The social and behavioural sciences are critical for informing climate- and energy-related policies. We describe a decision science approach to applying those sciences. It has three stages: formal analysis of decisions, characterizing how well-informed actors should view them; descriptive research, examining how people actually behave in such circumstances; and interventions, informed by formal analysis and descriptive research, designed to create attractive options and help decision-makers choose among them. Each stage requires collaboration with technical experts (for example, climate scientists, geologists, power systems engineers and regulatory analysts), as well as continuing engagement with decision-makers. We illustrate the approach with examples from our own research in three domains related to mitigating climate change or adapting to its effects: preparing for sea-level rise, adopting smart grid technologies in homes, and investing in energy efficiency for office buildings. The decision science approach can facilitate creating climate- and energy-related policies that are behaviourally informed, realistic and respectful of the people whom they seek to aid.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Pasqualetti, M. J. Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common cause. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101, 907–917 (2011).
Fowlie, M., Greenstone, M. & Wolfram, C. D. Are the non-monetary costs of energy efficiency investments large? Understanding low take-up of a free energy efficiency program. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 201–204 (2015).
Sorrell, S., Dimitropoulos, J. & Sommerville, M. Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: a review. Energy Policy 37, 1356–1371 (2009).
Attari, S. Z, DeKay, M. L. Davidson, C. I. & Bruine De Bruin, W. Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16054–16059 (2010).
Dietz, T. Narrowing the US energy efficiency gap. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16007–16008 (2010).
Dietz, T. Understanding environmentally significant consumption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5067–5068 (2014).
Min, J., Azevedo, I. L., Michalek, J. & Bruine de Bruin, W. Labeling energy cost on light bulbs lowers implicit discount rates. Ecol. Econ. 97, 42–50 (2014).
Edwards, W. The theory of decision making. Psychol. Bull. 51, 380–417 (1954).
Yates, J. F. Judgment and Decision Making (Prentice Hall, 1989).
Von Winterfeldt, D. & Edwards, W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research (Cambridge Univ., 1986).
Bruine de Bruin, W. & Krishnamurti, T. in Delivering Energy Policy in the EU and US: A Multi-Disciplinary Reader (eds Heffron, R. & Little, G) (Edinburgh Univ., 2015).
Wong-Parodi, G. & Strauss, B. H. Team science for science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13658–13663 (2014).
Dietz, T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14081–14087 (2013).
Dietz, T. & Stern, P. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (National Academy, 2008).
Fischhoff, B. The sciences of science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14033–14039 (2013).
Fischhoff, B. The realities of cost-risk-benefit analysis. Science 350, 527 (2015).
Raiffa, H. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty (Addison-Wesley, 1968)
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (Environmental Protection Agency, 2015); http://go.nature.com/5QFTxw
The National Flood Insurance Program (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015); http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program
Smith, A. B. & Katz, R. W. US billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: data sources, trends, accuracy and biases. Nat. Hazards 67, 387–410 (2013).
Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C. & Jevrejeva, S. Projected Atlantic hurricane surge threat from rising temperatures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5369–5373 (2013).
Holland, G. & Bruyère, C. L. Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change. Clim. Dyn. 42, 617–627 (2014).
Kopp, R. E. et al. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites. Earth's Future 2, 383–406 (2014).
IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 33–115 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Crowell, M. et al. in Coastal Hazards 151–183 (Springer, 2013).
Blake, E. S. et al. Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Sandy (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, 2013).
Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation: Progress Report (Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, 2011).
McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S. & Fields, D. Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal. 19, 497–510 (1999).
Samuels, P., Klijn, F. & Dijkman, J. An analysis of the current practice of policies on river flood risk management in different countries. Irrig. Drain. 55, S141–S150 (2006).
Two Centuries of Experience in Water Resource Management: A Dutch–US Retrospective (US Army Corp of Engineers, 2014); http://go.nature.com/NYzxbG
Kreibich, H., Thieken, A. H., Petrow, T., Müller, M. & Merz, B. Flood loss reduction of private households due to building precautionary measures — lessons learned from the Elbe flood in August 2002. Nat. Hazard. Earth Sys. 5, 117–126 (2005).
Olfert, A. & Schanze J. in Flood Risk Management: Research and Practice (eds Samuels, P. et al.) (Taylor & Francis, 2008).
Geels, F., Berkhout, F. & van Vuuren, D. Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nature Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2980 (2016).
2009 Smart Grid System Report (US Department of Energy, 2009).
Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 (International Energy Agency, 2010).
The Recovery Act: Transforming the American Economy Through Innovation (Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2010).
Pratt, R. G. et al. The Smart Grid: An Estimation of the Energy and CO2 Benefits (US Department of Energy, 2011).
The Green Grid Energy Savings and Carbon Emissions Reductions Enabled by a Smart Grid (Electric Power Research Institute, 2008).
Schot, J., Kanger, L. & Verbong, G. Roles of users in shaping transitions to new energy systems. Nature Energy 1, 16054 (2016).
Sovacool, B. K., Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D. & Goldthau, A. Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy 1, 16024 (2016).
Fischhoff, B. & Davis, A. L. Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13664–13671 (2014).
Morgan, M. G. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7176–7184 (2014).
2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey Form EIA-871A (US Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Consumption and Efficiency Statistics, 2012); http://go.nature.com/zwTdTz
Jaffe, A. B. & Stavins, R. N. The energy-efficiency gap: what does it mean? Energy Policy 22, 804–810 (1994).
Shama, A. Energy conservation in US buildings: solving the high potential/low adoption paradox from a behavioural perspective. Energy Policy 11, 148–167 (1983).
Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
Stern, P. C. et al. Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nature Energy 1, 16043 (2016).
Morgan, M. G. et al. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach (Cambridge Univ., 2002).
Bruine de Bruin, W. & Bostrom, A. Assessing what to address in science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14062–14068 (2013).
Poulton, E. C. The new psychophysics: six models for magnitude estimation. Psychol. Bull. 69, 1–19 (1968).
Poulton, E. C. Behavioral Decision Theory: A New Approach (Cambridge Univ., 1994).
Woodworth, R. S. & Schlossberg, H. Experimental Psychology (Holt, 1954).
Fischhoff, B. in Handbook of Environmental Economics (eds Mäler, K. G. & Vincent, J.) 937–968 (Elsevier, 2005).
O'Hagan, A. et al. Uncertain Judgments (Wiley, 2006).
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. Rating the risks. Environ. Sci. Policy Sus. Dev. 21, 14–39 (1979).
Murphy, A. H., Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B. & Winkler, R. L. Misinterpretations of precipitation probability forecasts. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 61, 695–701 (1980).
Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study (Cambridge Univ., 1932).
Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. Mental Models (LEA, 1983)
Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness 1st edn (Harvard Univ., 1983).
Lee, T. Urban neighborhood as a socio-spatial schema. Hum. Relat. 21, 241–267 (1968).
Sterman, J. D. & Sweeney, L. B. Cloudy skies: assessing public understanding of global warming. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 18, 207–240 (2002).
Ericsson, A. & Simon, H. A. Verbal Reports as Data (MIT, 1994).
Fischhoff, B. Value elicitation: is there anything in there? Am. Psychol. 46, 835–847 (1991).
Schwarz, N. Self reports. Am. Psychol. 54, 93–105 (1999).
Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117, 440–463 (2010).
Wong-Parodi, G., Fischhoff, B. & Strauss, B. A method to evaluate the usability of interactive climate change impact decision aids. Clim. Change 126, 485–493 (2014).
Maglio, S. J., Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. The common currency of psychological distance. Psychol. Sci. 22, 278–282 (2013).
Spence, A., Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32, 957–972 (2012).
Wong-Parodi, G. & Fischhoff, B. The impacts of political cues and practical information on climate change decisions. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 034004 (2015).
McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming. Sociol. Quart. 52, 155–194 (2011).
Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury, 2010).
Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J. & Weber, E. U. A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory. Psychol. Sci. 21, 86–92 (2010).
Hart, P. S. & Nisbet, M. C. Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun. Res. 39, 701–723 (2012).
Nisbet, M. C. Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ. Sci. Policy Sus. Dev. 51, 12–23 (2009).
Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2, 175–220 (1998).
Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Adv. Exp. Social Psychol. 23, 1–74 (1990).
Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480–498 (1990).
Lundgren, S. R. & Prislin, R. Motivated cognitive processing and attitude change. Pers. Social Psychol. Bull. 24, 715–726 (1998).
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 755–769 (2006).
Dietz, T., Leshko, C. & McCright, A. M. Politics shapes individual choices about energy efficiency. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9191–9192 (2013).
Gromet, D. M., Kunreuther, H. & Larrick, R. P. Political ideology affects energy efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9314–9319 (2013).
Barringer, F. New electricity meters stir fears. The New York Times (30 January 2011).
Sullivan, C. & Kahn, D. Smart grid: Calif. agency mulls 'opt out' or wired substitutes as fallout persists. Greenwire (14 January 2011).
Krishnamurti, T. et al. Preparing for smart grid technologies: a behavioral decision research approach to understanding consumer expectations about smart meters. Energy Policy 41, 790–797 (2012).
Fischhoff, B., Brewer, N. & Downs, J. S. (eds) Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User's Guide (FDA, 2011).
Lin, J., Newman, M. W., Hong, J. I. & Landay, J. A. in Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems 510–517 (ACM, 2000).
Keil, F. C. Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 368–373 (2003).
Kempton, W. & Montgomery, L. Folk quantification of energy. Energy Int. J. 7, 817–827 (1982).
Kempton, W. in Cultural Models in Language and Thought (eds Holland, D. & Quinn, N.) 222–242 (Cambridge Univ., 1987).
Wood, G. & Newborough, M. Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design. Energ. Buildings 35, 821–841 (2003).
Davis, A. L., Krishnamurti, T., Fischhoff, B. & Bruine de Bruin, W. Setting a standard for electricity pilot studies. Energy Policy 62, 401–409 (2013).
Turner, R., Spiegelhalter, D., Smith, G. & Thompson, S. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J. R. Stat. Soc. 172, 21–47 (2009).
Krishnamurti, T., Davis, A. L., Wong-Parodi, G., Wang, J. & Canfield, C. Creating an in-home display: experimental evidence and guidelines for design. Appl. Energy 108, 448–458 (2013).
Karjalainen, S. Consumer preferences for feedback on household electricity consumption. Energ. Buildings 43, 458–467 (2011).
Cialdini R. B. & Trost M. R. in The Handbook of Social Psychology 4th edn (eds Gilbert, D. T. et al.) Part II, 151–192 (McGraw-Hill, 1998).
Schwartz, D., Fischhoff, B., Krishnamurti, T. & Sowell, F. The Hawthorne effect and energy awareness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15242–15246 (2013).
Leamer, E. Let's take the con out of econometrics. Am. Econ. Rev. 72, 31–43 (1983).
The research reported here and preparation of this manuscript were supported by the National Science Foundation to the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making (SES-0949710), the Department of Energy (DE-OE0000300, DE-OE0000204), Skoll Global Threats Fund, the Carnegie Electricity Industry Center, Richard King Mellon Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. D.S. was supported by FONDECYT 11140374, the Complex Engineering Systems Institute (ICM: P-05-004-F, CONICYT: FB016) and the Business Intelligence Research Center (CEINE) of the University of Chile. The views expressed are those of the authors.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Wong-Parodi, G., Krishnamurti, T., Davis, A. et al. A decision science approach for integrating social science in climate and energy solutions. Nature Clim Change 6, 563–569 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2917
This article is cited by
Nature Climate Change (2020)
Social sciences have so much more to bring to climate studies in forest research: a French case study
Annals of Forest Science (2020)
Bulletin of Volcanology (2019)
Nature Energy (2016)
Nature Climate Change (2016)