Beyond choice architecture: a building code for structuring climate risk management decisions

被引:15
作者
Arvai, Joseph [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Gregory, Robin [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Southern Calif, Dept Psychol, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
[2] Univ Southern Calif, Wrigley Inst Environm Studies, 454 Trousdale Pkwy,CAS 200, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
[3] Decis Res, Eugene, OR USA
[4] Univ British Columbia, Inst Resource & Environm Sustainabil, Vancouver, BC, Canada
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
SUPPORT; COMMUNICATION; PERCEPTIONS; MITIGATION; EXPERIENCE; FRAMEWORK; MODEL;
D O I
10.1017/bpp.2020.37
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Although the need for urgent climate change action is clear, insights about how to make better climate risk management decisions are limited. While significant attention from behavioral researchers has focused on choice architecture, we argue that many of the contexts for addressing climate risks require increased attention to the needs of a deliberative and dynamic choice environment. A key facet of this kind of decision is the need for decision-makers and stakeholders to identify and balance conflicting economic, social and environmental objectives. This recognition of difficult, context-specific trade-offs highlights the need for structuring the decision-making process so that objectives are clearly articulated and prioritized. Equally, policy analyses and deliberations must effectively link priorities with climate risk management options. This restructuring of decision-making about climate change calls for more than a nudge. Scientific and technical efforts must be redirected to help stakeholders and decision-makers better understand the diverse implications of climate change management alternatives and to become better equipped to take actions commensurate with the urgency of the problem.
引用
收藏
页码:556 / 575
页数:20
相关论文
共 62 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2011, RENEWABLE ENERGY SOU
  • [2] THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SUNK COST
    ARKES, HR
    BLUMER, C
    [J]. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1985, 35 (01) : 124 - 140
  • [3] Testing a structured decision approach: Value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication
    Arvai, JL
    Gregory, R
    McDaniels, TL
    [J]. RISK ANALYSIS, 2001, 21 (06) : 1065 - 1076
  • [4] The end of risk communication as we know it
    Arvai, Joseph
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, 2014, 17 (10) : 1245 - 1249
  • [5] Arvai J, 2012, ISSUES SCI TECHNOL, V28, P43
  • [6] Do people disagree with themselves? Exploring the internal consistency of complex, unfamiliar, and risky decisions
    Bessette, Douglas L.
    Wilson, Robyn S.
    Arvai, Joseph L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, 2021, 24 (05) : 593 - 605
  • [7] Engaging attribute tradeoffs in clean energy portfolio development
    Bessette, Douglas L.
    Arvai, Joseph L.
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2018, 115 : 221 - 229
  • [8] Expanding the Reach of Participatory Risk Management: Testing an Online Decision-Aiding Framework for Informing Internally Consistent Choices
    Bessette, Douglas L.
    Campbell-Arvai, Victoria
    Arvai, Joseph
    [J]. RISK ANALYSIS, 2016, 36 (05) : 992 - 1005
  • [9] Decision Support Framework for Developing Regional Energy Strategies
    Bessette, Douglas L.
    Arvai, Joseph
    Campbell-Arvai, Victoria
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 48 (03) : 1401 - 1408
  • [10] Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want?
    Bond, Samuel D.
    Carlson, Kurt A.
    Keeney, Ralph L.
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2008, 54 (01) : 56 - 70