Policy and governance interventions often build on a rational choice perspective of human behaviour. Over the years, the behavioural sciences have highlighted how people sometimes deviate in predictable ways from this perspective. Building on a systematic analysis of 200 peer-reviewed publications published between 2009 and 2018, this article discusses the core cognitive biases and heuristics uncovered by the behavioural sciences, and gives insights into how these can be exploited to develop urban climate governance interventions to promote behaviours that help mitigate climate change at city level. The article concludes with a research agenda for this promising area of research for scholars of urban climate governance.
AbdukadirovS (ed.) (2016) Nudge in Theory and Action: Behavioral Design in Policy and Markets. Cham: Springer.
2.
AgarwalSGabaixXDriscollJC, et al. (2009) The age of reason: Financial decisions over the life cycle and implications for regulation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity2: 51–117.
3.
Al-MoflehATaibSSalahW (2010) Malaysian energy demand and emissions from the transport sector. Transport25(4): 448–453.
4.
AlemannoASpinaA (2014) Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation. Icon – International Journal of Constitutional Law12(2): 429–456.
5.
AndrewB (2008) Market failure, government failure and externalities in climate change mitigation: The case for a carbon tax. Public Administration and Development28(5): 393–401.
6.
ArielyD (2008) Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins.
7.
AvenTRennORosaE (2011) On the ontological status of the concept of risk. Safety Science49(8–9): 1074–1079.
8.
AvineriEWaygoodO (2013) Applying valence framing to enhance the effect of information on transport-related carbon dioxide emissions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice48(February): 31–38.
9.
AyresIRasemanSShihA (2013) Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization29(5): 992–1022.
10.
BaldwinR (2014) From regulation to behaviour change: Giving nudge the third degree. Modern Law Review77(6): 831–857.
11.
BenartziS (2012) Save More Tomorrow. New York: Penguin Group.
12.
BenhabibJBisinASchotterA (2010) Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs. Games and Economic Behavior69(2): 205–223.
13.
BissonnetteJF (2016) From the moral to the neural: Brain scans, decision-making, and the problematization of economic (ir)rationality. Journal of Cultural Economy9(4): 364–381.
14.
BizerGLarsenJPettyR (2011) Exploring the valence-framing effect: Negative framing enhances attitude strength. Political Psychology32(1): 59–80.
15.
BonneuilCFressozJ-B (2016) The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History and Us. London: Verso Books.
16.
BorahP (2011) Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication61(2): 246–263.
17.
BradburyAMcGimpseyISantoriD (2013) Revising rationality. Journal of Education Policy28(2): 247–267.
18.
BubbRPildesRH (2014) How behavioral economics trims its sails and why. Harvard Law Review127(6): 1593–1678.
19.
CarstensenMBSchmidtVA (2016) Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy23: 318–337.
DattaSMirandaJJZorattoL, et al. (2015) A Behavioral Approach to Water Conservation: Evidence from Costa Rica. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
22.
de AlmeidaAFonsecaPSchlomannB, et al. (2011) Characterization of the household electricity consumption in the EU, potential energy savings and specific policy recommendations. Energy and Buildings43(8): 1884–1894.
23.
DodmanD (2009) Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization21(1): 185–201.
24.
DuitA (2007) Path dependency and institutional change: The case of industrial emission control in Sweden. Public Administration85(4): 1097–1118.
25.
ElsterJ (2000) Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
FriedmanDIsaacMJamesD, et al. (2014) Risky Curves: On the Empirical Failure of Expected Utility. London: Routledge.
27.
FurnhamABooHC (2011) A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics40(1): 35–42.
28.
GlimcherP (2011) Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
GreeneD (2011) Uncertainty, loss aversion, and markets for energy efficiency. Energy Economics33(4): 608–616.
30.
GrimmelikhuijsenSJilkeSOlsenAL, et al. (2017) Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review77(1): 45–56.
31.
GuoZZhaoJWhongC, et al. (2017) Redesigning subway map to mitigate bottleneck congestion: An experiment in Washington DC using mechanical turk. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice106(December): 158–169.
32.
HallsworthMEganMRutterJMcCraeJ (2018) Behavioural Government: Using Behavioural Science to Improve How Governments Make Decisions. London: The Behavioural Insights Team.
33.
HardistyDAppeltKWeberE (2012) Good or bad, we want it now: Fixed-cost present bias for gains and losses explains magnitude asymmetries in intertemporal choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making21(4): 348–361.
34.
HartmanRDoaneMWooC-K (1991) Consumer rationality and the status quo. The Quarterly Journal of Economics106(1): 141–162.
35.
HedlinSSunsteinC (2016) Does active choosing promote green energy use: Experimental evidence. Ecology Law Quarterly43(1): 107–142.
36.
HoffmanAJ (2015) How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
JohnsonEGoldsteinD (2003) Do defaults save lives?Science302(5649): 1338–1339.
38.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
39.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 263–292.
40.
KahnemanDKnetschJThalerR (1991) Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives5(1): 193–206.
41.
KahnemanDWakkerPSarinR (1997) Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics112(2): 375–405.
42.
KostersMvan der HeijdenJ (2015) From mechanism to virtue: Evaluating nudge theory. Evaluation21(3): 276–291.
43.
Lehmann NielsenVParkerC (2012) Mixed motives: Economic, social, and normative motivations in business compliance. Law & Policy34(4): 428–462.
44.
LiebigGRommelJ (2014) Active and forced choice for overcoming status quo bias: A field experiment on the adoption of ‘no junk mail’ stickers in Berlin, Germany. Journal of Consumer Policy37(3): 423–435.
45.
LindenbergS (2008) Social rationality, semi-modularity and goal-framing: What is it all about?Analyse & Kritik30(2): 669–687.
McMahonJ (2015) Behavioral economics as neoliberalism: Producing and governing homo economicus. Contemporary Political Theory14(2): 137–158.
49.
McRaneyD (2012) You Are Not So Smart. New York: Gotham Books.
50.
McRaneyD (2014) You Are Now Less Dumb. New York: Gotham Books.
51.
MarshDStokerG (eds) (2010) Theory and Methods in Political Science. 3rd edition.New York: Palgrave.
52.
MartekIHosseiniRShresthaA, et al. (2019) Barriers inhibiting the transition to sustainability within the Australian construction industry: An investigation of technical and social interactions. Journal of Cleaner Production211(February): 281–292.
53.
MilneEMG (2012) A public health perspective on transport policy priorities. Journal of Transport Geography21: 62–69.
54.
NneohJGChipiluMMarshallA (2017) What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with meta-analysis. Transportation44(2): 423–447.
55.
O’DonoghueTRabinM (2015) Present bias: Lessons learned and to be learned. American Economic Review104(5): 273–279.
56.
OECD (2017a) Behavioural Insights and Public Policy: Lessons from around the World. Paris: OECD.
57.
OECD (2017b) Tackling Environmental Problems with the Help of Behavioural Insights. Paris: OECD.
58.
OECD (2017c) Use of Behavioural Insights in Consumer Policy. Paris: OECD.
59.
OsmanMRadfordSLinY, et al. (2018) Learning lessons: How to practice nudging around the world. Journal of Risk Research1–9. Epub ahead of print 26 September 2018. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1517127.
60.
PichertDKatsikopoulosK (2008) Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology28(1): 63–73.
61.
Pinto-PradesJLAbellan-PerpiñanJM (2012) When normative and descriptive diverge: How to bridge the difference. Social Choice and Welfare38(4): 569–584.
62.
PollittMShaorshadzeI (2013) The role of behavioural economics in energy and climate policy. In: FouquetR (ed.) Handbook on Energy and Climate Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 523–546.
63.
ReadD (2007) Experienced utility: Utility theory from Jeremy Bentham to Daniel Kahneman. Thinking & Reasoning13(1): 45–61.
64.
RixenTViolaLA (2015) Putting path dependence in its place: Toward a taxonomy of institutional change. Journal of Theoretical Politics27(2): 301–323.
65.
Romero-LankaoPBurchSHughesS (2018) Governance and policy. In: RosenzweigCSoleckiWRomero-LankaoP, et al. (eds) Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 585–606.
66.
RootesC (2014) A referendum on the carbon tax? The 2013 Australian election, the Greens, and the environment. Environmental Politics23(1): 166–173.
67.
RosenzweigCSoleckiWRomero-LankaoP, et al. (2018) Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
RuskBMahfouzTJonesJ (2011) Electricity’s ‘disappearing act’: Understanding energy consumption and phantom loads. Technological Directions71(1): 22–25.
69.
SamuelsonWZeckhauserR (1998) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty1(1): 7–59.
70.
SchmidtVA (2011) Speaking of change: Why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation. Journal of Critical Policy Analysis5(2): 106–126.
71.
SeoSN (2017) The Behavioral Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
72.
SimonHA (1945) Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Free Press.
73.
Sunikka-BlankMGalvinR (2012) Introducing the prebound effect: The gap between energy performance and actual energy consumption. Building Research & Information40(3): 260–273.
74.
SunsteinC (2015) The ethics of nudging. The Yale Journal on Regulation32(1): 413–452.
75.
SunsteinC (2017) Human Agency and Behavioural Economics: Nudging Fast and Slow. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
76.
ThalerRSunsteinC (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. Revised edition. London: Penguin.
77.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185(4157): 1124–1131.
78.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211(4481): 453–458.
79.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics106(4): 1039–1061.
80.
UN (2018) Yearbook of Global Climate Action 2018. New York: United Nations Climate Change Secretariat/Marrakech Partnership.
81.
van BaarenRHorstmanJPolB, et al. (2010) Voorbij Bijplaatsingen: Gedragsinterventies voor het effectief terugdringen van afval afvalcontainers. The Hague: Nederland Schoon/Agentschap NL/NVRD.
82.
van der HeijdenJ (2013) Is new governance the silver bullet? Insights from the Australian Buildings Sector. Urban Policy and Research31(4): 453–471.
83.
van der HeijdenJ (2014) Governance for Urban Sustainability and Resilience: Responding to Climate Change and the Relevance of the Built Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
84.
van der HeijdenJ (2015) What ‘works’ in environmental policy-design? Lessons from experiments in the Australian and Dutch building sectors. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning17(1): 44–64.
85.
van der HeijdenJ (2017) Eco-financing for low-carbon buildings and cities: Value and limits. Urban Studies54(12): 2894–2909.
86.
van der HeijdenJ (2019) Behavioural insights and regulatory practice: A review of the international academic literature. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington/Government Regulatory Practice Initiative (G-REG).
87.
van der HeijdenJBulkeleyHCertomáC (2019) Urban Climate Politics: Agency and Empowerment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88.
van ExelNJABrouwerWBFvan der BergB, et al. (2006) With a little help from an anchor. Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation. Journal of Socio-Economics35(5): 836–853.
89.
VlaedIKingDDolanP, et al. (2016) The theory and practice of ‘nudging’: Changing health behaviours. Public Administration Review78(4): 550–561.
90.
WhiteKSmithJTerryD, et al. (2011) Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology48(1): 135–158.
91.
WolframMvan der HeijdenJJuholaS, et al. (2019) Learning in urban climate governance: Concepts, issues and challenges. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning21(1): 1–15.
92.
WrightJGinsburgD (2012) Behavioral law and economics: Its origins, fatal flaws, and implications for liberty. Northwestern University Law Review106(1): 1033–1092.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
