Nudges to Build Better Cities
As a behavioral scientist, I’m fascinated by how small, low-cost nudges can change behavior. I recently read a great research article that puts this idea to work in a tough setting: housing code enforcement.
The paper, by Elizabeth Linos of Harvard, Lisa Quan of Berkeley, and Elspeth Kirkman of the Behavioral Insights Team asks a simple question: Can a well-timed nudge get property owners to fix code violations before fines even come into play?
The big idea?
Fines alone don’t fix blighted properties. And, they come with hidden costs on both sides. For cities, fines mean more paperwork and damaged trust, potentially without any improvement to the property. For residents, the issues are even worse: people have a hard time figuring out opaque rules and the sting of stigma makes people dig in rather than clean up.
Instead of waiting to send out fines, the researchers show that early, smart nudges like informational letters can get people to comply before penalties kick in. These nudges clarify the rules without shame, lighten the paperwork load, and turn compliance into a manageable step — not a battle.
Does it work?
Can a simple letter really make a difference in something as tough as blighted properties This is what these researchers set out to test. Here’s how they did it:
Randomly split homeowners into two groups
One gets the nudge (like a courtesy letter)
The other gets business as usual
Then compare: Who fixes their home faster?
This approach is called a field experiment in economics. It is the gold standard in behavioral science research, and is incidentally the method I always teach in my business courses at UC-San Diego.
Here are the three experiments that the researchers ran, and what they found:
New Orleans: A "courtesy letter" sent before the first inspection (alerting owners to a complaint and upcoming check) boosted compliance by about 15% at the initial visit. This extra step gave owners more time to act, saving the city ~$36,000 annually in avoided hearings.
Louisville: Simplified violation notices (clearer language, deadlines, calls to action) after the first failed inspection raised compliance by about 3% by the third check and fine payments by 12% (adding ~$23 more per case). This reduced compliance costs without shortening timelines.
Chattanooga: Preemptive postcards to past violators (personalized with resources and reciprocity cues) prevented future issues, cutting violations by about 9% in peak season.
Overall, these nudges saved 6–15% of enforcement budgets and freed resources for harder cases.
Why It Works
These aren’t just clever letters. They’re behavioral science in action:
Early timing gives people a chance to plan (not panic)
Clarity cuts confusion
No stigma builds trust, not defensiveness
Reciprocity (“We’re helping you, now help us keep the neighborhood clean”) motivates action
What’s next?
For cities, the takeaway is clear: early, clear, kind communication beats late, legal, punitive notices. And to send the right nudge at the right time? You need the data.
That’s where we come in. At Placemetry, we deliver frequent, city-wide property data — not just 311 complaints or random drive-bys. That means:
Proactive targeting of at-risk properties before violations escalate
Equitable coverage across neighborhoods
Real-time insights to power timely, effective nudges
Want to reduce blight, save taxpayer dollars, and build trust?
Let’s talk. Send us an email and we'll show you how.
Anya Samek, COO (future) of Placemetry
