Judgmental Discounting and Environmental Risk Perception: Dimensional Similarities, Domain Differences, and Implications for Sustainability

Gattig, Alexander; Hendrickx, Laurentius Catharina Wilhelmus Petronella

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00494.x

Cited by 131 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The low discount rates observed may thus have been due to the difference in valence (as gains are typically discounted more than losses; Thaler, 1981) or the difference between who was affected by the consequences (others vs. self). Similarly, in a brief review of temporal discounting studies, Gattig and Hendrickx (2007) concluded that discounting is less pronounced for environmental risks than for other domains, noting that a substantial proportion of participants (in the range of 30% to 50%) do not discount environmental risks at all. However, none of the articles reviewed directly compared monetary and environmental outcomes nor did they control for potentially confounding factors such as the valence of outcomes.…”

Section: Domain Differences In Time Preferences?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discounting future green: Money versus the environment.

Hardisty

Weber

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

324

296

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 3 studies, participants made choices between hypothetical financial, environmental, and health gains and losses that took effect either immediately or with a delay of 1 or 10 years. In all 3 domains, choices indicated that gains were discounted more than losses. There were no significant differences in the discounting of monetary and environmental outcomes, but health gains were discounted more and health losses were discounted less than gains or losses in the other 2 domains. Correlations between implicit discount rates for these different choices suggest that discount rates are influenced more by the valence of outcomes (gains vs. losses) than by domain (money, environment, or health). Overall, results indicate that when controlling as many factors as possible, at short to medium delays, environmental outcomes are discounted in a similar way to financial outcomes, which is good news for researchers and policy makers alike.

show abstract

Section: Domain Differences In Time Preferences?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discounting future green: Money versus the environment.

Hardisty

Weber

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

324

296

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A popular solution for loss aversion is to subtly adjust default policy options and organizational settings toward more ecologically responsible defaults (Gattig andHendrickx 2007, Cornforth 2009). People tend to stick with default option settings because of loss aversion, status quo bias, and other reasons.…”

Section: Strategic Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance

DeCaro¹,

Arnold²,

Boamah³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Environmental governance systems are under greater pressure to adapt and to cope with increased social and ecological uncertainty from stressors like climate change. We review principles of social cognition and decision making that shape and constrain how environmental governance systems adapt. We focus primarily on the interplay between key decision makers in society and legal systems. We argue that adaptive governance must overcome three cooperative dilemmas to facilitate adaptation: (1) encouraging collaborative problem solving, (2) garnering social acceptance and commitment, and (3) cultivating a culture of trust and tolerance for change and uncertainty. However, to do so governance systems must cope with biases in people's decision making that cloud their judgment and create conflict. These systems must also satisfy people's fundamental needs for self-determination, fairness, and security, ensuring that changes to environmental governance are perceived as legitimate, trustworthy, and acceptable. We discuss the implications of these principles for common governance solutions (e.g., public participation, enforcement) and conclude with methodological recommendations. We outline how scholars can investigate the social cognitive principles involved in cases of adaptive governance.

show abstract

“…Environmental risk represents the probability to suffer potential negative effects due to changes in the environment [40]. Environmental risks form a distinct group and have specific features: high levels of uncertainty and uncontrollability, strongly delayed consequences, and consequences that occur at distant places and that are, therefore, often borne more by others than by the ones who caused them [41].…”

Section: From Risk Perception To Environmental and Radon Risk Perceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Setting the Scene for a Healthier Indoor Living Environment: Citizens’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Habits Related to Residential Radon Exposure in Romania

Petrescu

Petrescu-Mag

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The present research is based on the premise that people perceive radiation risks in different ways, depending on their cultural background, information exposure, economic level, and educational status, which are specific to each country. The main objective was to assess and report, for the first time, the Romanians' attitude (perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors) related to residential radon, in order to contribute to the creation of a healthier living environment. A convenience sample of 229 people from different parts of Romania, including radon prone areas, was used. Results profiled a population vulnerable to radon threats from the perspective of their awareness and perceptions. Thus, study results showed that most participants did not perceive the risk generated by radon exposure as significant to their health; only 13.1% of interviewed people considered the danger to their health as "high" or "very high". Additionally, it was found that awareness of radon itself was low: 62.4% of the sample did not know what radon was. From a practical perspective, the study shows that in Romania, increasing awareness, through the provision of valid information, should be a major objective of strategies that aim to reduce radon exposure. The present study takes a bottom-up perspective by assessing Romanian citizens' attitudes toward radon. Therefore, it compensates for a gap in the behavioral studies literature by providing practical support for radon risk mitigation and creating the premises for a healthier living environment.

show abstract

Judgmental Discounting and Environmental Risk Perception: Dimensional Similarities, Domain Differences, and Implications for Sustainability

Cited by 131 publications

References 70 publications

Discounting future green: Money versus the environment.

Discounting future green: Money versus the environment.

Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance

Setting the Scene for a Healthier Indoor Living Environment: Citizens’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Habits Related to Residential Radon Exposure in Romania

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About