IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v72y2016icp27-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insights from behavioural economics for forest economics and environmental policy: Potential nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and adaptation?

Author

Listed:
  • Valatin, Gregory
  • Moseley, Darren
  • Dandy, Norman

Abstract

Evidence from behavioural economics illustrates how cognitive factors can affect the preferences, values and choices of individual decision-makers. The evidence also shows how policy ‘nudges’ that account for the influence of cognitive factors can shift choices in socially desirable directions. Despite a wide range of potential applications, little research has been published to date applying behavioural economics in forestry. As an example of how behavioural economics could be used, this paper considers the potential for nudges in encouraging woodland creation to help meet climate change mitigation and adaptation goals. Although forests offer significant climate change mitigation and adaptation potential, land managers are often reluctant to create new woodlands, hindering accomplishment of national targets. Nudges could potentially help overcome the barriers. Disaggregating behavioural elements of woodland creation using the Stages of Change model, we identify a number of relevant intervention points at which nudges could be applied. It is argued that nudges may best be tailored towards different types of land manager taking account of differences in attitudes, motivations, circumstances and behaviour. To be effective, a combination with other policy instruments is likely to be needed. Pilot studies are recommended in determining which nudges are cost-effective. The paucity of existing studies drawing upon behavioural economics, or testing out nudges, points to this as a current frontier of both forest economics and policy, but can also be considered a frontier of environmental policy more widely. Developing a consistent valuation framework allowing for the social endogeneity of preferences and for optimization (or some other protocol) to be used in selecting policy options remains a fundamental challenge.

Suggested Citation

  • Valatin, Gregory & Moseley, Darren & Dandy, Norman, 2016. "Insights from behavioural economics for forest economics and environmental policy: Potential nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and adaptation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-36.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:72:y:2016:i:c:p:27-36
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116301319
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.
    2. Roland G. Fryer, 2011. "Financial Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from Randomized Trials," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1755-1798.
    3. Pouta, Eija, 2004. "Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 229-242, April.
    4. Pearson, Leonie J. & Kashima, Yoshihisa & Pearson, Craig J., 2012. "Clarifying protected and utilitarian values of critical capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 206-210.
    5. John M. Gowdy, 2004. "The Revolution in Welfare Economics and Its Implications for Environmental Valuation and Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(2), pages 239-257.
    6. Dolan, P. & Hallsworth, M. & Halpern, D. & King, D. & Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I., 2012. "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 264-277.
    7. Shogren, Jason F., 2007. "Behavior in forest economics," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 233-235, February.
    8. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    9. Roland Fryer & Steven Levitt & John List & Sally Sadoff, 2012. "Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00591, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    11. Dominika Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2007. "Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 71-87, September.
    12. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    13. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    14. Hoehn, John P. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2010. "Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
    16. Beatty, Timothy K.M. & Blow, Laura & Crossley, Thomas F. & O'Dea, Cormac, 2014. "Cash by any other name? Evidence on labeling from the UK Winter Fuel Payment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 86-96.
    17. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Hoehn, John P., 2001. "Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 237-247, February.
    18. Matthies, Brent D. & Kalliokoski, Tuomo & Eyvindson, Kyle & Honkela, Nina & Hukkinen, Janne I. & Kuusinen, Nea J. & Räisänen, Petri & Valsta, Lauri T., 2016. "Nudging service providers and assessing service trade-offs to reduce the social inefficiencies of payments for ecosystem services schemes," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 228-237.
    19. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    20. Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1-16.
    21. Ian Ayres & Sophie Raseman & Alice Shih, 2009. "Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback Can Reduce Residential Energy Usage," NBER Working Papers 15386, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    23. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    24. Kant, Shashi & Vertinsky, Ilan & Zheng, Bin, 2016. "Valuation of First Nations peoples' social, cultural, and land use activities using life satisfaction approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 46-55.
    25. Brigitte C. Madrian & Dennis F. Shea, 2001. "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(4), pages 1149-1187.
    26. Felipe Barrera-Osorio & Marianne Bertrand & Leigh L. Linden & Francisco Perez-Calle, 2011. "Improving the Design of Conditional Transfer Programs: Evidence from a Randomized Education Experiment in Colombia," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 167-195, April.
    27. Kumar, Pradeep & Kant, Shashi, 2016. "Revealed social preferences and joint forest management outcomes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 37-45.
    28. Levine, Jordan & Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre, 2015. "From rational actor to efficient complexity manager: Exorcising the ghost of Homo economicus with a unified synthesis of cognition research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 22-32.
    29. Ville Ovaskainen & Matleena Kniivilä, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 379-394, December.
    30. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    31. Macmillan, Douglas C. & Philip, Lorna & Hanley, Nick & Alvarez-Farizo, Begona, 2002. "Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, November.
    32. Kant, Shashi, 2003. "Extending the boundaries of forest economics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 39-56, January.
    33. Giles Atkinson & Ian Bateman & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 22-47, Spring.
    34. Bromley, Daniel W., 2008. "Volitional pragmatism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 1-13, December.
    35. Eric P. Bettinger & Bridget Terry Long & Philip Oreopoulos & Lisa Sanbonmatsu, 2012. "The Role of Application Assistance and Information in College Decisions: Results from the H&R Block Fafsa Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 127(3), pages 1205-1242.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saraev, Vadim & Valatin, Gregory & Peace, Andrew & Quine, Christopher, 2019. "How does a biodiversity value impact upon optimal rotation length? An investigation using species richness and forest stand age," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Khan, M. Ali, 2016. "On a forest as a commodity and on commodification in the discipline of forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 7-17.
    3. Hopkins, Jonathan & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Matthews, Keith & Barnes, Andrew & Toma, Luiza, 2017. "Scottish farmers' intentions to afforest land in the context of farm diversification," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 122-132.

    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:eee:forpol:v:72:y:2016:i:c:p:27-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.