1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Resource Economics
  4. Volume 15, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volume 15, 2023

Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics of Environmental Values

Abstract

Identifying mechanisms of real-life human decision-making is central to inform effective, human-centric public policy. Here, we report larger trends and synthesize preliminary lessons from behavioral economic and neuro-economic investigations focusing on environmental values. We review the currently available evidence at different levels of granularity, from insights into how individuals value natural resources (individual level), evidence from work on group externalities, common pool resources, and social norms (social group level) to the study of incentives, policies, and their impact (institutional level). At each level, we identify viable directions for future scientific research and actionable items for policy-makers. Coupled with new technological and methodological advances, we suggest that behavioral economic and neuroeconomic insights may inform an effective strategy to optimize environmental resources. We conclude that the time is ripe for action to enrich policies with scientifically grounded insights, making an impact in the interest of current and future generations.

Keyword(s): behavioral economics, common pool resources, environmental values, individual decision-making, JEL D90, JEL D91, JEL Q50, JEL Q58, neuroeconomics, policy
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101722-082743
2023-10-05
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/15/1/annurev-resource-101722-082743.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101722-082743&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allcott H, Rogers T. 2014. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:103003–37
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Naranjo MA. 2011. The effect of ambiguous risk, and coordination on farmers’ adaptation to climate change—a framed field experiment. Ecol. Econ. 70:122317–26
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson B, Bernauer T, Balietti S. 2017. Effects of fairness principles on willingness to pay for climate change mitigation. Clim. Change 142:3447–61
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ballard K, Knutson B. 2009. Dissociable neural representations of future reward magnitude and delay during temporal discounting. NeuroImage 45:1143–50
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bechara A, Damasio AR. 2005. The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ. Behav. 52:2336–72
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergquist M. 2020. Most people think they are more pro-environmental than others: a demonstration of the better-than-average effect in perceived pro-environmental behavioral engagement. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42:150–61
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bodur M, Sarigöllü E. 2005. Environmental sensitivity in a developing country: consumer classification and implications. Environ. Behav. 37:4487–510
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Boeri M, Longo A. 2017. The importance of regret minimization in the choice for renewable energy programmes: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Energy Econ 63:253–60
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolton TA, Morgenroth E, Preti MG, Van De Ville D. 2020. Tapping into multi-faceted human behavior and psychopathology using fMRI brain dynamics. Trends Neurosci 43:9667–80
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowles S, Polania-Reyes S. 2012. Economic incentives and social preferences: Substitutes or complements?. J. Econ. Lit. 50:2368–425
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brevers D, Baeken C, Maurage P, Sescousse G, Vögele C, Billieux J. 2021. Brain mechanisms underlying prospective thinking of sustainable behaviours. Nat. Sustain. 4:5433–39
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brosch T. 2021. Affect and emotions as drivers of climate change perception and action: a review. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:15–21
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown JW, Alexander WH. 2017. Foraging value, risk avoidance, and multiple control signals: how the anterior cingulate cortex controls value-based decision-making. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 29:101656–73
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cai B, Cameron TA, Gerdes GR. 2010. Distributional preferences and the incidence of costs and benefits in climate change policy. Environ. Resour. Econ. 46:4429–58
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Camille N, Coricelli G, Sallet J, Pradat-Diehl P, Duhamel JR, Sirigu A. 2004. The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in the experience of regret. Science 304:56741167–70
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cardenas JC. 2011. Social norms and behavior in the local commons as seen through the lens of field experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48:3451–85
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Carrico AR. 2021. Climate change, behavior, and the possibility of spillover effects: recent advances and future directions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:76–82
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Catani M, DellAcqua F, Thiebaut de Schotten M. 2013. A revised limbic system model for memory, emotion and behaviour. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37:81724–37
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Chan HW, Pong V, Tam KP. 2019. Cross-national variation of gender differences in environmental concern: Testing the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis. Environ. Behav. 51:181–108
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Charness G, Gneezy U, Imas A. 2013. Experimental methods: eliciting risk preferences. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 87:43–51
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Charness G, Rabin M. 2002. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Q. J. Econ. 117:3817–69
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen Y. 2008. Incentive-compatible mechanisms for pure public goods: a survey of experimental research. Handb. Exp. Econ. Results 1:625–43
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Chi YM, Wang Y, Wang YT, Jung TP, Kerth T, Cao Y. 2013. A practical mobile dry EEG system for human computer interfaces. International Conference on Augmented Cognition DD Schmorrow, CM Fidopiastis 649–55. Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Chorus CG. 2010. A new model of random regret minimization. Eur. J. Transport Infrastruct. Res. 10:2 https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2010.10.2.2881
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cialdini RB, Jacobson RP. 2021. Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:1–8
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Clot S, Stanton CY. 2014. Present bias predicts participation in payments for environmental services: evidence from a behavioral experiment in Uganda. Ecol. Econ. 108:162–70
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Coricelli G, Critchley HD, Joffily M, O'Doherty JP, Sirigu A, Dolan RJ 2005. Regret and its avoidance: a neuroimaging study of choice behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 8:91255–62
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Coricelli G, Dolan RJ, Sirigu A. 2007. Brain, emotion and decision making: the paradigmatic example of regret. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11:6258–65
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Deryugina T. 2013. How do people update? The effects of local weather fluctuations on beliefs about global warming. Clim. Change 118:2397–416
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dolnicar S, Grün B. 2009. Environmentally friendly behavior: Can heterogeneity among individuals and contexts/environments be harvested for improved sustainable management?. Environ. Behav. 41:5693–714
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dugré JR, Dumais A, Bitar N, Potvin S. 2018. Loss anticipation and outcome during the monetary incentive delay task: a neuroimaging systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ 6:e4749
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dunn BD, Dalgleish T, Lawrence AD. 2006. The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30:2239–71
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Durante R, Putterman L, Van der Weele J. 2014. Preferences for redistribution and perception of fairness: an experimental study. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 12:41059–86
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Eklund A, Nichols TE, Knutsson H. 2016. Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. PNAS 113:287900–5
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Elliott ML, Knodt AR, Ireland D, Morris ML, Poulton R et al. 2020. What is the test-retest reliability of common task-functional MRI measures? New empirical evidence and a meta-analysis. Psychol. Sci. 31:7792–806
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Engelmann JB, Meyer F, Fehr E, Ruff CC. 2015. Anticipatory anxiety disrupts neural valuation during risky choice. J. Neurosci. 35:73085–99
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Eurobarometer S. 2008. Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment Rep. 295 Eur. Comm. Brussels:
  38. Fanariotu IN, Skuras D. 2004. The contribution of scenic beauty indicators in estimating environmental welfare measures: a case study. Soc. Indic. Res. 65:145–65
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Fehr E, Schmidt KM. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114:3817–68
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Filkowski MM, Cochran RN, Haas BW. 2016. Altruistic behavior: mapping responses in the brain. Neurosci. Neuroecon. 5:65–75
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Fischhoff B. 2021. Making behavioral science integral to climate science and action. Behav. Public Policy 5:4439–53
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Galizzi MM, Navarro-Martinez D. 2019. On the external validity of social preference games: a systematic lab-field study. Manag. Sci. 65:3976–1002
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Gao X, Yu H, Sáez I, Blue PR, Zhu L et al. 2018. Distinguishing neural correlates of context-dependent advantageous- and disadvantageous-inequity aversion. PNAS 115:33E7680–89
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Gifford R, Nilsson A. 2014. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int. J. Psychol. 49:3141–57
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Gray SG, Raimi KT, Wilson R, Árvai J. 2019. Will millennials save the world? The effect of age and generational differences on environmental concern. J. Environ. Manag. 242:394–402
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Guagnano GA. 2001. Altruism and market-like behavior: an analysis of willingness to pay for recycled paper products. Popul. Environ. 22:4425–38
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Haber SN, Knutson B. 2010. The reward circuit: linking primate anatomy and human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology 35:14–26
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hanemann WM. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 8:419–43
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hansson H, Lagerkvist CJ. 2012. Measuring farmers’ preferences for risk: a domain-specific risk preference scale. J. Risk Res. 15:7737–53
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Harbaugh WT, Mayr U, Burghart DR. 2007. Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316:58311622–25
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hardisty DJ, Weber EU. 2009. Discounting future green: money versus the environment. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 138:3329–40
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Hare TA, Camerer CF, Knoepfle DT, O'Doherty JP, Rangel A 2010. Value computations in ventral medial prefrontal cortex during charitable decision making incorporate input from regions involved in social cognition. J. Neurosci. 30:2583–90
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Harrison GW. 2008. Neuroeconomics: a critical reconsideration. Econ. Philos. 24:3303–44
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Harrison GW, List JA. 2004. Field experiments. J. Econ. Lit. 42:41009–55
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Hartmann P, Eisend M, Apaolaza V, D'Souza C 2017. Warm glow versus altruistic values: How important is intrinsic emotional reward in proenvironmental behavior?. J. Environ. Psychol. 52:43–55
     [Google Scholar]
  56. He Q, Chen M, Chen C, Xue G, Feng T, Bechara A. 2016. Anodal stimulation of the left DLPFC increases IGT scores and decreases delay discounting rate in healthy males. Front. Psychol. 7:1421
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Heal G, Millner A. 2018. Uncertainty and ambiguity in environmental economics: conceptual issues. Handbook of Environmental Economics, Vol. 4439–68. Amsterdam: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Hepburn C, Duncan S, Papachristodoulou A. 2010. Behavioural economics, hyperbolic discounting and environmental policy. Environ. Resour. Econ. 46:2189–206
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Herreras O. 2016. Local field potentials: myths and misunderstandings. Front. Neural Circuits 10:101
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hsu M, Bhatt M, Adolphs R, Tranel D, Camerer CF. 2005. Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science 310:57541680–83
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Iweala S, Spiller A, Nayga RM Jr., Lemken D. 2022. Warm glow and consumers’ valuation of ethically certified products. Q Open 2:2qoac020
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Izuma K, Saito DN, Sadato N. 2008. Processing of social and monetary rewards in the human striatum. Neuron 58:2284–94
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Jang H, Lin Z, Lustig C. 2020. Losing money and motivation: effects of loss incentives on motivation and metacognition in younger and older adults. Front. Psychol. 11:1489
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kable JW, Glimcher PW. 2007. The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nat. Neurosci. 10:121625–33
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Kahneman D, Tversky A 2013. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making LC MacLean, WT Ziemba 99–127. Singapore: World Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Khaw MW, Grab DA, Livermore MA, Vossler CA, Glimcher PW. 2015. The measurement of subjective value and its relation to contingent valuation and environmental public goods. PLOS ONE 10:7e0132842
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Knez I. 2016. Is climate change a moral issue? Effects of egoism and altruism on pro-environmental behavior. Curr. Urban Stud. 4:2157–74
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Knight FH. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin
  69. Knutson B, Fong GW, Adams CM, Varner JL, Hommer D. 2001. Dissociation of reward anticipation and outcome with event-related fMRI. Neuroreport 12:173683–87
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Kraft-Todd G, Yoeli E, Bhanot S, Rand D. 2015. Promoting cooperation in the field. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3:96–101
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Kurth F, Zilles K, Fox PT, Laird AR, Eickhoff SB. 2010. A link between the systems: functional differentiation and integration within the human insula revealed by meta-analysis. Brain Struct. Funct. 214:5519–34
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Langenbach BP, Savic B, Baumgartner T, Wyss AM, Knoch D. 2022. Mentalizing with the future: Electrical stimulation of the right TPJ increases sustainable decision-making. Cortex 146:227–37
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Lee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, Cohen L, Donnelly PD et al. 2016. Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. J. Public Health Policy 37:13–31
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Lee EJ, Kwon G, Shin HJ, Yang S, Lee S, Suh M. 2014. The spell of green: Can frontal EEG activations identify green consumers?. J. Bus. Ethics 122:3511–21
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Levens SM, Larsen JT, Bruss J, Tranel D, Bechara A, Mellers BA. 2014. What might have been? The role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and lateral orbitofrontal cortex in counterfactual emotions and choice. Neuropsychologia 54:77–86
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Liao C, Wu S, Luo Yj, Guan Q, Cui F. 2018. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the medial prefrontal cortex modulates the propensity to help in costly helping behavior. Neurosci. Lett. 674:54–59
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Linder NS, Uhl G, Fliessbach K, Trautner P, Elger CE, Weber B. 2010. Organic labeling influences food valuation and choice. NeuroImage 53:1215–20
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Litvine D, Wüstenhagen R. 2011. Helping “light green” consumers walk the talk: results of a behavioural intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market. Ecol. Econ. 70:3462–74
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Loewenstein G. 1999. Experimental economics from the vantage-point of behavioural economics. Econ. J. 109:453F25–34
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Logothetis NK, Pauls J, Augath M, Trinath T, Oeltermann A. 2001. Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal. Nature 412:6843150–57
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Lonati S, Quiroga BF, Zehnder C, Antonakis J. 2018. On doing relevant and rigorous experiments: review and recommendations. J. Oper. Manag. 64:19–40
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Loomes G, Sugden R. 1982. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ. J. 92:368805–24
     [Google Scholar]
  83. López-Mosquera N, Sánchez M. 2011. Emotional and satisfaction benefits to visitors as explanatory factors in the monetary valuation of environmental goods. an application to periurban green spaces. Land Use Policy 28:1151–66
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Luo Y, Zhao J. 2021. Attentional and perceptual biases of climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:22–26
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Mao B, Ao C, Wang J, Sun B, Xu L. 2020. Does regret matter in public choices for air quality improvement policies? A comparison of regret-based and utility-based discrete choice modelling. J. Cleaner Prod. 254:120052
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Masson T, Fritsche I. 2021. We need climate change mitigation and climate change mitigation needs the ‘we’: a state-of-the-art review of social identity effects motivating climate change action. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:89–96
     [Google Scholar]
  87. McClure SM, Ericson KM, Laibson DI, Loewenstein G, Cohen JD. 2007. Time discounting for primary rewards. J. Neurosci. 27:215796–804
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Menges R, Schroeder C, Traub S. 2005. Altruism, warm glow and the willingness-to-donate for green electricity: an artefactual field experiment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 31:4431–58
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Michel CM, Murray MM. 2012. Towards the utilization of EEG as a brain imaging tool. NeuroImage 61:2371–85
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Milfont TL, Duckitt J, Cameron LD. 2006. A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for proenvironmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 38:6745–67
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Mohr PN, Biele G, Heekeren HR. 2010. Neural processing of risk. J. Neurosci. 30:196613–19
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Morishima Y, Schunk D, Bruhin A, Ruff CC, Fehr E. 2012. Linking brain structure and activation in temporoparietal junction to explain the neurobiology of human altruism. Neuron 75:173–79
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Moser AK. 2016. Buying organic-decision-making heuristics and empirical evidence from Germany. J. Consum. Mark. 33:7552–61
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Mullainathan S, Thaler RH. 2000. Behavioral economics NBER Work. Pap. 7948
  95. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM. 2011. Underestimating nearby nature: affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychol. Sci. 22:91101–6
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Ölander F, Thøgersen J. 2014. Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. J. Consum. Policy 37:3341–56
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  98. Ostrom E. 2008. The challenge of common-pool resources. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 50:48–21
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Patt AG, Schrag DP. 2003. Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Clim. Change 61:117–30
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Persky J. 1995. The ethology of Homo economicus. J. Econ. Perspect. 9:2221–31
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Poldrack RA, Farah MJ. 2015. Progress and challenges in probing the human brain. Nature 526:7573371–79
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Priori A, Berardelli A, Rona S, Accornero N, Manfredi M. 1998. Polarization of the human motor cortex through the scalp. Neuroreport 9:102257–60
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Raihani N, Aitken D. 2011. Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change. Clim. Change 108:147–55
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Rakotonarivo OS, Schaafsma M, Hockley N. 2016. A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods. J. Environ. Manag. 183:98–109
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Ranney MA, Velautham L. 2021. Climate change cognition and education: given no silver bullet for denial, diverse information-hunks increase global warming acceptance. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:139–46
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Reiss PC, White MW. 2008. What changes energy consumption? Prices and public pressures. RAND J. Econ. 39:3636–63
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Richards TJ, Green GP. 2015. Environmental choices and hyperbolic discounting: an experimental analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 62:183–103
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Sawe N, Chawla K. 2021. Environmental neuroeconomics: how neuroscience can inform our understanding of human responses to climate change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:147–54
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Sawe N, Knutson B. 2015. Neural valuation of environmental resources. NeuroImage 122:87–95
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Schkade DA, Payne JW. 1994. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 26:188–109
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Serra D. 2021. Decision-making: from neuroscience to neuroeconomics—an overview. Theory Decis 91:11–80
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Shamosh NA, DeYoung CG, Green AE, Reis DL, Johnson MR et al. 2008. Individual differences in delay discounting: relation to intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychol. Sci. 19:9904–11
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Sreen N, Yadav R, Kumar S, Gleim M. 2020. The impact of the institutional environment on green consumption in India. J. Consum. Mark. 38:47–57
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Stoop J, Noussair CN, Van Soest D. 2012. From the lab to the field: cooperation among fishermen. J. Political Econ. 120:61027–56
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Tricomi E, Rangel A, Camerer CF, O'Doherty JP 2010. Neural evidence for inequality-averse social preferences. Nature 463:72841089–91
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Tunçel T, Hammitt JK. 2014. A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 68:1175–87
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Vaidya AR, Pujara MS, Petrides M, Murray EA, Fellows LK. 2019. Lesion studies in contemporary neuroscience. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23:8653–71
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Van der Linden S. 2018. Warm glow is associated with low- but not high-cost sustainable behaviour. Nat. Sustain. 1:28–30
     [Google Scholar]
  119. van Dijk E, De Dreu CK. 2021. Experimental games and social decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72:415–38
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Van Doorn J, Verhoef PC. 2011. Willingness to pay for organic products: differences between virtue and vice foods. Int. J. Res. Mark. 28:3167–80
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Vedder A, Smigielski L, Gutyrchik E, Bao Y, Blautzik J et al. 2015. Neurofunctional correlates of environmental cognition: an fMRI study with images from episodic memory. PLOS ONE 10:4e0122470
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Velez MA, Moros L. 2021. Have behavioral sciences delivered on their promise to influence environmental policy and conservation practice?. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:132–38
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Venmans F, Groom B. 2021. Social discounting, inequality aversion, and the environment. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 109:102479
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Vezich IS, Gunter BC, Lieberman MD. 2017. The mere green effect: an fMRI study of pro-environmental advertisements. Soc. Neurosci. 12:4400–8
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Wang Y, Hao F, Liu Y. 2021. Pro-environmental behavior in an aging world: evidence from 31 countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:41748
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Weber EU. 2010. What shapes perceptions of climate change?. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1:3332–42
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE. 2002. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J. Behav. Decis. Making 15:4263–90
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Welsch H, Kühling J. 2009. Using happiness data for environmental valuation: issues and applications. J. Econ. Surv. 23:2385–406
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Werthschulte M, Löschel A. 2021. On the role of present bias and biased price beliefs in household energy consumption. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 109:102500
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Xu Y, Li W, Chi S 2021. Altruism, environmental concerns, and pro-environmental behaviors of urban residents: a case study in a typical Chinese city. Front. Psychol. 12:1917
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Zeelenberg M, Beattie J, Van der Pligt J, De Vries NK. 1996. Consequences of regret aversion: effects of expected feedback on risky decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 65:2148–58
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Zeelenberg M, Pieters R. 2007. A theory of regret regulation 1.0. J. Consum. Psychol. 17:13–18
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Zhang H, Dong Z, Cai S, Zhao J. 2022. Distinguishing the roles of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and right temporoparietal junction in altruism in situations of inequality: a tDCS study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16:821360
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Zheng Y, Liu X. 2015. Blunted neural responses to monetary risk in high sensation seekers. Neuropsychologia 71:173–80
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Zhengwu P, Cuihong Z, Shanshan X, Jie B, Shoufen Y et al. 2018. Mechanism of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression. Shanghai Arch. Psychiatry 30:284–92
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101722-082743
Loading
Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics of Environmental Values
Annual Review of Resource Economics 15, 153 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101722-082743
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101722-082743
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101722-082743
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error