Behavioral economics for environmental policy

Venkatachalam, L.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.018

Cited by 91 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of these reasons is what Venkatachalam (2008) calls the "endowment effect" and what evolutionary psychologists claim is derived from an evolutionary fear of loss. Experiments from behavioral economists like Ariely, Venkatachalam, and Gowdy all show that people have a closer tie to commodities that are already in their possession.…”

Section: History Of Relationship Between Economics and Ecologicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards Re-Thinking Ecology: Investigating the Influence of Behavioral Economics on Ecological Thought

Weidner

2013

lux

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: History Of Relationship Between Economics and Ecologicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a tremendous hurdle for polluter-polluter markets like the cap and trade in the EU and the SO 2 market in the US. As Venkatachalam (2008) explains:…”

Section: History Of Relationship Between Economics and Ecologicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Re-Thinking Ecology: Investigating the Influence of Behavioral Economics on Ecological Thought

Weidner

2013

lux

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…How do various actors respond to the effects of climate change and the incentives set by climate policies? For climate policy recommendations, most economists have used standard economic approaches based on the assumptions of the homo oeconomicus and rational decision making -although many scholars have argued that models from behavioural economics provide a more realistic description of observed behaviour in environmental issues (van den Bergh et al 2000;Brekke and Johansson-Stenman 2008;Gowdy 2008;Gsottbauer and van den Bergh 2010;Shogren et al 2010;Shogren and Taylor 2008;Venkatachalam 2008). This paper joins the debate on behavioural economics in climate change mitigation and adaptation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other sources discuss the implications of behavioural economics on environmental policy more generally (van den Bergh et al 2000;Gowdy 2008;Shogren et al 2010;Shogren and Taylor 2008;Venkatachalam 2008). Complementary to these works, this paper systematically identifies connections and empirical applications of PT on climate response measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospect theory, mitigation and adaptation to climate change

Osberghaus

2016

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. AbstractClimate change is one of the most pressing challenges in current environmental policy. Appropriate policies intended to stimulate efficient adaptation and mitigation should not exclusively rely on the assumption of the homo oeconomicus, but take advantage of well-researched alternative behavioural patterns. Prospect theory provides a number of climate-relevant insights, such as the notion that evaluations of outcomes are reference dependent, and the relevance of perceived certainty of outcomes. This paper systematically reviews what prospect theory can offer to analyse mitigation and adaptation. It is shown that accounting for reference dependence and certainty effects contributes to a better understanding of some well-known puzzles in the climate debate, including (but not limited to) the different uptake of mitigation and adaptation amongst individuals and nations, the role of technical vs. financial adaptation, and the apparent preference for hard protection measures in coastal adaptation. Finally, concrete possibilities for empirical research on these effects are proposed.

show abstract

“…A number of recent papers tentatively argue that findings from PGG experiments could provide important insights into mitigation behavior and policies in the real world (Shogren and Taylor, 2008;Venkatachalam, 2008;Brekke and Johansson-Stenman, 2008;Gowdy, 2008;Gsottbauer and van den Bergh, 2011;Carlsson and Johansson-Stenman, 2012). In the same spirit, some experimental studies on public good provision have been framed or interpreted with an explicit reference to mitigation decisions (e.g., Milinski et al, 2006Milinski et al, , 2008Tavoni et al, 2011;Brick and Visser, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Learn from Public Good Games About Voluntary Climate Action? Evidence from an Artefactual Field Experiment

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractEvidence from public good game experiments holds the promise of instructive and costeffective insights to inform environmental policy-making, for example on climate change mitigation. To fulfill the promise, such evidence needs to demonstrate generalizability to the specific policy context. This paper examines whether and under which conditions such evidence generalizes to voluntary mitigation decisions. We observe each participant in two different decision tasks: a real giving task in which contributions are used to directly reduce CO2 emissions and a public good game. Through two treatment variations, we explore two potential shifters of generalizability in a within-subjects design: the structural resemblance of contribution incentives between the tasks and the role of the subject pool, students and non-students. Our findings suggest that cooperation in public good games is linked to voluntary mitigation behavior, albeit not in a uniform way. For a standard set of parameters, behavior in both tasks is uncorrelated. Greater structural resemblance of the public goods game leads to sizable correlations, especially for student subjects.

show abstract

Behavioral economics for environmental policy

Cited by 91 publications

References 34 publications

Towards Re-Thinking Ecology: Investigating the Influence of Behavioral Economics on Ecological Thought

Towards Re-Thinking Ecology: Investigating the Influence of Behavioral Economics on Ecological Thought

Prospect theory, mitigation and adaptation to climate change

What Do We Learn from Public Good Games About Voluntary Climate Action? Evidence from an Artefactual Field Experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About