Table of ContentsIntroductionBehavioral Economics TheoryThe behavior of others is importantHabits are importantPeople's expectations influence their behaviorPeople are loss averse and cling to what they see as "theirs" People need to feel involved and effective in bringing about changeConclusionReferencesIntroductionEnvironmental degradation, particularly in the form of climate change, is a global political problem. Despite the agreements reached by the majority of countries, the United Nations reaffirms that urgent action is needed to combat climate change and its impacts. This essay addresses the issue of unproductive environmental policies and looks to the discipline of behavioral economics (BE) to understand how we can implement a more effective strategy. We will briefly introduce BE theory as an improved tool over neoclassical rational choice theory when applied to this question. The main argument advocates examining climate change as a pressing environmental issue and appropriating BE theory to improve environmental policy. This is largely understood by studying its usefulness in protecting the environment by reducing human contributions to climate change. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The arguments culminate through 5 subtopics, each examining a different perspective of BE theory. These subthemes will draw on examples such as recycling, food and travel behaviors in areas where EB may ultimately impact human-caused climate change. Each subject uses a different appropriation of BE theory and subsequently forms different perspectives on its use. In conclusion, this article will offer insightful ideas on how EB theory could inform the direction of public policy changes. In addition, it will present initial ideas on how to achieve this, subject to recommendations for further research. Behavioral Economics Theory Behavioral economics studies how people make economic choices. As a field of research, it has received attention for its questioning of assumptions derived from neoclassical economics, particularly mainstream economics and its underlying theory of rational choice. Rational choice theory states that individuals, as the name suggests, are rational in their choices, use all freely available information to do so, and make these choices in their own self-interest. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2012, p. 1) Robert Cialdini (author of the best-selling title "Influence") attributes the academic fields of BE and social psychology to a developing golden age be discovered in the behavioral domain. Science. (Samson & Cialdini, 2018, p. VII) Such a statement provides a careful overview of the framework within which BE works, drawing on psychological and sociological insights in its research to challenge the assumptions of rational choice theory . To leverage the influence of these areas requires careful consideration of how BE theory should be applied to a cause, as these fields of influence are not necessarily comparable or consistent. For example, an economic approach based on psychology relies on theories centered onindividuals/organizations. They might incorporate a theory such as the “theory of planned behavior” in which behavior manifests internally from conscious thought, or simply from “intention.” Conversely, the “Attitude-Behavior Context” model understands that behavior is carried out by both the individual and their environment. (UK Department of Transport, 2011, pp. 45-46) Despite their differences, both theories assume the deliberation of the individual, although neither takes into account habits, which predominate in other theories. Sociologically theoretical approaches always differ by emphasizing determined behavior. by factors beyond individuals. Per se, relevant examples of these factors could be transport infrastructure or waste management policies. These social practices can be largely reduced to 3 elements; things, skills and images/meanings. Understanding these determining factors is essential for these theories of behavior. (UK Department of Transport, 2011, p. 8) The hybrid influence of social psychology produces more nuances that contradict rational choice theory. Here we can understand behavior from the perspective of beliefs and attitudes (Avineri, 2012, p. 513), physical, cultural and economic constraints (UK Department for Transport, 2011, p. 7), as well as the approval and social status. (Brekke & Johansson-Stenman, 2008, p. 281) Interdisciplinary approaches have therefore provided BE with the ammunition to examine or re-examine big questions for which dominant rational choice paradigms might have obstructed the path to effective solutions. Extensive research by (UK Department for Transport, 2011, p. 11) suggests that we can maximize the value of behavioral approaches by focusing on specific behaviors. This is an important point to keep in mind when tasked with applying BE theory to inform policy outcomes, for example. A recent United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals report provides up-to-date information on environmental challenges. It has set numerous objectives, to be achieved by 2030, from which we can learn about important issues on which BE can lend itself. Goal 13, climate change and its impacts, which stands out for the urgent need for action, is particularly important. (United Nations, 2018, p. 10) Its changes are now considered to be mainly due to human activity (Brekke & Johansson-Stenman, 2008, p. 281) and such an idea is crucial when referring to the intervention of behavioral science. .- The majority of countries have now signed the Paris Agreement to provide information on their contributions to climate change. So far, climate change policy developments have not yet fully materialized due to a “free rider” problem. (Bhargava & Loewenstein, 2015, p. 399) The problem arises when a country realizes that it can save costs by trying to reduce emissions since it can benefit from sincere measures taken by other countries. (Brekke & Johansson-Stenman, 2008, p. 288) A return to traditional economic theory could help us understand this stagnation. On this issue, Avineri (2012, pp. 519-520) promotes a better understanding of climate change behavior understood across cultural and geographic contexts, including a BE-led research program to better understand change mitigation climatic. Furthermore, Bhargava and Loewenstein (2015, pp.399-400), in their work on public policies, attest that EB plays a positive role in the fight against climate change, the expansion of which could strengthen public support for economic policies. On the environment in particular, EB brings value to public policy by providing mechanisms to influence environmental behavior, since many so-called choices that bear on environmental outcomes arise from multiple motivators. (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012, pp. 1-2) In fact, this is where EB theory finds its place insofar as it can deploy tools to influence choice making in understanding motivations from behavioral sciences. A great example of BE theory's influence on choice making comes in the form of a "nudge", a simple and inexpensive way to change behavior using a choice architecture. This was recently developed by the United Nations Environment Program, which attributes EB to designing robust, cost-effective policies that promote more sustainable consumption behaviors by improving existing choices. (United Nations Environment Program, 2017) At the government level, nudges are considered broadly politically acceptable because they improve the public good for progressives while minimizing government intervention and preserving the personal liberties of conservatives. (Samson & Cialdini, 2018, p. IX) Generally, the use of a nudge is most effective when applied to "automatic" behaviors in a controlled environment. (Avineri, 2012, p. 519) An example could be a coffee vending machine in which certain levels of water or sugar are presented as an automatic option when ordering. Alternatively, print quality/ink usage is automatically taken care of without further clarification. We could perhaps understand them as “faults”. Complying with default rules while considering environmental impact can have notably large effects, which could potentially overshadow attempts at moral suasion, economic incentive, or educational initiatives. (Sunstein & Reisch, 2014, p. 128) The idea of ​​a default presented by BE theory when applied to ecologically sensitive contexts is often referred to as a “green default.” Sunstein & Reisch (2014) examine green defaults in depth and generally recommend them because they can significantly reduce environmental harm associated with products and activities. Another recommendation of policy importance is the benefit of reaping the benefits of green defaults, while providing individuals with free choice. As mentioned previously, BE theory accounts for non-rational choices and, in an environmental context, must deal with a complex set of motivations. According to (Avineri, 2012, p. 514), (Dawnay and Shah, 2005) outline a number of key principles related to these many motivations, some of these will now be used as headings (iv) to examine further details the value of BE theory. to a variety of environmental issues, particularly as they relate to climate change. The Behavior of Others Matters A strong theme in BE theory's controversy with rational choice theory is that individual choice is not limited to simple self-interest. In the field of transport, for example, climate change linked to travel choices constitutes a social dilemma rather than an individual problem. (Avineri, 2012, p. 517) Social pressure is particularly effective in promotinggreen alternatives and influence behavior, as individuals in this field prefer to fit in, even wanting to appear generous. (Garcia-Sierra, Van den Bergh and Miralles-Guasch, 2015, p. 301) Furthermore, it is understood that the successful introduction of such ideas can become a contagion, since the willingness to contribute to good social causes increases even by simple perception. contributions from others. (Brekke & Johansson-Stenman, 2008, p. 289) according to (Levitt and List, forthcoming). When social norms support this type of action and people are environmentally aware, it can motivate pro-environmental behavior that spreads with little persuasion. (Garcia-Sierra, Van den Bergh, and Miralles-Guasch, 2015, p. 298) In these cases, Garcia-Sierra, Van den Bergh, and Miralles-Guasch argue that a green alternative should be presented as a recommended default option in an architecture of choice. (2015, p. 301), it is indeed a simple way to promote green alternatives, simply taking advantage of the default bias. (2015, p. 295)Habits matterWe can understand human behavior as largely habitual or non-habitual. Where non-habitual behavior arises from consciousness (the reflective mind), habitual behavior is more subconscious and routine (the automatic mind). (UK Department for Transport, 2011, p. 6) It appears that habitual choices exist in the wider environmental domain and that a cost-benefit analysis is often not carried out by individuals when making relevant choices. (Sunstein & Reisch, 2014, p. 152) Since behavior tends to be driven unconsciously, using defaults should be a carefully constructed process and choice habits play an important role in this for a a number of reasons. First, default rules may not “work” simply because people have a strong enough preference to accommodate them. (Sunstein & Reisch, 2014, p. 144) Travelers, for example, rarely change their behaviors. (Garcia-Sierra, Van den Bergh, & Miralles-Guasch, 2015, p. 295) On the other hand, situations may arise in which habits may make people more susceptible to the influence of nudges that do not are perhaps not the most beneficial. According to (Just & Gabrielyan, 2016, p. 28) (Wansink & Sobal, 2007), individuals in the state make hundreds of food-related decisions daily. Such a cognitive task is overwhelming and individuals must fall back on their habits here. As such, food-poor individuals are vulnerable to behavioral incentives linked to other choice factors such as price and nutrition. (Just & Gabrielyan, 2016, p. 30) This is symptomatic of a larger problem since according to (Just & Gabrielyan, 2016), Schaffner (2014) stated that current prejudices are one of the main reasons why People living in poverty make poor economic decisions. People's expectations influence their behavior. Although nudges have obvious benefits, Avineri (2012, p. 519) reminds us that they do not make objective changes to the choices available and do not convey much knowledge to individuals. As an illustration, research on recycling behavior has found a "moral license" effect, whereby conserving resources in an area (which may have been motivated by EB theory) leads to waste of resources in another. (Trudel, 2016) The study found that individuals are less likely to recycle misrepresented items and more likely to recycle items related to certain elements of their identity. In reference(Reisch, 2003), Sunstein & Reisch (2014, p. 129) note that an individual deciding to adopt ecological behavior may be guided by the desire to act in accordance with idealized self-conceptions. Solutions to these recycling problems proposed by the author involve minimal distortion, easy opening of the packaging and the establishment of strong links with identity. Elimination biases are addressed at the individual level to increase the effectiveness of environmental ideals. (Trudel, 2016) The application of EB theory here recognizes and attempts to preserve existing behaviors, rather than resorting to nudges or choice architecture, because, as mentioned previously, these often do not educate to inform choices or face resistance from existing behaviors. With further research, approaches like this could provide ready-made solutions for environmental policy. People are loss averse and cling to what they consider “theirs.” So far we can understand that EB theory contributes to decision making through often habitual behavior related to social behavior and self-expression. We can understand that these factors carry weight (inertia) when people are presented with new choices. BE theory often advocates default choices that favor maintaining the status quo over significant, beneficial change, or simply says that "people dislike losses much more than they like corresponding gains." . (Sunstein & Reisch, 2014, p. 143) Known as “loss framing,” this technique occupies an important place in the architecture of choices. Avineri (2012, p. 517) even recommends this technique as part of informational measures aimed at bringing about a change in travel behavior. with decision inertia, because he wants to not disrupt the decision-making process too much. As such, the architects of choice have more power over small changes than large ones; an abrupt change inconsistent with preferences is likely to be rejected. (Sunstein & Reisch, 2014, p. 142) In the case of green defaults, this can encourage selection if properly framed by loss aversion. (Sunstein & Reisch, 2014, p. 154) For example, when it comes to changing energy supplies, it might be possible to encourage the choice of an environmentally friendly option instead of provided that the cost of change (inertia) is considered low. (Garcia-Sierra, Van den Bergh and Miralles-Guasch, 2015, p. 298) referring to Löfgren et al. (2009). To understand the importance of inertia and (at the meta level) loss aversion differently, consider Sunstein and Reisch (2014, p. 157) who note that getting people to identify and make choices favorable to the environment can be costly when a green choice is not the case. automatic. People need to feel involved and effective in making change. Previously, we understood BE theory in several forms applied to different causes. It is fundamental to the understanding and application of these principles that there is a presumption of relevance for the decision maker. Some research suggests that environmental problems will not motivate people to take serious action unless those problems are urgent and likely to have an imminent effect on them. (Mitomo & Otsuka, 2012, p. 406) In an age where information on environmental issues is more abundant and easier to reach, increased awareness may be expected (Mitomo & Otsuka, 2012, p. 400) and perhaps greater concern. . The reason this doesn't manifest as aChange could be attributed to an “intention-action gap,” in which claiming to behave sustainably and conserve resources does not manifest into actual behavior change. (United Nations Environment Program, 2017) According to (Mitomo & Otsuka, 2012, p. 401), Kahneman and Thaler (2006) make a clear behavioral distinction between intention/action as two utilities; “decision utility” created when making decisions and “experienced utility” when taking action. Since there is no necessary coincidence between these utilities, green action might never come to fruition, even with an abundance of information. The main recommendation we need to consider from this research is that consumers need to be aware that environmental protection and their livelihoods are linked (Mitomo & Otsuka, 2012, p. 401) if there is to be a change in behavior in favor of environmental protection. Even if the issue is considered important, it will be forgotten over time and therefore people should be continually exposed to environmental information (Mitomo & Otsuka, 2012, p. 407) and be relevant, as a reminder. The elements of this article call for more research on BE theory in their respective fields. Although this should prompt caution regarding the conclusions of this article, it does indicate that EB theory is recognized as useful in informing policies in favor of environmental ideals and is likely to have significant effects on these. Such broadenings can help strengthen public support for economic policies, with nudging in particular seen as a politically acceptable approach. There is an urgent need for deeper information on behavior in the face of climate change, across cultural and geographic contexts, to inform international agreements. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay on BE Theory. The gift lies in providing mechanisms to influence environmental behavior, which is maximized when focused on specific behaviors. It lends itself to the implementation of cost-effective policies that promote more sustainable consumption, achieved more efficiently by improving individuals' existing choices. The main factors that influence these decisions are self-image, habitual behavior, risk of losing and societal influence. Through these, we have a mandate to strategize and capitalize on nudges and green defects to begin to minimize human-caused climate change. Perhaps more importantly, there is a mandate to promote the impacts of climate change as a relevant and imminent issue in people's lives. References Avineri, E. (2012). On the use and potential of behavioral economics from the perspective of transportation and climate change. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 513-521. Bhargava, S. and Loewenstein, G. (2015). Behavioral Economics and Public Policy 102: Beyond the Nudge. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 105(5), 396-401. Brekke, K.A. and Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). The behavioral economics of climate change. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(4), 280-297.Garcia-Sierra, M., Van den Bergh, JC and Miralles-Guasch, C. (2015). Behavioral economics, travel behavior and environmental transport policy. Transportation Research, Part D, 41, 289-305. Just, D.R. and Gabrielyan, G. (2016). Why behavioral economics is important for.