Introduction

Preference formation is a fundamental concept in behavioural economics with significant implications for environmental decision making. Traditional economic models often assume that preferences are static and rational. However, behavioural economics presents a more dynamic view, suggesting that preferences evolve over time, influenced by context, framing, and available information. Understanding these evolving preferences is crucial for designing effective environmental policies that encourage a shift towards sustainable behaviours. This article explores how preferences are formed, their impact on decision making, and the importance of integrating these insights into environmental policy. It uses examples from various countries to provide a comprehensive, globally relevant perspective.

Preference Formation and Its Impact on Environmental Decision Making

Preferences are not fixed. They are shaped by experiences, social norms, and environmental contexts. Norton et al.(1998) argue that preferences are endogenous, meaning they evolve in response to changes in the environment. This insight is critical for understanding how shifts in public preferences can influence support for environmental policies. For instance, in both Germany and Denmark, there is a growing preference for renewable energy sources over fossil fuels. Policymakers who recognise and adapt to these evolving preferences are better positioned to implement policies that resonate with the public and achieve lasting environmental benefits.

In Japan, the government has successfully shifted public preferences towards energy conservation following the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The disaster altered public perceptions of nuclear power and spurred a nationwide movement towards energy efficiency and renewable energy. This shift was reinforced by government policies promoting energy-saving technologies and public awareness campaigns. This example underscores how significant events can rapidly reshape public preferences and how policymakers can leverage these changes to promote sustainable behaviours.

Slovic’s (1995) concept of constructed preferences illustrates how individuals often develop their preferences during the decision making process itself, influenced by context and framing. The introduction of the bottle deposit system (Pfand) in Germany, as well as similar schemes in Scandinavian countries, shifted consumer preferences towards reusable packaging. Before these systems were implemented, the environmental impact of disposable packaging was less of a concern. However, by increasing the costs and inconvenience associated with disposables, these systems have successfully altered consumer behaviour, encouraging more sustainable choices. This example demonstrates how policy interventions can effectively influence preferences by altering the decision making environment.

The concept of ecological rationality, discussed by Gigerenzer and Todd (1999) in Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, further explains how preferences are shaped by environmental cues. Ecological rationality suggests that individuals adapt their decision making strategies based on specific environmental contexts, leading to variations in preferences across different situations. In Germany, cities like Freiburg have become models of sustainable urban living through their promotion of public transportation and cycling. Similarly, in the Netherlands, the extensive network of bike lanes and policies favouring cyclists over cars have made cycling the preferred mode of transport in many cities. These examples illustrate how environmental policies that consider the context-dependent nature of preferences can effectively promote sustainable behaviours.

The Valuation of Environmental Goods: Biases and Methodological Challenges

Valuing environmental goods presents significant challenges due to cognitive biases that can distort willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates. Hypothetical bias occurs when respondents overstate their WTP in hypothetical scenarios compared to actual behaviour in real-world markets (Harrison and Rutström, 2008). This bias has been observed in various countries, including Germany and the United States, where public support for renewable energy is strong in surveys, but actual adoption can lag behind due to higher costs and practical barriers. This discrepancy highlights the need for more accurate valuation methods that capture true preferences, rather than inflated hypothetical responses.

For example, in the United States, despite widespread public support for renewable energy, adoption rates have been slower than anticipated. Many consumers express a high willingness to pay for green energy in surveys, but when faced with the actual costs and infrastructure challenges, their behaviour does not always align with these stated preferences. This gap between hypothetical and real-world behaviour demonstrates the challenges in accurately valuing environmental goods and the importance of designing policies that bridge this gap.

The embedding effect, explored by Kahneman and Knetsch (1992), complicates the valuation of environmental goods by showing how respondents’ valuations are influenced by broader contexts rather than the specific attributes of the good in question. This effect is linked to “warm glow” motivations, where individuals derive satisfaction from contributing to a public good, rather than from the good itself (Andreoni, 1990). For example, in both Germany and the UK, participation in local recycling programmes is often motivated by a sense of contributing to the community, rather than solely by the environmental benefits. This demonstrates how the broader context of civic responsibility can influence environmental preferences.

Another issue in environmental valuation is the disparity between willingness to accept (WTA) and WTP, often attributed to the endowment effect. This cognitive bias, identified by Thaler (1980), suggests that individuals place a higher value on goods they own compared to those they do not, leading to a gap between WTA and WTP. This discrepancy is particularly relevant in environmental contexts, such as in Germany, where citizens may resist selling land for wind farms or other renewable energy projects, despite generally supporting these initiatives, due to personal attachment to their land. Similar resistance has been observed in the United States, where property owners are often reluctant to lease land for renewable energy projects, despite public support for green energy.

Time discounting, especially hyperbolic discounting, adds another layer of complexity to environmental valuation. Hyperbolic discounting leads to time-inconsistent preferences, where individuals disproportionately favour immediate rewards over future benefits (Laibson, 1997). This bias presents a significant challenge for long-term environmental policy design. In Germany, for instance, the slow uptake of energy-efficient home renovations, despite long-term cost savings, can be attributed to the upfront costs and the preference for immediate financial liquidity over long-term benefits. This is comparable to similar challenges faced in other countries, such as the UK, where government incentives are often required to overcome the initial financial barriers to adopting energy-efficient technologies.

Summary of Valuation Biases

• Hypothetical Bias:Overstating WTP in hypothetical scenarios compared to real-world behaviour.
• Embedding Effect:Influence of broader contexts on the valuation of specific environmental goods.
• Endowment Effect:Higher valuation of owned goods leading to WTA-WTP disparity.
• Time Discounting:Preference for immediate rewards over future benefits complicating long-term environmental decisions.

Formation of Environmental Risk Beliefs

Environmental risk beliefs are shaped by cognitive biases that influence how individuals perceive and respond to risks. The availability heuristic, for example, causes individuals to overestimate the likelihood of events that are more easily recalled, such as recent natural disasters (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973). In both Germany and the United States, this bias can be seen in the public’s reaction to severe weather events like flooding and hurricanes, which have led to increased concern about climate change and support for disaster prevention measures, even though other risks may statistically be more significant.

Similarly, in Australia, the devastating bushfires of 2019-2020 significantly shifted public risk perceptions and led to stronger support for climate change mitigation policies. This example highlights how environmental disasters can act as powerful catalysts for changing public attitudes and risk perceptions, often leading to increased support for policies that address these risks.

Another cognitive bias, optimism bias, leads individuals to underestimate the likelihood of negative outcomes affecting them personally, even if they recognise these risks for others (Weinstein, 1980). This bias is evident in Germany’s response to climate change, where many people acknowledge the global risks but are less concerned about the direct impact on their own lives, leading to delayed personal action, such as adopting sustainable practices. A similar pattern is observed in other parts of Europe and North America, where climate change is often seen as a distant threat rather than an immediate personal risk.

Ambiguity aversion, as illustrated by the Allais (1953) and Ellsberg (1961) paradoxes, reveals that individuals are often more averse to uncertainty and ambiguity than rational choice theory would predict. In Germany, this can be seen in the hesitation to invest in new technologies, such as electric vehicles, due to uncertainties about their long-term viability and the infrastructure needed to support them. This mirrors similar concerns in other countries, such as the United States and the UK, where consumer adoption of electric vehicles has been slower than expected due to fears about battery life and charging infrastructure. Understanding these biases is crucial for designing policies that effectively address environmental risks and encourage proactive decision making.

Summary of Risk Belief Biases

• Availability Heuristic:Overestimation of the likelihood of recent, easily recalled events.
• Optimism Bias:Underestimation of personal risk, leading to delayed action.
• Ambiguity Aversion:Aversion to uncertainty, hindering investment in new technologies.

Integrating Behavioural Insights into Environmental Policy

Integrating behavioural insights into environmental policy requires rethinking traditional policy design. Recognising that preferences are dynamic and influenced by cognitive biases, policies must be adaptable and responsive. Van den Bergh et al. (2000) argue that policies should not only account for these behavioural factors but also leverage them to encourage pro-environmental behaviours. In Germany, policies like the Energiewende have successfully harnessed these insights by framing renewable energy as a positive, forward-looking choice, and by creating financial incentives for adopting sustainable practices. Similar strategies have been employed in countries like Denmark, where the government has effectively promoted wind energy by aligning financial incentives with the public’s growing environmental consciousness.

Another critical area for policy integration is the valuation of future environmental outcomes. Hyperbolic discounting, as discussed by Frederick et al. (2002), suggests that individuals tend to undervalue long-term benefits, preferring short-term gains. To counteract this bias, policies aimed at long-term sustainability must align immediate actions with future benefits. For example, offering immediate financial incentives, such as subsidies for purchasing electric vehicles or retrofitting homes for energy efficiency, can encourage individuals to make decisions that favour long-term environmental sustainability. Similar approaches have been used in the Netherlands, where subsidies and tax breaks have successfully encouraged the adoption of energy-efficient technologies.

Examples in Germany and other countries further illustrate the effectiveness of these approaches. Germany’s energy-saving programmes that use nudges – subtle policy shifts that encourage behaviour change without restricting freedom of choice – have been effective. For instance, setting energy-efficient appliances as the default option in public procurement has significantly increased their adoption. Similarly, in Sweden, the government’s default enrolment of citizens into green energy programmes has led to high participation rates.

Limitations of Applying Behavioural Economics Across Different Cultural Contexts

While behavioural economics provides valuable insights for environmental policy, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of applying these principles across different cultural contexts. Cultural norms, values, and social structures can significantly influence how behavioural interventions are received and whether they are effective. For instance, the success of nudges in one country may not translate directly to another due to differences in social trust, individualism versus collectivism, and the role of government in daily life. In Japan, where there is a strong cultural emphasis on collective responsibility, environmental policies that appeal to group identity may be more effective than those targeting individual behaviour, a strategy that might work better in the United States or the UK. Policymakers must therefore consider cultural factors when designing and implementing behavioural interventions, adapting strategies to fit the local context.

Actionable Recommen­dations

1. Regularly Update Policies to Reflect Evolving Preferences:Recognise that preferences are fluid and can change over time. Continuously adapt environmental policies to stay aligned with current public attitudes, ensuring interventions remain effective and relevant.
2. Tailor Interventions to Decision Making Contexts:Frame environmental choices in ways that resonate with specific contexts. Craft messages and strategies that fit the environments where decisions are made, making sustainable actions the intuitive choice.
3. Design Environments That Naturally Encourage Green Choices:Use ecological rationality to shape environments where sustainable options are the easiest and most visible. Make eco-friendly choices the default by embedding them into everyday settings.
4. Counteract Cognitive Biases with Immediate Incentives:Address biases like time discounting by offering instant rewards for sustainable actions. Use tangible incentives to motivate immediate engagement with green initiatives, leading to lasting behaviour change.
5. Adapt Policies to Cultural Contexts:Recognise that cultural differences can influence the effectiveness of behavioural interventions. Design policies that are culturally sensitive and adaptable to local norms and values to ensure they resonate with the target population.

Conclusion

The connection between preference formation and environmental decision making is crucial for promoting a shift towards sustainable behaviour. By recognising that preferences are constructed, context-dependent, and influenced by biases, policymakers can design more effective environmental policies. These policies must be adaptive and responsive to the evolving nature of preferences, creating environments that support and encourage sustainable choices.

As this article has shown, the integration of behavioural insights into environmental policy is essential for promoting sustainable behaviours. Key challenges such as cognitive biases, including hypothetical bias, the endowment effect, and time discounting, complicate the valuation of environmental goods and the formation of risk beliefs. However, through careful policy design that considers these biases and adapts to cultural contexts, it is possible to create environments that naturally encourage sustainable choices. By regularly updating policies, tailoring interventions to specific decision making contexts, and providing immediate incentives, policymakers can effectively guide the public towards more sustainable behaviours.

The global examples discussed demonstrate the universal applicability of these insights, while also underscoring the importance of cultural sensitivity in policy implementation. Ultimately, this approach offers a pathway to achieving long-term environmental sustainability through informed and adaptive decision making.

Glossary of Key Terms

• Preference Formation: The process by which individuals develop their preferences, influenced by factors such as context, framing, social norms, and individual experiences.
• Environmental Decision Making: The process of making choices related to environmental policies and actions, often influenced by individual preferences, biases, and societal factors.
• Constructed Preferences: A concept suggesting that preferences are not pre-existing but are formed during the decision making process, shaped by the context and information available.
• Ecological Rationality: A concept in behavioural economics that suggests individuals adapt their decision-making strategies based on the specific environmental context, leading to context-dependent preferences.
• Endowment Effect: A cognitive bias where individuals assign a higher value to goods they own compared to those they do not own, affecting their willingness to pay or accept compensation for these goods.
• Time Discounting: The tendency to favour immediate rewards over future ones, often leading to time-inconsistent preferences that can complicate long-term decision making.
• Availability Heuristic: A cognitive bias where individuals estimate the likelihood of events based on how easily they can recall similar instances, which can lead to skewed perceptions of risk.
• Optimism Bias: A cognitive bias where individuals underestimate the likelihood of negative outcomes affecting them personally, which can influence their perception of environmental risks and their behaviour.
• Contingent Valuation Method (CVM): A survey-based economic technique used to estimate the value people place on non-market goods, such as environmental assets, often subject to biases and context-dependent responses.
• Nudge Theory: A concept in behavioural economics where subtle policy shifts are used to encourage people to make decisions that are in their long-term best interest, often applied in environmental policy to promote sustainable behaviour.
• Hyperbolic Discounting: A behavioural economic theory describing how people disproportionately prefer smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards, leading to inconsistent decision making over time.
• Hypothetical Bias: The tendency for individuals to state a higher willingness to pay in hypothetical scenarios than they would in actual market situations, often leading to overestimation in survey-based valuation methods.
• Warm Glow: A concept describing the emotional satisfaction derived from the act of giving or contributing to a public good, which can influence economic decisions and valuations.

 

References

Allais, M. (1953), Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine, Econometrica, 21(4), 503-546.

Andreoni, J. (1990), Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving, The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.

Ellsberg, D. (1961), Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643-669.

Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., and T. O’Donoghue (2002), Time discounting and time preference: A critical review, Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401.

Gigerenzer, G., and P. M. Todd (1999), Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford University Press

Harrison, G. W., and E. E. Rutström (2008), Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods, in: Handbook of Experimental Economics Results (Vol. 1, pp. 752-767), Elsevier

Kahneman, D., and J. L. Knetsch (1992), Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57-70.

Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443-477.

McFadden, D. (1994). Contingent valuation and social choice, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(4), 689-708.

Norton, B. G., Costanza, R., and R. C. Bishop (1998), The evolution of preferences: Why ‘sovereign’ preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it, Ecological Economics, 24(2-3), 193-211.

Slovic, P. (1995), The construction of preference, American Psychologist, 50(5), 364-371.

Thaler, R. (1980), Toward a positive theory of consumer choice, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39-60.

Thaler, R. H., and C. R. Sunstein (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability, Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.

Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., and G. Munda (2000), Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy, Ecological Economics, 32(1), 43-61.

Weinstein, N. D. (1980), Unrealistic optimism about future life events, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806-820.