Soft approaches can help address environmental justice issues that result in limited tools for communities of color and other underserved communities around energy and climate justice decision making

Makario

This is part two of a two-part series on addressing environmental justice issues for disadvantaged communities. You can find part one <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/a-soft-approach-for-better-climate-and-energy-related-outcomes-for-disadvantaged-communities-iii" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.
<h2>Abstract</h2>
Soft approaches, or nudges, can be useful in addressing issues of equity in the areas and energy and climate justice for disadvantaged communities. The application of behavioral economics is relatively new in the area of climate research and there is, therefore, a knowledge gap currently in understanding the complex dynamics of justice and power in these areas. Not only is a more nuanced approach to climate research needed through newer methods and perspectives, such as intersectional feminist theory, but considerations such as ethics of climate nudging must also be weighed. Beyond an updated macro approach to climate research, specific soft approaches to energy and climate issues, like nudging and boosting, can also benefit disadvantaged communities in related outcomes and decision making.&nbsp;
<h2>Analysis</h2>
This paper explores how nudges can help address environmental justice issues resulting in communities of color and other underserved communities experiencing barriers to effective climate and energy related decision making. As part of this exploration, this paper also looks at the environment in which these soft approaches are developed and utilized for disadvantaged communities when it comes to decision making surrounding energy and climate.&nbsp;
<h2>Intersectionality and behavioral Economics</h2>
In &ldquo;Developing an intersectionally-informed, multi-sited, critical policy ethnography to examine power and procedural justice in multiscalar energy and climate change decision making processes&rdquo;, Ryder (2018) looks at using an intersectional approach to energy and climate justice. Ryder argues that using methodologies like intersectional feminist theory is one way to better account for imbalances in power and justice in decision-making processes (Ryder, 2018). The concept of &ldquo;intersectionality&rdquo; was first coined by Kimberle Crenshaw to describe the identities of black women existing in systems of discrimination, with intersecting oppression based on identity (Ryder, 2018). The term has continued to evolve and is now used in an environmental justice context as well as in other areas. 
<blockquote>
&ldquo;Intersectionality has begun to be developed in socio-environmental studies, such as feminist political ecology, sustainability, resource extraction, climate change, environmental risk, pollution, urban ecology, and disasters&rdquo; (Ryder, 2018). 
</blockquote>
Ryder suggests that conventional approaches to environmental research have left gaps in knowledge by not considering this intersectional approach. &ldquo;There remains a need to further develop and incorporate issues of scale into justice research as &lsquo;few studies attempt to grasp how environmental justice (EJ) struggles function at multiple scales, from the cellular and bodily level to the global level and back&rsquo;&rdquo; (Ryder, 2018). Ryder (2018) proposes one way to do this is to develop methods that include multi-scalar approaches that incorporate systems of oppression, power, and domination. Without a clearer understanding of the overall system of decision making, specifically as it relates to people of color and other disadvantaged communities, empirical research on the impacts of their decision making will not be properly understood.&nbsp;
<h2>Individual impact on choice architecture&nbsp;</h2>
In the Mormann (2022) article, &ldquo;Climate Choice Architecture,&rdquo; the author highlights the importance of focusing on both individuals and institutions when it comes to using choice architecture to address climate change. &ldquo;Behavioral research has proven that minor tweaks to the choice environment can usher in a paradigm shift toward more climate-friendly decision-making&rdquo; (Mormann, 2022). This article argues that while policymakers often historically focused their attention on areas like the energy sector to address global warming, other areas that involve individuals also have significant impacts on climate change (Mormann, 2022). 
One of these areas is the food system which encompasses nearly one quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. An example of choice architecture in this area is carbon labels on foods. An Australian and American research team conducted two related experiments. One experiment asked participants to estimate the carbon intensity of selected foods, which they consistently underestimated. However, in the other experiment, participants were given a choice among selected foods with carbon intensity labels and participants in the treatment group more frequently chose the lesser-impact foods than the control group (Mormann, 2022). Mormann concludes that by focusing on the individual, climate choice architecture encourages disadvantaged communities and others to take a more active role in climate change and climate justice decision making.
<h2>The framing effect and loss aversion</h2>
In &ldquo;People&rsquo;s decisions matter: understanding and addressing energy poverty with behavioral economics,&rdquo; DellaValle (2019) examines the impacts of limited cognitive resources and scarcity conditions on decision-making. This study gives insights into the decision making process for disadvantaged communities and how conditions of scarcity can lead to negative outcomes when making energy related decisions and gives insights into how this may be avoided. The author references the &ldquo;rational actor&rdquo; theory of behavioral economics in examining issues of energy poverty. 
<blockquote>
&ldquo;While several measures have been adopted to address the structural conditions of energy poverty from a top-down perspective, only a few, such as those related to information provision, acknowledge that an understanding of the behavior of vulnerable individuals offers a crucial contribution in reaching better outcomes for themselves and their surroundings&ldquo; (DellaValle, 2019). 
</blockquote>
The article goes on to examine risk aversion through the &ldquo;prospect theory&rdquo; of behavioral economics, which also speaks to decision making for disadvantaged communities. This relates to decisions that are presented as gains or losses, also referred to as the framing effect. Individuals experiencing scarcity and stress may weigh gains and losses differently which often results in increased risk aversion toward losses (DellaValle, 2019). If a decision to choose energy efficient technologies, for example, is framed as a way to avoid loss as opposed to a way to increase gain, then beneficial decision making in the area of energy may be increased for individuals already facing adversity (DellaValle, 2019).&nbsp;
<h2>Nudging and boosting</h2>
The study by DellaValle &amp; Sareen (2020), &ldquo;Nudging and boosting for equity? towards a behavioural economics of energy justice&rdquo; suggests taking advantage of choice architecture to adjust behavior for more optimal outcomes in energy access. This approach utilizes the dual system of thinking as described in &ldquo;Thinking, Fast and Slow,&rdquo; by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, where System 1 leads to more intuitive decision and System 2 leads to more analytical decision making (DellaValle &amp; Sareen, 2020). 
<blockquote>
&ldquo;Due to limited cognitive capacity, System 1 often prevails over System 2, leading to errors. These errors create externalities and &lsquo;internalities,&rsquo; or self-imposed costs due to limited cognitive capacity that individuals are unable to internalize&rdquo; (DellaValle &amp; Sareen, 2020). 
</blockquote>
Depending on what system is being used, System 1 or System 2, can determine which form of intervention should be employed. By offering an easy or cheap option in decision making, nudging can often utilize System 1, while boosting can harness System 2 by enhancing an individual&rsquo;s skill or knowledge. The authors go on to describe specific scenarios that indicate whether nudging or boosting is more suitable. For an &ldquo;information problem&rdquo; scenario, when the goals of an individual are not known then boosting is preferable. A &ldquo;multidimensional problem&rdquo; where an individual might lack the motivation or cognitive ability then a nudge would be useful. For a &ldquo;political economy problem&rdquo; where public officials are facing issues of fallibility then boosts intended to support self-nudging is preferred (DellaValle &amp; Sareen, 2020). These are some examples where using choice architecture through nudging and boosting can help in improved decision outcomes for disadvantaged communities in relation to more equitable access to energy.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h2>The ethics of nudging</h2>
Siipi &amp; Koi (2022) discuss the ethics of nudging in &ldquo;The ethics of climate nudges: Central issues for applying choice architecture interventions to climate policy.&rdquo; While nudges are often hailed as a soft approach without having to rely on hard regulations, there is still some debate about the ethics of nudging both in the context of climate change and other areas. The article describes a climate nudge as any intentional modification of the choice architecture that aims to alter behavior towards climate-friendly actions while maintaining existing alternatives (Siipi &amp; Koi, 2022). Siipi &amp; Koi focus on justification for nudges; transparency; best behaviors; justification for nudges and justice concerns (Siipi &amp; Koi, 2022). In the context of justice, this article looks at both local and global justice. When looking at nudging and climate change on a global scale, the question of responsibility and burden is apparent for developing countries and disadvantaged communities. On a local level, the burden of cost is also an issue that impacts disadvantaged communities to a larger extent and must be considered when developing climate nudges. Further, the question of who benefits from nudging can be asked as it relates to climate justice. 
<blockquote>
&ldquo;Climate nudges are not self-regarding in the sense that they would primarily benefit the nudge&hellip;yet the benefits form the climate nudges fall on numerous people &ndash; including the nudgee and members of future generations&rdquo; (Siipi &amp; Koi, 2022).&nbsp;
</blockquote>
Through these and other related studies, it is apparent that research shows soft approaches can help increase beneficial decision making for disadvantaged communities when addressing energy and climate, and how behavioral economics intersects with environmental justice.&nbsp;
<h2>Discussion</h2>
Soft approaches can help address environmental justice issues that result in limited tools for communities of color and other underserved communities around energy and climate justice decision making. A dynamic of inadequate research methods of energy and climate justice has resulted in less than optimal outcomes for disadvantaged communities when facing these issues. This pattern impacts a host of issues like energy governance, energy justice, and equitable response to climate change. Analysis of the literature includes using new methodologies like intersectional feminist theory to better account for power imbalances in energy and climate related decision-making, using choice architecture and nudging for more optimal outcomes in energy access, and examining the impacts of limited cognitive resources and scarcity conditions on decision-making. 
These are all significant factors that can limit self-beneficial decision making resulting in less than optimal outcomes for disadvantaged communities. Conversely, strategic soft approaches, as mentioned above, can help these communities with improved outcomes in relation to energy and climate justice issues. More research needs to be done to look at the system wide ramifications of historically discounted power structures in energy and climate justice, as well as the effects that specific tools of behavioral economics can have on disadvantaged communities that are disproportionately impacted by climate and energy justice issues.&nbsp;
<h3>References</h3>
DellaValle, N. (2019). People&rsquo;s decisions matter: Understanding and addressing energy poverty with behavioral economics.&nbsp;Energy and Buildings,&nbsp;204, 109515. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109515
DellaValle, N., &amp; Sareen, S. (2020). Nudging and boosting for equity? towards a behavioural economics of energy justice.&nbsp;Energy Research &amp; Social Science,&nbsp;68, 101589. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101589
EPA. (2022). Environmental Justice. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice</a>
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN: 978-0-374-53355-7&nbsp;
Mormann, F. (2022), Climate Choice Architecture. Boston College Law Review, Vol. 64, 2023, Forthcoming, Texas A&amp;M University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-47, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4096179">http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4096179</a>
Provost, C., &amp; Gerber, B. J. (2019). Political control and policy-making uncertainty in executive orders: The implementation of environmental justice policy.&nbsp;Journal of Public Policy,&nbsp;39(2), 329-358. doi:10.1017/S0143814X18000077
Ryder, S. (2018). Developing an intersectionally-informed, multi-sited, critical policy ethnography to examine power and procedural justice in multiscalar energy and climate change decisionmaking processes.&nbsp;Energy Research &amp; Social Science,&nbsp;45, 266-275. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.005
Siipi, H., &amp; Koi, P. (2022). The ethics of climate nudges: Central issues for applying choice architecture interventions to climate policy.&nbsp;European Journal of Risk Regulation,&nbsp;13(2), 218-235. doi:10.1017/err.2021.49
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

A soft approach for better climate and energy related outcomes for disadvantaged communities (II/II)

How soft approaches can help address environmental justice issues that result in a lack of consideration for disadvantaged communities surrounding energy and climate justice decision-making

This is part one of a two-part series on addressing environmental justice issues for disadvantaged communities.
<h2>Abstract</h2>
Soft approaches, or nudges, can be useful in addressing issues of equity in the areas of energy and climate justice for disadvantaged communities. The application of behavioral economics is relatively new in the area of climate research and there is, therefore, a knowledge gap currently in understanding the complex dynamics of justice and power in these areas. Not only is a more nuanced approach to climate research needed through newer methods and perspectives, such as intersectional feminist theory, but considerations such as ethics of climate nudging must also be weighed. Beyond an updated macro approach to climate research, specific soft approaches to energy and climate issues, like nudging and boosting, can also benefit disadvantaged communities in related outcomes and decision making.&nbsp;
<h2>Introduction</h2>
This paper will explore the use of soft approaches through behavioral economics to increase beneficial decision-making and outcomes for disadvantaged communities, specifically communities of color, when addressing climate and energy-related issues. These are, in essence, environmental justice issues and for the purpose of this paper, the definition of environmental justice given by the Environmental Protection Agency will be used. 
<blockquote>
&ldquo;Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies&rdquo; (EPA, 2022). 
</blockquote>
This paper proposes that recent research suggests a new approach to energy and climate-related policy and decision-making is warranted with respect to disadvantaged communities. Further, new methodologies may provide a more accurate assessment of energy and climate justice by examining the inherent power imbalances that have existed in our culture and social science research approach. 
The organization of the paper will include a literature review of relevant studies, a proposal explaining how the literature relates to this area of concern and an analysis of related studies in the areas of environmental justice and behavioral economics. Finally, this paper will end with a summary of findings and highlight the importance of soft approaches in the areas of energy and climate justice and provide recommendations for the future.&nbsp;
<h2>Literature review</h2>
The academic literature regarding soft approaches to energy and climate-related decision-making in the environmental justice space is still developing. However, I have found several studies that speak to the broader context of environmental justice research and the specific decision-making process for disadvantaged communities and communities of color in the areas of energy and climate.&nbsp;
Social science research has not historically been incorporated into climate research, and results are therefore mostly quantitative, but they fail to adequately address areas of equity and justice. With climate change continuing to impact communities of color disproportionately, these viewpoints and additional factors must be taken into consideration when making decisions about energy and climate change. In the article by Ryder (2018), &ldquo;Developing an intersectionally-informed, multi-sited, critical policy ethnography to examine power and procedural justice in multiscalar energy and climate change decisionmaking processes,&rdquo; the author looks at improving climate change research through new methods and perspectives like intersectional feminist theory, which better identify and incorporate issues of power and justice in decision-making processes.
The Mormann (2022) article, &ldquo;Climate Choice Architecture,&rdquo; looks at the implications of choice architecture on decision-making and stresses that even though individuals&rsquo; choices are driving global warming almost as much as institutions, policymakers have traditionally focused almost exclusively on institutions when it comes to addressing climate change. The author supports the idea that soft approaches, such as nudges, should become a pillar of climate change mitigation, with a focus on both institutions and individuals. Climate choice architects are credited with successfully using nudges to produce changes in environmental policy, and around climate justice, by aiding disadvantaged communities in taking a more active role in environmentally focused decision-making.&nbsp;
In the article by DellaValle (2019), &ldquo;People&rsquo;s decisions matter: understanding and addressing energy poverty with behavioral economics,&rdquo; the study examines the impacts of limited cognitive resources and scarcity conditions on decision-making for disadvantaged communities. The study shows that access to clean and affordable energy is reflected in disparities falling along traditional social and racial inequality distributions. Making energy available to all homes is one strategy to address energy poverty and inequity in energy access. The experience of living with scarcity, including scarcity of energy, is shown to affect cognitive ability and results in increased susceptibility to cognitive biases.&nbsp;
The article by DellaValle &amp; Sareen (2020), &ldquo;Nudging and boosting for equity? Towards a behavioural economics of energy justice,&rdquo; states that energy justice continues to be an under-researched area in relation to behavioral economics. From this field of the social sciences, we see that people make predictive decision-making patterns that can give decision-makers additional information when making energy justice-related policy decisions. However, these patterns are often not considered. This study looks at using behavioral economics to address issues of energy justice through &ldquo;soft approach&rdquo; tools like nudging and boosting that can help with energy poverty alleviation.
Finally, in &ldquo;The ethics of climate nudges: Central issues for applying choice architecture interventions to climate policy,&rdquo; Siipi &amp; Koi (2022) take a step back and look at the ethics of using climate nudges altogether. The article suggests that while soft approaches in the areas of behavioral economics have been given more attention in recent years, one aspect that has not been closely studied is ethics. This article looks at the debate about using nudging ethically and explores areas that are particularly relevant to climate-related nudging. Some of these themes include justification for non-self-regarding nudges; transparency; best practices and behaviors; environmental justice concerns; and justification for nudges in light of their proven efficacy (Siipi &amp; Koi, 2022). The authors conclude that there are ethical issues that should be considered when using and developing climate-related nudges.
<h2>Proposal</h2>
The purpose of this paper is to explore how soft approaches can help address environmental justice issues that result in limited tools and a lack of consideration for disadvantaged communities surrounding energy and climate justice decision-making. This undertaking requires an examination of the broader system in which these soft approaches exist, and how an updated perspective can possibly shed light on behavioral economics as it relates to climate and energy justice. This dynamic of power and justice imbalances in the areas of environmental research, as well as limited tools and access for communities of color in decision-making, results in inadequate input in making energy and climate-related decisions despite these communities being disproportionately impacted. This pattern not only impacts energy governance and energy justice but also relates to equitable mitigation and adaptation efforts in addressing climate change. 
Looking at possible nudges to increase self-benefitting decision-making for disadvantaged communities may result in a more fruitful area of behavioral science research as it relates to climate justice. This paper aims to lay out an empirical basis for the usefulness of nudges for increasing beneficial decision-making for underserved communities regarding climate and energy and to provide a more holistic perspective on climate research for improved decision-making for disadvantaged communities.
<h3>References</h3>
DellaValle, N. (2019). People&rsquo;s decisions matter: Understanding and addressing energy poverty with behavioral economics.&nbsp;Energy and Buildings,&nbsp;204, 109515. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109515
DellaValle, N., &amp; Sareen, S. (2020). Nudging and boosting for equity? towards a behavioural economics of energy justice.&nbsp;Energy Research &amp; Social Science,&nbsp;68, 101589. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101589
EPA. (2022). Environmental Justice. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice</a>
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (1st ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN: 978-0-374-53355-7&nbsp;
Mormann, F. (2022), Climate Choice Architecture. Boston College Law Review, Vol. 64, 2023, Forthcoming, Texas A&amp;M University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-47, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4096179">http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4096179</a>
Provost, C., &amp; Gerber, B. J. (2019). Political control and policy-making uncertainty in executive orders: The implementation of environmental justice policy.&nbsp;Journal of Public Policy,&nbsp;39(2), 329-358. doi:10.1017/S0143814X18000077
Ryder, S. (2018). Developing an intersectionally-informed, multi-sited, critical policy ethnography to examine power and procedural justice in multiscalar energy and climate change decisionmaking processes.&nbsp;Energy Research &amp; Social Science,&nbsp;45, 266-275. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.005
Siipi, H., &amp; Koi, P. (2022). The ethics of climate nudges: Central issues for applying choice architecture interventions to climate policy.&nbsp;European Journal of Risk Regulation,&nbsp;13(2), 218-235. doi:10.1017/err.2021.49
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Makario Sarsozo

Makario Sarsozo

A soft approach for better climate and energy related outcomes for disadvantaged communities (II/II)

A soft approach for better climate and energy related outcomes for disadvantaged communities (I/II)

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?