In a national online survey, 505 participants reported their perceptions of energy consumption and savings for a variety of household, transportation, and recycling activities. When asked for the most effective strategy they could implement to conserve energy, most participants mentioned curtailment (e.g., turning off lights, driving less) rather than efficiency improvements (e.g., installing more efficient light bulbs and appliances), in contrast to experts' recommendations. For a sample of 15 activities, participants underestimated energy use and savings by a factor of 2.8 on average, with small overestimates for low-energy activities and large underestimates for high-energy activities. Additional estimation and ranking tasks also yielded relatively flat functions for perceived energy use and savings. Across several tasks, participants with higher numeracy scores and stronger proenvironmental attitudes had more accurate perceptions. The serious deficiencies highlighted by these results suggest that well-designed efforts to improve the public's understanding of energy use and savings could pay large dividends.climate change | decision making | judgment | environmental behavior | anchoring A nthropogenic CO 2 emissions are contributing to global climate change (1) and could negatively impact our way of life if serious action is further delayed. The United States produces 21% of the world's CO 2 emissions, with 98% of US emissions attributed to energy consumption (2).According to Pacala and Socolow (3), increasing energy efficiency and curtailing activities that consume energy may be our cheapest options for stabilizing atmospheric CO 2 concentrations below a doubling of preindustrial concentrations. Following the analogy of stabilization wedges (3), Dietz et al. (4) devised a potential behavioral wedge, recommending specific behavioral changes, such as weatherization investments, to be adopted by US households to decrease their emissions. Vandenbergh et al. (5) identified seven actions, such as reducing automobile idling and substituting compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) for incandescent bulbs, that have the potential to achieve large emission reductions at a low cost to the government and with a net savings for individuals. In related work, Gardner and Stern (6) identified a short list of the most effective actions US households could take to decrease their contributions to climate change. They argued that by changing the selection and use of household and motor vehicle technologies, households could reduce their energy consumption by nearly 30%-without waiting for new technologies, making major economic sacrifices, or losing a sense of well-being. If households effectively implemented all of Gardner and Stern's recommended changes, US energy consumption would be reduced by approximately 11%. Similarly, Dietz et al. (4) estimated that behavioral interventions could reasonably achieve a 20% reduction in CO 2 emissions from household energy use (a 7.4% reduction in total US emissions) within 10 y.Gardner and...

In a national online survey, 1,020 participants reported their perceptions of water use for household activities. When asked for the most effective strategy they could implement to conserve water in their lives, or what other Americans could do, most participants mentioned curtailment (e.g., taking shorter showers, turning off the water while brushing teeth) rather than efficiency improvements (e.g., replacing toilets, retrofitting washers). This contrasts with expert recommendations. Additionally, some participants are more likely to list curtailment actions for themselves, but list efficiency actions for other Americans. For a sample of 17 activities, participants underestimated water use by a factor of 2 on average, with large underestimates for high water-use activities. An additional ranking task showed poor discrimination of low vs. high embodied water content in food products. High numeracy scores, older age, and male sex were associated with more accurate perceptions of water use. Overall, perception of water use is more accurate than the perception of energy consumption and savings previously reported. Well-designed efforts to improve public understanding of household water use could pay large dividends for behavioral adaptation to temporary or long-term decreases in availability of fresh water.water conservation | decision making | judgment | anchoring F resh water is used increasingly beyond sustainable levels (1). Do people know how much water is used by a variety of daily activities? If people were asked to conserve water, would they know which behaviors are more effective than others? Gleick (2) estimated that 13.2 gallons of clean water are required per person per day for human needs (drinking, sanitation, hygiene, and food preparation). In 2005, the average American used about 98 gallons of water per day (3), of which ∼70% was used indoors (4). Thus, the average American uses more than seven times the water estimated by Gleick as needed. To understand how water use is distributed among daily activities in American households, Mayer et al. (5) surveyed 12 study sites during 1996 through 1998 to disaggregate residential end-use water consumption. Fig. 1 shows the average distribution for six categories. They also found that indoor water use was fairly homogenous across the 12 sites, except for the category "leaks"; whereas outdoor water use varies substantially depending on local climate (5).Most Americans assume that water supply is both reliable and plentiful. However, research has shown that with climate change, water supply will become more variable due to salinization of ground water and increased variability in precipitation (6, 7). Some have argued that rather than focusing on increasing freshwater supply alone, we need also to reduce water demand (8). Demand-side policy responses to future freshwater variability will benefit from a deeper understanding of public perceptions of water use, which is the focus of this study.Similar to Attari et al. (9), a study that explored public perceptions ...

No abstract

No abstract

Despite decades of research and interventions, crop yields for smallholder farmers across sub-Saharan Africa are dramatically lower than in developed countries. Attempts to address low yields of staple crops in Africa since the Green Revolution through policies and investments in advanced seed cultivars have had mixed results. Numerous countries have heartily embraced and promoted hybrid cultivars through government subsidy programs and investments in research and seed multiplication. One possible explanation for why these programs have not resulted in more significant yield improvements is the challenge faced by farmers to select cultivars that are suited to their local environmental conditions. The question of what seeds farmers choose is exceptionally complex as it is often affected by local seed availability, the availability of information on seed performance, and the transfer of that information to farmers. At the foundation of this choice are farmers' perceptions of different seed varieties coupled with their perceptions of climate variability. We examine seed choice in Zambia, a country with decades of hybrid maize seed development and supporting policies. We demonstrate how input subsidy programs and seed market liberalization have led to choice overload and a discontinuity in information exchange between farmers and seed companies. The decision making environment is further complicated by the heterogeneity in growing conditions and its variable impact on seed performance, which complicates characterization of seed duration at the farm level. Perceptions and biases related to climate variability effect seed choice, and potentially lead farmers to make risk averse decisions, which ultimately depress maize yields.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract