons reduces consumption by between 3.7 and 5.6 percent relative to a control group, while a plan-making intervention reduces consumption by between 3.4 and 5.5 percent. While the two interventions have similar results, they are effective on different subpopulations, with the plan-making intervention being most effective for low-consumption households, while the neighborhood comparison intervention is most effective for high-consumption households. The results demonstrate that behavioral interventions, which have hitherto utilized sophisticated software to deliver customized messages, can be effectively implemented by local governments in developing countries, where technology and resource constraints render the sorts of customized messaging that has typically been used to deliver them in developed countries unfeasible. The results further confirm that raising awareness about how much water an individual consumes, and comparing this consumption level with peers, can go a long way in helping change individuals’ behavior regarding the use of a finite resource such as water.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Saving Water with a Nudge (or Two): Evidence from Costa Rica on the Effectiveness and Limits of Low-Cost Behavioral Interventions on Water Use
    (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the World Bank, 2020-06) Miranda, Juan Jose ; Datta, Saugato ; Zoratto, Laura
    The study uses a randomized controlled trial to test the impact of simple, inexpensive, and nonpersonalized behavioral interventions (or “nudges”) on water consumption in the context of a developing country. A descriptive social norm intervention using neighborhood comparisons reduces average water consumption in the first two postintervention months by 4.9 percent relative to the control group, while a planning postcard intervention reduces consumption by 4.8 percent. A descriptive social norm intervention using a town-level comparison also reduces water consumption by 3.2 percent, but this effect is not statistically significant. Finally, the study's one-time interventions continue to generate statistically significant reductions in water use for up to four months after they are implemented.