Editors' Note Izzy Gainsburg, Julia Lee Cunningham, Leidy Klotz, and Rick Larrick This issue of Behavioral Science & Policy focuses on the defining issue of our time: humankind's far-reaching effects on the planet. These effects are so vast that scientists say the earth has now entered the Anthropocene epoch, in which human behavior has become the dominant influence on the environment that supports all life on earth. In this reality, environmental challenges are behavioral challenges—and opportunities. The articles in this issue illuminate these connections across the spectrum of behavioral science through empirical studies of interventions that reduce individuals' energy use, comparisons of discrete behaviors and policies, reviews of how insights from behavioral science can be woven into environmental policies, and macro-level policy proposals to transform institutional structures themselves. Four empirical articles report evidence from policy-relevant field studies designed to change individual behaviors. Kelly Peters, David R. Thomson, and Nathaniel Barr provide evidence from tests of several interventions intended to augment the effectiveness of "time-ofuse pricing," which involves charging higher prices for energy consumption during periods of high demand. Their evidence suggests that using prices to discourage electricity consumption at peak hours is most effective when price differentials between high-demand and low-demand periods are large and when these differentials are communicated in simple and salient ways on people's electricity bills. As an example, they show that peak hours are recalled more when displayed in linear rather than circular graphics. The team also notes that what they call a "nudge report" (complete with personalized benchmarks, conservation tips, and an energy-reduction pledge) reduced energy usage even when price differences were too small to significantly influence behavior. David A. Comerford, Mirko Moro, Rodolfo Sejas-Portillo, and Till Stowasser demonstrate that labeling and grading the energy efficiency of homes can increase people's willingness to retrofit their dwellings—that is, to replace outdated infrastructure with more efficient alternatives. In particular, they highlight the importance of discrete and familiar grades (in their studies, the letter grades A through F) and the use of color-coded categories (with green representing the most desirable levels of energy efficiency). They close with four lessons for most effectively leveraging labels to reduce energy consumption: (a) mandating that a standardized label depicting energy audit results accompanies property listings, (b) making labels easy to accurately evaluate, (c) making deliberate use of salient thresholds, and (d) prompting people to retrofit when the hassle costs of retrofitting are low and attention to energy efficiency is high. Ashley Whillans, Joseph Sherlock, Jessica Roberts, Shibeal O'Flaherty, Lyndsay Gavin, Holly Dykstra, and Michael Daly discuss ways to nudge people toward using more sustainable modes of transportation. They differentiate between structural interventions (such as economic incentives and modifications to the physical environment) and behavioral interventions (such as changing psychological factors that relate to transportation choices) and show that behavioral interventions have been comparatively neglected in transportation research. To address this gap, they first review psychological barriers to considering and adopting new transportation modes. Next, they provide a six-step process for testing behavioral interventions, starting with partnering with mission-aligned organizations and ending with conducting field studies. Finally, they review data from their own campaigns to increase carpooling and the use of public transportation. Tatiana Homonoff, Rebecca L. C. Taylor, Lee-Sien Kao, and Doug Palmer also home in on a specific behavior—namely, reducing the use of disposable shopping bags—and compare evidence on the most effective ways to elicit this desirable behavior. They first compare and contrast market-based incentives (such as bag taxes) with "command-and-control" policies (such as bag bans). Their analysis yields three lessons: (a) disposable bag taxes work better than offering a bonus for bringing reusable bags, (b) a bag tax does not have to be large to be effective, and (c) plastic bag bans can have unintended negative consequences (for instance, companies may replace banned thin plastic bags with thicker ones that are worse for the environment). The authors of the next article compare a range of behaviors that can affect the environment, trying to determine which to prioritize for intervention. Kate Heller, Michael Berger, Antonius Gagern, Abdurakhim Rakhimov, John...
Read full abstract
Jun 28, 2021
Sebastian Weinand 
Open Access