Behavioral Economics in Decision Making

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

Student evaluations of teaching: it's not only how you teach — it's also whom you teach. New paper by Sara Ayllón et al. finds that "less generous students systematically sort into certain fields, courses, and instructors’ sections". As the Figure below shows, there is "significant variation in the average ratings across majors, with instructors in the lowest-rated majors (e.g. Architecture and Economics) receiving approximately 0.5 SD lower ratings than the highest-rated majors (e.g. Medicine and Philosophy). While differences in instructional quality may partially explain these gaps, it is likely that student sorting plays an important role." The paper also documents "considerable variability in the disadvantage faced by female faculty across and within fields". Notably: "female faculty in Business and Economics face substantially more gender-biased students than faculty in Arts and Communications and, as a result, receive significantly worse student ratings." The good news is: there are ways to correct for this. "A complex solution is to provide ratings for female and male faculty that adjust for gender-specific generosity and are normed to be equivalent across genders. This is technically feasible, but sacrifices transparency. A simpler solution flags to administrators courses in which female faculty face an expected disadvantage" Read the full paper here: Sara Ayllón, Lars Lefgren, Richard W. Patterson, Olga Stoddard, Nicolás Urdaneta (2025), ‘Sorting’ Out Gender Discrimination and Disadvantage: Evidence from Student Evaluations of Teaching, National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 33911. https://lnkd.in/ecKBEZEi (open access) https://lnkd.in/eDZnQbf8 (gated)

🌍 Are We Missing a Critical Strategy in the Fight Against #ClimateChange? According to the IPCC, comprehensive behavior changes could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 70% by 2050 compared to current policies. Yet, new research from the World Resources Institute reveals that many of the world's highest-emitting countries aren't fully leveraging this potential in their national climate commitments (NDCs). 1️⃣ Many crucial consumer behaviors are absent from national climate plans. For instance, promoting active mobility like walking or biking is only mentioned by a handful of top emitters. 2️⃣ Impactful sectors like air travel and food are often overlooked. Despite their significant emissions, reducing air travel and encouraging plant-based diets receive minimal attention. 3️⃣ Climate plans should utilize a variety of tools to drive behavior change. Most NDCs rely on a single strategy, missing opportunities to amplify impact through enhanced information, incentives, and improved decision-making contexts. As we approach #COP29, it's imperative for nations to: - Include detailed, well-funded policies that support sustainable behavior changes at scale. - Focus on high-impact shifts like dietary changes and reducing food waste. - Employ multiple strategies concurrently to encourage pro-climate actions. By harnessing the power of individual actions and diverse strategies, we can unlock greater climate ambition and secure a sustainable future. Read the report here 👇 https://lnkd.in/eav8E2x8

Surveys suggest that fathers fear disadvantages in the labor market, which prevents them from taking parental leave. But is this fear justified? Find out in our new discussion paper "Parental Leave and Discrimination in the Labour Market" (joint with Julia S., Clara Welteke, and Doris Weichselbaumer): https://lnkd.in/ejBRKC7G Based on a large-scale field experiment, we analyze whether fathers and mothers face #discrimination in the hiring process based on their #parental leave in three different occupations. We find that: --> Fathers who took parental leave in a female-dominated or gender-neutral occupation are not less likely to be invited to a job interview compared to fathers who did not take leave. However, in the male-dominated occupation, fathers who have taken long (not short!) parental leave are penalized. --> There is clear evidence for strong #gender discrimination in hiring, irrespective of parental leave: Fathers are treated less favorably than mothers in the female-dominated and the gender-neutral occupation, while the opposite is true for the male-dominated occupation. --> This suggests the presence of strong gender norms concerning the perception of ideal employees in different occupations. Thus, although we find evidence of discrimination due to parental leave for fathers, discrimination due to gender is considerably higher and present in all three occupation types. Since gender discrimination often arises from social norms about gender roles in the family and the labor market, encouraging more fathers to take parental leave - and thereby "normalizing" their involvement in family care - could help reduce both discrimination against fathers who share caregiving responsibilities with their partners and gender discrimination in general. DIW Berlin - German Institute for Economic Research Berlin School of Economics University of Potsdam Johannes Kepler Universität Linz

Small actions, big impact. When it comes to climate change, many believe that only sweeping policies and large-scale initiatives can make a difference. But in reality, microactions—small, consistent choices made by individuals—hold immense power. From reducing single-use plastics to making conscious energy choices, these incremental steps create a ripple effect that influences communities and industries alike. By adopting microactions, individuals contribute to a larger movement without feeling overwhelmed. Simple habits like choosing reusable bags, supporting sustainable brands, or reducing food waste add up over time. When multiplied across millions of people, these everyday decisions drive real change, shaping demand for greener products and pushing businesses to adopt sustainable practices. The power of microactions lies in their accessibility. No grand gestures are required—just consistent, mindful choices that align with a more sustainable future. When people recognize that their daily behaviors matter, they become part of a collective force that challenges the status quo. Climate action isn’t reserved for policymakers or corporations; it begins with the small, intentional steps taken every day. To watch the entire Human-AI Symbiosis with 📚 Cedric Chin and Lia DiBello Ph.D on the Commoncog podcast, click here - https://lnkd.in/e96usY6j

There's a lot of effort dedicated to increasing the proportion of women in men-dominated fields, but comparatively less effort dedicated to increasing the proportion of men in women-dominated fields. One explanation for men’s resistance to entering women-dominated fields has been that women-dominated fields tend to pay less than do men-dominated ones. In fact, some research suggests that as more women join a field, compensation goes down. New work by @Eileen Suh Evan Apfelbaum Michael Norton published in Organization Science finds that it isn’t lower pay per se that discourages men from going into women-dominated fields, but rather, concerns about status. That is, even if a women-dominated job paid as much as a men-dominated job, men would still avoid women-dominated jobs because they don't want to be seen as lower status. To demonstrate this effect, the researchers used the “results” of a career development inventory to justify identifying that the participant’s ideal job would be either a job that was stereotypically feminine (e.g., executive secretary) or stereotypically masculine (e.g., a computer systems administrator). Men were more likely to rate the feminine job as lower in status than the masculine job than were women. Men were therefore less interested in the assigned job, even though it was described as being ideal for them, given their answers on the career inventory. More compelling, the researchers identified two jobs that are not currently seen as inherently gendered – workplace productivity analyst or AI ethicist – and described them as being either feminine or masculine. They then again asked participants to complete the career inventory and reported that the analysis of their answers indicated that they would be a good fit for one of the two jobs. Men told that they would be well suited to a feminine job were significantly less interested in learning more about the job than when that same job was described to them as masculine. They also rated the feminine job as being lower status than the exact same job described as masculine. This difference did not manifest for women, who were equally interested in the job regardless of how it was described, and who also did not see status differences between the jobs based on their femininity or masculinity. If what we want, socially, is for men and women to be seen as equal in status, then we shouldn’t only be focusing on making higher status jobs – read: masculine jobs - more accessible to women. Rather, we need to also – or perhaps instead? – focus on making feminine jobs as high status as masculine jobs. And the present findings indicate that merely increasing pay for those jobs is not sufficient to address the status concerns that men have about taking feminine jobs; it is truly about the respect and esteem we hold for jobs like nursing, teaching, and other more communally-oriented careers.

Just one person switching to an EV cuts 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year. Yet, most still think individual actions don’t matter. For many years, the common refrain was "What difference can one person make?" But the data tells a different story. Individual choices compound dramatically over time and across communities. A 2021 analysis by Drawdown Solutions found that actions taken by individuals and households could contribute around 25% – 30% of the total emissions reductions required to prevent dangerous climate change. I believe that consistency in everyday decisions/choices creates the foundation for meaningful environmental impact. In my own journey of integrating more sustainable choices into daily life, I've found value in creating some simple yet non-negotiable green routines ... → Separating wet and dry waste has become standard practice in my home. → During Earth Action Initiatives, I collected tetra packs (milk cartons), cleaned them thoroughly, dried them, and dropped them off at a recycling center. → I have used the same reusable ceramic and silicone mug for more than 5 years now when picking up my favorite hot beverage. → I now look forward to using an app to help me better track my recycling efforts, creating accountability by better measurement and analysis in my daily journey. → My home switched to green power from the electricity provider and I invested in an EV. In my experience, consistency in everyday decisions creates the foundation for meaningful environmental change. The beauty lies not in striving for perfection, but in making better choices where we can, when we can. Every day. What's one action toward sustainability you've taken in your home or in your routine? #Sustainability #CarbonFootprint #SustainableHabits

Anyone trying to drive meaningful change – environmental or otherwise – must address this first: We must change human behaviour. This is why I’m such a stickler for storytelling. A few weeks ago, I was at a Lincoln University Centre of Excellence in Transformative Agribusiness event where Prof. Marijn Poortvliet from Wageningen University & Research spoke about risk perception. Whenever we decide whether or not to do something – big or small – we’re weighing up perceived risk. Perceived Probability x Perceived Consequences = Risk Perception Add ‘perceived’ in front of each word, and risk becomes a personal decision. That’s why it can be so hard to convince people to change, even when the facts are known. If we can work with how humans perceive risk, we stand a better chance of influencing change. Marijn discussed the Extended Parallel Process Model (Witte, 1992) which outlines the conditions required for behaviour change: 🟦 Perceived Threat: • Susceptibility – How vulnerable we feel to it • Severity – How serious we believe it is If there’s no perceived threat, no action is taken. 🟦 Perceived Efficacy: • Self-efficacy – Can I do what’s needed? • Response efficacy – Will my efforts be enough? Low efficacy = fear and inaction. High efficacy = behaviour change. This is why storytelling matters. It helps people see the threat (or opportunity) and understand how they can respond. It reminds me of a post I once saw but unfortunately can’t remember the author of: People change when you make sustainability: • Personally relevant • Emotionally compelling • Immediately beneficial Building on that saying in alignment with the EPPM flow model, here’s how to apply this thinking to your own sustainability communication. 1️⃣ Make it personally relevant Show how the issue affects people’s lives, values, or livelihoods – not just “the planet” in abstract terms. (Susceptibility) 2️⃣ Make the threat real, but not paralysing Balance severity with hope. If people only see the doom, they switch off. (Severity) 3️⃣ Show a clear, doable path Help people believe they can act (self-efficacy) and that their action will make a difference (response efficacy). 4️⃣ Make the benefits immediate and meaningful Change sticks when it’s not only “good for the planet” but also good for them. Show how the change can save money, build community, or protect something they love. 💡Next time, ask yourself: • What risk or opportunity am I asking people to pay attention to? • How can I help them see it, feel it, and respond to it? Do that, and you’re not just sharing information, you’re changing behaviour. __________ Image: Susannah Hertrich, (2008). “Reality Checking Device”. The top circles show perceived risk versus actual risk below. #BehaviourChange #SustainabilityStorytelling #ScienceCommunication #RiskPerception

Ever wondered how your actions impact the world, even if you're just sipping your morning coffee? It's easy to feel like our individual choices don't matter much in the grand scheme of things. But what if I told you a single decision, like choosing a reusable coffee mug, could ripple outward, touching lives and ecosystems in unexpected ways? That's the essence of sustainability understanding how our choices intertwine with the health of people and the planet. It's not just about recycling or saving energy, but about making conscious choices that consider the bigger picture. Think about it: We're all connected. A farmer in Kenya clearing land for crops could indirectly impact the health of a marine ecosystem hundreds of miles away. It's a reminder that our actions have consequences, and it's our responsibility to make choices that benefit the world around us, now and for future generations. So why should you care about sustainability? Because we’re all part of these interconnected systems, and the choices we make today directly shape the future for all of us. The United Nations estimates that 11 million metric tons of plastic waste flow into the ocean every year. If we don’t rethink our habits, this number could nearly triple by 2040. Statistics show that 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food production alone, highlighting the need for sustainable practices in agriculture. Moreover, according to the United Nations, over 5 million hectares of forest are lost each year, impacting biodiversity and climate regulation. Here's the good news: we're not alone in this journey. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a roadmap for tackling some of the world's biggest challenges, like climate change and poverty. What are some small changes you're making in your daily life to help protect our planet? 👇 #Sustainability #ClimateChange #Environment #FutureGenerations #EcoFriendly #UNSDGs

𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗯𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀? 🤔 Recent research suggests: 🔹Sovereign debt crises can act as powerful catalysts for bringing women into leadership positions. 🔹During such crises, women are 21.1% more likely to be appointed to central bank leadership roles. The study indicates that this is not a coincidence, but a strategic decision: ↳ When a central bank's credibility is at risk, appointing women to leadership positions can serve as a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 that policy reform is underway. ↳ These appointments often lead to 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁𝘀, such as tighter monetary controls, which can help stabilise economies during crises. ↳ This 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗼𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲 that women are more "dovish" in their approach to monetary policy. The findings certainly highlight the importance of diversity in leadership positions, especially during critical times. Even if I think that this should be the standard and not dependent on external circumstances! What are your thoughts on this? 💭 #womeninleadership #centralbanking #research #genderbalance #diversity #debtcrisis ——— Hi, I’m Annika — Communications Specialist at the Bundesbank, and I love making research snackable! 🌞 *𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦: 𝘒𝘦𝘳𝘯, 𝘈., 𝘙𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘨, 𝘉., & 𝘙𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪, 𝘋. (2024). 𝘌𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘑𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺, 1–34.