Choice Bracketing and Environmental Policy: A Behavioral Economics Perspective on Influencing Decisions for Sustainable Consumption

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63924/jsid.v7i2.278

Keywords:

Choice Bracketing, Behavioral Economics, Environmental Behavior, Decision Making, Environmental Policy

Abstract

Environmental challenges are increasingly shaped by individual decision making which consist of small and repeated choices whose cumulative impacts are often overlooked. Despite rising public awareness, a persistent gap remains between knowledge and actual behavior, indicating limitations in policy approaches based on rational choice assumptions. This study aims to examine how choice bracketing, a concept from behavioral economics, can be used as an analytical framework to better understand environmental behavior and inform environmental policy design. The study employs a narrative literature review drawing on peer reviewed journal articles in behavioral economics, environmental economics, and environmental policy. The analysis synthesizes theoretical and empirical studies that examine how individuals evaluate decisions, perceive risk, and respond to policy interventions in environmental contexts. The findings reveal three key patterns. First, environmental behavior is frequently shaped by narrow bracketing, as individuals tend to evaluate small and repetitive decisions separately, leading to underestimation of cumulative and long-term impacts. Second, many existing policy interventions implicitly operate through broad bracketing by providing aggregate information, framing cumulative risks, or emphasizing long term economic consequences. Third, narrow bracketing is not inherently detrimental, as heuristics and narrow goal setting can reduce cognitive load and support consistent behavior under complex decision environments. These findings highlight the importance of aligning policy design with how individuals evaluate decisions. By positioning choice bracketing as a unifying mechanism, this study contributes to behavioral economics by offering an integrated perspective on environmental decision making and identifying flexible policy pathways for promoting sustainable behavior.

References

Amiri, B., Jafarian, A., & Abdi, Z. (2024). Nudging towards sustainability: A comprehensive review. Discover Sustainability, 5, 444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00618-3

Banerjee, S., & John, P. (2025). Behavioral public policy: Past, present, and future. Policy and Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf012

Bertolotti, M., Catellani, P., & Nelson, T. (2021). Framing messages on the economic impact of climate change policies: Effects on climate believers and climate skeptics. Environmental Communication, 15(6), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1890175

Camilleri, A. R., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). Metric and scale design as choice architecture tools. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.12.151

Chaudhry, S. J., Hand, M., & Kunreuther, H. (2020). Broad bracketing for low-probability events. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 61(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09343-4

Chetty, R. (2015). Behavioral economics and public policy: A pragmatic perspective. American Economic Review, 105(5), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151108

Ellis, A., & Freeman, D. J. (2024). Revealing choice bracketing. American Economic Review, 114(9), 2668–2700. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210877

Emblemsvåg, J. (2013). How economic behavior can hamper sustainable development. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 10(4), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-02-2013-0016

Galesic, M., Kause, A., & Gaissmaier, W. (2015). A sampling framework for uncertainty in individual environmental decisions. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12172

Hardisty, D. J., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Discounting future green: Money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016433

Homar, A. R., & Cvelbar, L. K. (2021). The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review. Ecological Economics, 183, Article 106950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106950

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/02/28/pr-wgii-ar6/

Koch, A. K., & Nafziger, J. (2019). Correlates of narrow bracketing. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1441–1472. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12311

Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133–1165. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/121.4.1133

Koundouri, P., Hammer, B., Kuhl, U., & Velias, A. (2023). Behavioral economics and neuroeconomics of environmental values. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 15, 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101722-082743

Kuehnhanss, C. R. (2018). The challenges of behavioral insights for effective policy design. Policy and Society, 38(1), 14–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1511188

Newell, B. R., et al. (2014). The psychology of environmental decisions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39(1), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-010713-094623

Payne Sturges, D. C., Sangaramoorthy, T., & Mittmann, H. (2021). Framing environmental health decision making and cumulative impacts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 3947. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083947

Qi, A., Ji, Z., Gong, Y., Yang, B., & Sun, Y. (2022). The impact of gain–loss framing on low carbon behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 11008. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711008

Rabin, M., & Weizsäcker, G. (2009). Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1508–1543. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.4.1508

Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007879411489

Requate, T., Wagner, G., & Waichman, I. (2025). Behavioral economics of climate action. npj Climate Action, 4, 109. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-025-00291-w

Steffen, W. (2010). Observed trends in Earth system behavior. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), 428–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.36

Sterman, J. D. (2008). Risk communication on climate: Mental models and mass balance. Science, 322(5901), 532–533. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1162574

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

Van der Linden, S. (2018). Warm glow is associated with low- but not high-cost sustainable behaviour. Apollo (University of Cambridge). https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.21048

Webb, E. C., & Shu, S. B. (2017). Is broad bracketing always better? How broad decision framing leads to more optimal preferences over repeated gambles. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(4), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006252

Zheng, J., & Zhou, L. (2025). Too risky to hedge: An experiment on narrow bracketing. Experimental Economics, 28(1), 128–154. https://doi.org/10.1017/eec.2025.1

Published

2026-05-05

How to Cite

Ulfah, A. (2026). Choice Bracketing and Environmental Policy: A Behavioral Economics Perspective on Influencing Decisions for Sustainable Consumption. Journal of Society Innovation and Development, 7(2), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.63924/jsid.v7i2.278