IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000180/015900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Caracterización de la función de valor empleada en las decisiones ambientales por las grandes organizaciones: Estudio de los grandes proyectos hidroeléctricos en Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Rodolfo Garcia Sierra
  • Álvaro Zerda Sarmiento

Abstract

Esta investigación ofrece una explicación sobre una de las fuentes generadoras de los altos niveles de conflictividad, actualmente predecibles entre las comunidades locales y la construcción de megaproyectos hidroeléctricos en Colombia, a través de una mirada endógena de las grandes organizaciones, específicamente en su proceso de toma de decisiones ambientales basado en juicio de expertos. En este caso el análisis se aplica a la construcción de megaproyectos hidroeléctricos (>350 MW) en Colombia durante el período 2010 al 2020. La investigación emplea la teoría prospectiva acumulativa (Cumulative Prospect Theory - CPT). Se inicia determinando el uso de la heurística de disponibilidad y su cuantificación, a partir de los criterios de facilidad de recordación y tiempo de deliberación de las respuestas. Paso siguiente, se caracteriza la función de preferencias de los expertos, determinando las dimensiones en las que se presentan zonas de aptitudes de ganancia (altas y bajas) y zonas de aptitudes de pérdidas (bajas y altas). Su aplicación a las organizaciones según las simulaciones realizadas, permite mejorar la influencia de las comunidades locales en las decisiones ambientales, teniendo presente los resultados sobre las aptitudes de pérdidas que han experimentado los tomadores de decisiones, ante peticiones externas en las dimensiones tecnológicas y ambientales.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodolfo Garcia Sierra & Álvaro Zerda Sarmiento, 2017. "Caracterización de la función de valor empleada en las decisiones ambientales por las grandes organizaciones: Estudio de los grandes proyectos hidroeléctricos en Colombia," Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, vol. 26(1), pages 69-91, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:col:000180:015900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://revistas.unimilitar.edu.co/index.php/rfce/article/view/1884
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    2. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    3. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Strack, Fritz, 2014. "From dual processes to multiple selves: Implications for economic behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Brighton, Henry & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2015. "The bias bias," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1772-1784.
    5. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    6. Daniel Burghart & Paul Glimcher & Stephanie Lazzaro, 2013. "An expected utility maximizer walks into a bar..," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 215-246, June.
    7. Busenitz, Lowell W. & Barney, Jay B., 1997. "Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 9-30, January.
    8. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    9. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    10. T. Earle & M. Siegrist, 2008. "Trust, Confidence and Cooperation model: a framework for understanding the relation between trust and Risk Perception," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1/2), pages 17-29.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodolfo Garcia Sierra & Alvaro Zerda Sarmiento, 2016. "Hydropower Megaprojects in Colombia and the Influence of Local Communities: A View from Prospect Theory to Decision Making Process based on Expert Judgment used in Large Organizations," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 6(3), pages 408-420.
    2. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    3. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    4. Matteo M. Marini, 2021. "20 years of emotions and risky choices in the lab: A meta-analysis," Working Papers 2021/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    5. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    6. Anna Conte & M. Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2018. "Risk Preferences and the Role of Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 305-328, April.
    7. Andreas Hackethal & Michael Kirchler & Christine Laudenbach & Michael Razen & Annika Weber, 2023. "On the role of monetary incentives in risk preference elicitation experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 189-213, April.
    8. Mark J. Browne & Verena Jäger & Andreas Richter & Petra Steinorth, 2022. "Family changes and the willingness to take risks," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 187-209, March.
    9. Andrea Hackethal & Michael Kirchler & Christine Laudenbach & Michael Razen & Annika Weber, 2020. "On the role of monetary incentives in risk preference elicitation experiments," Working Papers 2020-29, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    10. Anna Conte & M. Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2013. "The Role of Emotions on Risk Preferences: An Experimental Analysis," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-046, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    11. Bocquého, Géraldine & Deschamps, Marc & Helstroffer, Jenny & Jacob, Julien & Joxhe, Majlinda, 2023. "Modelling refugee migration under cognitive biases: Experimental evidence and policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. Matteo M. Marini, 2022. "20 years of emotions and risky choices in the lab: A meta-analysis," Working Papers 2022/03, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    13. Zafer Akýn & Ý. Erdem Seçilmiþ, 2015. "Risk Behavior, Risk Perception and Online Shopping: An Experimental Approach," IPEK Working Papers 1507, Ipek University, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2015.
    14. Rothengatter, Marloes, 2016. "Insights in cognitive patterns : Essays on heuristics and identification," Other publications TiSEM 5f812a9d-8968-48b8-8d1b-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    17. Belzil, Christian & Sidibé, Modibo, 2016. "Internal and External Validity of Experimental Risk and Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 10348, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    19. Kimbrough, E.O. & Vostroknutov, A., 2012. "Rules, rule-following and cooperation," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    20. Thomas Buser, 2016. "The Impact of Losing in a Competition on the Willingness to Seek Further Challenges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3439-3449, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000180:015900. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Administrador (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/femngco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.